41 Years ago today (24/1/1965) Winston Churchill dies

[Camaero]

Churchill was always my favorite speech writer. He inspires me even today!

[CCIP]

Personally, I've always been a fan of Churchill's public image. A real leader, to be sure.

But there was a compellingly interesting argument about him that I've heard from a professor of mine last year - which is essentially that from a purely 'real-political' perspective, Churchill is to a large part to blame for the loss of British dominance in world affairs subsequent to WWII - because by refusing to make a deal with Hitler in 1940, he had doomed the British Empire to a five-year committment which it really could not afford and for which it had basically paid with its empire. In other words, although Churchill acted with a tremendous benefit to the free world - he did so contrary to the interest of his own nation.

An interesting view, if anything. Perhaps somewhat stretched, but still :hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Personally, I've always been a fan of Churchill's public image. A real leader, to be sure.

But there was a compellingly interesting argument about him that I've heard from a professor of mine last year - which is essentially that from a purely 'real-political' perspective, Churchill is to a large part to blame for the loss of British dominance in world affairs subsequent to WWII - because by refusing to make a deal with Hitler in 1940, he had doomed the British Empire to a five-year committment which it really could not afford and for which it had basically paid with its empire. In other words, although Churchill acted with a tremendous benefit to the free world - he did so contrary to the interest of his own nation.

An interesting view, if anything. Perhaps somewhat stretched, but still :hmm:

He made the right decision allright because to sign a deal with Hitler was to lose ones empire anyway.

-S

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

He made the right decision allright because to sign a deal with Hitler was to lose ones empire anyway.

-S

Well, I do believe one of stipulations of Hitler's proposals, especially as things drew into 1941, was that he WOULD let Britain keep their empire, as long as he could have his way.

I'm sure noone would argue that Churchill and the British people did anything but good thing for the world - but perhaps not for themselves in the 'realpolitik' sense. I never did believe that an invasion of Britain, let alone a conquest of the empire, was something Hitler would really be able to do.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Well, I do believe one of stipulations of Hitler's proposals, especially as things drew into 1941, was that he WOULD let Britain keep their empire, as long as he could have his way.

I'm sure noone would argue that Churchill and the British people did anything but good thing for the world - but perhaps not for themselves in the 'realpolitik' sense. I never did believe that an invasion of Britain, let alone a conquest of the empire, was something Hitler would really be able to do.

I don't think they would ever have made any other decision. I cannot imagine the pride of the English allowing for Hitler to call the shots. Can you imagine the English taking orders from another country? I can't. The have far to rich a history to fade into history (exactly what would happen) like that.

-S

[horsa]

An interesting view, if anything. Perhaps somewhat stretched,

Not at all

Churchill was probably one of history’s greatest political orators and certainly one of its most erratic and interesting characters.

But ask yourself this …. “what did he think he was doing in June 1940 by choosing to fight on ????????? “

Consider the the real world in 1940 and not the romantic fantasy we have grown up with, simply because he pulled off one of the greatest Houdini escape acts History has ever seen.

Military Situation
At this point Germany had annexed sizeable parts of Europe by political means, defeated Poland in a matter of weeks, invaded and occupied much of Scandinavia , torn through and defeated the French and British armies in six weeks, - something that four years of bloody attrition in 1914-18 had failed to achieve.. Despite its reputation and numbers the Royal Navy consisted of far too many older warships – she had for example no modern battleships and an inadequate number of destroyers for wartime convoy protection. The rampant German Army supported by a formidable Luftwaffe stood barely 21 miles across the channel. A British army effectively did not exist and what there was of it had been thoroughly beaten leaving most of its equipment behind in France. What Hitler didn't achieve in 1940 could and should have happened sometime in 1941

Geo-political Situation
Russia currently had a non-aggression pact with Germany. Roosevelt’s America had no intention of entering the war on Britain or anybody’s behalf. Indeed ,the so called “special relationship� was distinctly cool at the time. Italy had joined the war on the Axis side and threatened to roll over the tottering British Empire in the Mediterranean, Middle East and Africa. Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania, and Finland were for various reasons pro-German. In the Far East an expansionist Japan was a threat to Britain’s position there.Apart from her own dominions and colonies Britain could not muster a single ally anywhere.

Home Position
Churchill had been a compromise choice for PM and had occupied the position for barely two months. For the previous 25 years or so he had been out of mainstream politics. He was regarded as a political maverick by many of his government colleagues, some of whom did not have a great deal of faith in him, regarding him as little more than a showman. His cabinet were divided and his hold on office was tenuous.

Against this background Hitler offered peace terms …… what did Churchill do ? ….. rejected them out of hand and committed Britain to a catastrophic losing war.

With hindsight, we know that Churchill and Britain ended up on the "winning side" ... but not ( importantly) as a victor … however at the time, he had no army , no allies, no cards to play and no reason to believe the New Germany wouldn’t continue on its hitherto unstoppable progress.

Seriously ask yourself … what did he think he was doing ??????

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by horsa

Seriously ask yourself … what did he think he was doing ??????

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last."

Seriously, I've never seen so much historical revisionist hogwash like I sometimes encounter on this forum.

Those of you in England, go speak to your grandparents or visit an old age home and chat with everyone that was around then (who can still recollect, of course).

[SmokinTep]

Fitting that just the other day the USS Winston Churchill boarded this ship off the coast of Somalia that had been pirated.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last."

Seriously, I've never seen so much historical revisionist hogwash like I sometimes encounter on this forum.

Those of you in England, go speak to your grandparents or visit an old age home and chat with everyone that was around then (who can still recollect, of course).

How about simply addressing this persons points of view rather than simply labelling it as "revisionist hogwash"?

[CCIP]

Indeed. Nor am I making a claim on my own behalf, nor does that viewpoint "demean" Winston in any way. A man with a global mind, perhaps.

[joea]

I'll addresss them tonight.

[Dan D]

Why not blame Germany for speeding up the decline of the British Empire and for the loss of Britain’s status as a global power which is a direct consequence of WW I and WW II?
This would be more obvious (the abstract play of thought of the professor was not meant seriosly, i guess) :
(Excerpt from http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/empire/g3/overview.htm
“Historians disagree about how and why Britain's empire declined and ended. However, most would agree that factors like war and a changing world economy played a key role in the decline of the British empire. Before the Great War (1914-18) Britain was one of the richest countries of the world. Its strongest industry was the banking and finance trade - everyone owed Britain money! After 4 years of fighting, Britain's wealth was virtually all gone. Most of Britain's debts were with the USA. Britain was greatly weakened by the war.
Although Britain recovered some of its strength after the Great War, it was completely bankrupted by the end of the Second World War. Its debts were even greater and it needed huge loans and grants from the USA to get back on its feet. The empire and its peoples played a crucial role in Britain's survival and victory in both world wars. However, by the end of the Second World War, most British people felt that rebuilding their own country was more important than holding on to distant lands. At the same time, Britain's economy was changing. Its trade with Europe and America became far more important than its trade with the empire�.)

While everyone was exhausted because of the war, Churchill in 1946 was already thinking ahead and had a vision of a “United States of Europe� and -leaving several options open- Britain’s relation to it.
His Zurich speech adressing "the tragedy of Europe" is indeed astonishing:
http://www.churchill-society-london..../astonish.html
He was hoping to preserve Britain’s role as a world power, but there were the superpowers USA and CCCP. Britain became a regional power instead and an not overly enthusiastic EU member. The decline of the empire which was depending on the markets of the colonies to a large degree, was inevitable.
If Britain does not want to be an EU member anymore, it still has the option to group up with the “English-speaking world� and try revive the Commonwealth of British Nations in some way.

Europe did not become the “United States of Europe� by creating a new sovereign state but a union of states that transfer part of the sovereignty to the EU bodies if it is to share common interests (defense etc.) Whatever, the centuries of bloody European wars have ended.

What strikes me most about this great man, was his sense of humour.

tommygun

He did not win the Nobel Prize for Peace but the one for Literature for his monumental history of WW II (6 volumes). Fantastic read, he has a feel for language.

[horsa]

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last."

Seriously, I've never seen so much historical revisionist hogwash like I sometimes encounter on this forum.

No, no no no no !!!!

You disappoint me. I expected better from posters such as you. Read the post more carefully.

There IS an arguement to answer. Not a palatable one, certainly not the only one, and arguably not the right one ……but an arguement nevertheless.

My argument is that setting aside any altruistic motives that Britain and Churchill MAY have had for the good of mankind living together ( and I happen to believe that the Anglo-Saxon nation states, in their imperfect way, were among the first to start thinking in these terms ), the course that Churchill took was not necessarily the most appropriate or sensible in a world where politics was still almost exclusively cynical advancement of self interest.

For the record I was borne in 1947 into the shadow of WW2 . I am only one generation away from people who experienced it, including my father and mother who actively participated in it. I grew up in the certain knowledge that Britain, through Churchill, had rendered the World a supreme and apparently selfless act by continuing the fight against a brutal and ruthless regime . I am immensely proud of that and I hold no truck with the totally discredited approach we call appeasement ….. something which has immediate resonance in our current world of international terrorism.

The argument has nothing to do with appeasement anymore than Germany suing for peace in 1918 was an example of appeasement. This is the way European politics had done business for centuries. From a position of power you waged war and from a position of relative weakness you sued for peace. The Great War had begun the reappraisal of that process, particularly in countries such as Britain, France and America but it had not as yet taken root universally.

The Munich agreement was one of the most misguided and disgraceful appeasement sell louts in history. Add to that the failure to oppose the (illegal) remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936 and we can all see the folly of appeasement..
The point is that by June 1940 the appeasement horse had already bolted. Churchill had regrettably arrived too late . By the summer of 1940 Britain was on the wrong end of a war that was effectively lost and with no real prospect of resistance or allies.

With HINDSIGHT we know that Hitler was not particularly serious about invading Britain and with HINDSIGHT we know he attacked Russia in 1941. In 1940 this was far from obvious.

The “we shall fight them on the beaches “ bluff of 1940 was a magnificent �go for broke gamble� that spectacularly and implausibly paid off - much to the applause and gratitude of Europe and the World , but in the real political world of 1940 what odds would you have given it in June 1940

So if you’d been Churchill you too would have fought on ? If Hilter had had the strategic sense to invade Britain in 1941 ( as most people considered he would ) and not been arrogantly mesmerised by thoughts of destroying the �ideologically decadent Soviet sub-humans� you could well have had a prostrate demilitarised and ethnically cleansed Britain of no use to anyone.

[horsa]

What strikes me most about this great man, was his sense of humour…
…. He did not win the Nobel Prize for Peace but the one for Literature for his monumental history of WW II (6 volumes). Fantastic read, he has a feel for language

I most heartedly agree. Because of his wartime role in that extraordinary struggle , it is often overlooked that Churchill was a great visionary, writer and Historian. His speeches are almost poetic and almost ( OK I exaggerate ) quoted as frequently and with as much gravitas as Shakespeare.

Question from woman ( to Churchill): What is the main difference between a man and a woman .
Answer " Madam, I cannot conceive"

Probably apocryphal, but what the hell.

[joea]

Ah makes it clear Horsa. Yea I was going to argue "Sealion" was a bluff. If the RN had a lot of old ships what about the Kriegsmarine? New ships but a handful only. When you compare the complexity of Allied amphibious ops with what the Germans had in 1940 well...the right strategy was what Doenitz argued. As for the Luftwaffe, great force but not the way it was used in 1940...they were not yet expert at sinking ships (not as good as later in the Med) and not really suited for strategic bombing. On the other hand Britain was in 1940 in no shape to context Germany's mastery of Europe. That's an understatement.

That said, if anyone else other than good old Winne had been in charge, they might have made peace and there were those who wanted even friendlier relations (Mrs. Simpson's husband )

Really it is astounding that Churchill was so stubborn looking at it the way Horsa presented it. :hmm: