Revisiting History: The Unlikely Campaign to Vilify Winston Churchill

[RayC]

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

The fact is Churchill did a lot that can be criticised. It's just looking at history objectively that will lead you to that conclusion.

 

 

Very few people would disagree with your first sentence. Unfortunately, I can't find Cooper's interview anywhere, so if you have a link could you please post it. (Thanks).

 

However, from the OP Cooper's main contention are that " (1) Churchill was responsible for spreading the war beyond Poland in 1939 (2) refusing to negotiate with Hitler in 1940 (was a mistake?) and (3) ordering the bombing of German cities (was unnecessary?)

 

(1) Imo absolute nonsense. Hitler broke the Munich Agreement. What choices were left to the UK and France other than to declare war? (2) If the UK had negotiated peace, Europe would have been led by a Nazi dictatorship, the implications of which don't bear thinking abou. Personally, I don't think that any further discussion and/or elaboration is necessary (3) More contentious and there is a strong moral argument to support this view.

[mokwit]

17 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

On the eve of Barbarossa this was the numerical advantage of the USSR (on the right)

 

3,350–3,795 tanks[3][1][4][5] 3,030–3,072 other AFVs[6][b] 2,770–5,369 aircraft[3][7] ]

Frontline strength (22 June 1941) 2.6–2.9 million personnel[9][10] 11,000 tanks[11][12] 7,133–9,100 military aircraf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

 

As you can see the Soviets had 11,000 tanks compared to Germany's 3795

 

They had 9100 aircraft to Germany's 5369.

 

The USSR was already ludicrously outnumbering Germany in terms of material before Lend Lease came into full force. 

 

Germany's attack on Soviet Russia was the single biggest blunder of WWII, made on faulty information on Russia's strength by Fremde Heere Ost. Most Generals were aware of this and counselled against this attack. The decision to proceed was made on inaccurate intelligence data provided by Fremde Heere Ost, who bear most of the responsibility for this blunder.

 

The battle of Britain had some effect on Luftwaffe strength, but it was limited.

In fairness the Luftwaffe evened things up in the first 3 days: a Soviet archival document recorded the loss of 3,922 Soviet aircraft in the first three days against an estimated loss of 78 German aircraft

 

Main articles: Axis and Soviet air operations during Operation Barbarossa and German-Soviet air war 22 June 1941

Luftwaffe reconnaissance units plotted Soviet troop concentrations, supply dumps and airfields, and marked them down for destruction.^[218] Additional Luftwaffe attacks were carried out against Soviet command and control centres to disrupt the mobilisation and organisation of Soviet forces.^[219][220] In contrast, Soviet artillery observers based at the border area had been under the strictest instructions not to open fire on German aircraft prior to the invasion.^[115] One plausible reason given for the Soviet hesitation to return fire was Stalin's initial belief that the assault was launched without Hitler's authorisation. Significant amounts of Soviet territory were lost along with Red Army forces as a result; it took several days before Stalin comprehended the magnitude of the calamity.^[221] The Luftwaffe reportedly destroyed 1,489 aircraft on the first day of the invasion^[222] and over 3,100 during the first three days.^[223] Hermann Göring, Minister of Aviation and Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, distrusted the reports and ordered the figure checked. Luftwaffe staffs surveyed the wreckage on Soviet airfields, and their original figure proved conservative, as over 2,000 Soviet aircraft were estimated to have been destroyed on the first day of the invasion.^[222] In reality, Soviet losses were likely higher; a Soviet archival document recorded the loss of 3,922 Soviet aircraft in the first three days against an estimated loss of 78 German aircraft.^[223][224] The Luftwaffe reported the loss of only 35 aircraft on the first day of combat.^[223] A document from the German Federal Archives puts the Luftwaffe's loss at 63 aircraft for the first day.^[225]

 

Also the Germans destroyed 20,500 tanks in 1941.

 

Despite this, the Soviet corps equipped with these new tanks [T34] lost most of them within weeks.^[106] The combat statistics for 1941 show that the Soviets lost an average of over seven tanks for every German tank lost.^[107][108] The Soviets lost a total of 20,500 tanks in 1941 (approximately 2,300 of them T-34s, as well as over 900 heavy tanks, mostly KVs).^[109] The destruction of the Soviet tank force was accomplished not only by the glaring disparity in the tactical and operational skills of the opponents, but also by mechanical defects that afflicted Soviet armour.^[110] Besides the poor state of older tanks, the new T-34s and KVs suffered from initial mechanical and design problems, particularly with regard to clutches and transmissions. Mechanical breakdowns accounted for at least 50 percent of the tank losses in the summer fighting, and recovery or repair equipment was not to be found.^[110] The shortage of repair equipment and recovery vehicles led the early T-34 crews to enter combat carrying a spare transmission on the engine deck.^[111]

 

That the Soviets were able to massively outmatch German tank and airplane production as the war progressed is not disputed, but the Germans destroyed them at almost the same rate.

Edited September 13 by mokwit

[RayC]

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

On the eve of Barbarossa this was the numerical advantage of the USSR (on the right)

 

3,350–3,795 tanks[3][1][4][5] 3,030–3,072 other AFVs[6][b] 2,770–5,369 aircraft[3][7] ]

Frontline strength (22 June 1941) 2.6–2.9 million personnel[9][10] 11,000 tanks[11][12] 7,133–9,100 military aircraf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

 

As you can see the Soviets had 11,000 tanks compared to Germany's 3795

 

They had 9100 aircraft to Germany's 5369.

 

The USSR was already ludicrously outnumbering Germany in terms of material before Lend Lease came into full force. 

 

Germany's attack on Soviet Russia was the single biggest blunder of WWII, made on faulty information on Russia's strength by Fremde Heere Ost. Most Generals were aware of this and counselled against this attack. The decision to proceed was made on inaccurate intelligence data provided by Fremde Heere Ost, who bear most of the responsibility for this blunder.

 

The battle of Britain had some effect on Luftwaffe strength, but it was limited.

 

I agree that the timing of Germany's attack on Russia was the single biggest blunder of WW2.

 

Germany lost +/-1,500 aircraft during the Battle of Britain, which is not an insignificant number. In addition, German armaments were superior in quality to Russia's. According to both Stalin and Khrushchev, Land-Lease provisions were crucial to the Russian cause.

 

The idea that Russia would inevitably triumph over Nazi Germany is imo far from certain.

[mokwit]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

I agree that the timing of Germany's attack on Russia was the single biggest blunder of WW2.

 

Germany lost +/-1,500 aircraft during the Battle of Britain, which is not an insignificant number. In addition, German armaments were superior in quality to Russia's. According to both Stalin and Khrushchev, Land-Lease provisions were crucial to the Russian cause.

 

The idea that Russia would inevitably triumph over Nazi Germany is imo far from certain.

The German position was that they made a pre emptive strike on an army massing on the border poised to invade. certainly the large numbers of PoW's and tanks and guns captured/destroyed tends to support that. Stalin might have originally been hoping to invade whilst the German army was across the channel in the UK if a successful campaign and thus slow to turn around and march all the way east.

 

Historians remain undecided on this explanation.

 

All this talk of peace offer by Hitler, was he not hoping for a temporary peace with GB to avoid fighting on two fronts?

[RayC]

14 minutes ago, mokwit said:

The German position was that they made a pre emptive strike on an army massing on the border poised to invade. certainly the large numbers of PoW's and tanks and guns captured/destroyed tends to support that. Stalin might have originally been hoping to invade whilst the German army was across the channel in the UK if a successful campaign and thus slow to turn around and march all the way east.

 

Historians remain undecided on this explanation.

 

All this talk of peace offer by Hitler, was he not hoping for a temporary peace with GB to avoid fighting on two fronts?

 

Perhaps, but that then begs the question, given Churchill's refusal to negotiate, why did Hitler open the Russian front anyway? For once, I find myself siding with Cameroni; Hitler's decision was probably based on faulty information.

 

While I find discussion about counterfactuals interesting, after all is said and done it is mere conjecture. What we do know for a fact is that Churchill helped defeat an evil regime.

 

Now another opinion: It is inconceivable to me that Western Europe would have been a better place under Nazi rule. For that reason alone, criticism of Churchill for his failure to negotiate with Hitler is inherently flawed.

[Cameroni]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Very few people would disagree with your first sentence. Unfortunately, I can't find Cooper's interview anywhere, so if you have a link could you please post it. (Thanks).

 

However, from the OP Cooper's main contention are that " (1) Churchill was responsible for spreading the war beyond Poland in 1939 (2) refusing to negotiate with Hitler in 1940 (was a mistake?) and (3) ordering the bombing of German cities (was unnecessary?)

 

(1) Imo absolute nonsense. Hitler broke the Munich Agreement. What choices were left to the UK and France other than to declare war? (2) If the UK had negotiated peace, Europe would have been led by a Nazi dictatorship, the implications of which don't bear thinking abou. Personally, I don't think that any further discussion and/or elaboration is necessary (3) More contentious and there is a strong moral argument to support this view.

 

Of course.

 

 

[Cameroni]

2 hours ago, mokwit said:

In fairness the Luftwaffe evened things up in the first 3 days: a Soviet archival document recorded the loss of 3,922 Soviet aircraft in the first three days against an estimated loss of 78 German aircraft

 

Main articles: Axis and Soviet air operations during Operation Barbarossa and German-Soviet air war 22 June 1941

Luftwaffe reconnaissance units plotted Soviet troop concentrations, supply dumps and airfields, and marked them down for destruction.^[218] Additional Luftwaffe attacks were carried out against Soviet command and control centres to disrupt the mobilisation and organisation of Soviet forces.^[219][220] In contrast, Soviet artillery observers based at the border area had been under the strictest instructions not to open fire on German aircraft prior to the invasion.^[115] One plausible reason given for the Soviet hesitation to return fire was Stalin's initial belief that the assault was launched without Hitler's authorisation. Significant amounts of Soviet territory were lost along with Red Army forces as a result; it took several days before Stalin comprehended the magnitude of the calamity.^[221] The Luftwaffe reportedly destroyed 1,489 aircraft on the first day of the invasion^[222] and over 3,100 during the first three days.^[223] Hermann Göring, Minister of Aviation and Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, distrusted the reports and ordered the figure checked. Luftwaffe staffs surveyed the wreckage on Soviet airfields, and their original figure proved conservative, as over 2,000 Soviet aircraft were estimated to have been destroyed on the first day of the invasion.^[222] In reality, Soviet losses were likely higher; a Soviet archival document recorded the loss of 3,922 Soviet aircraft in the first three days against an estimated loss of 78 German aircraft.^[223][224] The Luftwaffe reported the loss of only 35 aircraft on the first day of combat.^[223] A document from the German Federal Archives puts the Luftwaffe's loss at 63 aircraft for the first day.^[225]

 

Also the Germans destroyed 20,500 tanks in 1941.

 

Despite this, the Soviet corps equipped with these new tanks [T34] lost most of them within weeks.^[106] The combat statistics for 1941 show that the Soviets lost an average of over seven tanks for every German tank lost.^[107][108] The Soviets lost a total of 20,500 tanks in 1941 (approximately 2,300 of them T-34s, as well as over 900 heavy tanks, mostly KVs).^[109] The destruction of the Soviet tank force was accomplished not only by the glaring disparity in the tactical and operational skills of the opponents, but also by mechanical defects that afflicted Soviet armour.^[110] Besides the poor state of older tanks, the new T-34s and KVs suffered from initial mechanical and design problems, particularly with regard to clutches and transmissions. Mechanical breakdowns accounted for at least 50 percent of the tank losses in the summer fighting, and recovery or repair equipment was not to be found.^[110] The shortage of repair equipment and recovery vehicles led the early T-34 crews to enter combat carrying a spare transmission on the engine deck.^[111]

 

That the Soviets were able to massively outmatch German tank and airplane production as the war progressed is not disputed, but the Germans destroyed them at almost the same rate.

 

Thanks mokwit, good to see some dynamic perspective. Nobody would dispute that the initial German attack was executed extremely well and was highly successful. Of course this reinforces the point, despite these massive numbers of kills the Germans did in terms of planes and tanks the Russians were still able to field sufficient numbers to defeat the Wehrmacht. How could they do that? Because they learnt to adapt to German tactics and strategy, and to copy them to the letter, but most of all because as you said their production of planes and tanks to replace the losses was incredible. Particularly so if we factor in that the Russians had to transplant entire factories eastwards.

 

The Soviets produced over 100,000 (!!!) armoured vehicles over the course of the war. It is truly an incredible feat. This is why I am saying, they did not really need Lend Lease.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

 

 

[Cameroni]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I agree that the timing of Germany's attack on Russia was the single biggest blunder of WW2.

 

Germany lost +/-1,500 aircraft during the Battle of Britain, which is not an insignificant number. In addition, German armaments were superior in quality to Russia's. According to both Stalin and Khrushchev, Land-Lease provisions were crucial to the Russian cause.

 

The idea that Russia would inevitably triumph over Nazi Germany is imo far from certain.

 

The Battle of Britain did have some minor effects, also on the timing of Barbarossa. However, overall the effect was not huge, as mokwit posted the initial successes of the Luftwaffe in Russia bear this out.

 

The superior quality of German arms was not always an advantage, btw. Whilst the Germans focused on producing tiny numbers of jet planes their opponents produced giant numbers of less advanced, but still deadly planes and tanks.

 

Of course Stalin would emphasize the importance of aid, the more he received the better it was for him. But if you'd asked him if he'd preferred if the British and Americans open a second front, that would have been his preference. 

 

To put the numbers into perspective. Lend lease gave 7000 tanks to Russia. The Russians themselves produced 100,000 armoured vehicles (!!!). Need one say more?

 

Lend lease was more useful in updating rail infrustructure and providing trucks. But in terms of fighting on the battlefield the effect was not huge.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Edited September 13 by Cameroni

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, mokwit said:

The German position was that they made a pre emptive strike on an army massing on the border poised to invade. certainly the large numbers of PoW's and tanks and guns captured/destroyed tends to support that. Stalin might have originally been hoping to invade whilst the German army was across the channel in the UK if a successful campaign and thus slow to turn around and march all the way east.

 

Historians remain undecided on this explanation.

 

All this talk of peace offer by Hitler, was he not hoping for a temporary peace with GB to avoid fighting on two fronts?

 

Yes indeed, that was key, to avoid a war on two fronts, a trauma for Germany. They did not succeed to avoid this in the end. But I doubt it would have been temporary. Hitler thought the Empire was a useful structure in the world. He did not want war with Britain. Britain forced war on him.

 

Some people also said that attacking Russia was also motivated by a desire to show Britain that it was useless to prolong the war. Hitler thought the British were just hoping for Russia to defeat Germany and if he could take Russia out, this would further strengthen his hand to achieve peace on his terms.

 

However, there were probably other more important reasons that made Hitler decide on attacking Russia. However, he did so after seeing figures from his intelligence service, Fremde Heere Ost, which were largely removed from reality. When the scale of Russian arms came out during the war Hitler was shocked and said he was misled. Which had indeed been the case.

[Evil Penevil]

 

On 9/12/2024 at 5:43 AM, Cameroni said:

"I cannot understand this squeamishness about the use of gas," he wrote in a memo, external during his role as minister for war and air in 1919.

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he continued.

 

That's a misunderstanding arising from quoting only  part of what Churchill  said.  Below is the full quote.  "Lachrymatory gas" refers to what we call "tear gas" today.  In 1919, tear gas, mustard gas and deadly chlorine gas were all called "poison gas."  Churchill was referring to the use of tear gas, not deadly gas.

 

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare.  It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses; gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected. "

(WSC, minute from the War Office, 12 May 1919, in Martin Gilbert, ed., Winston S. Churchill, Document Volume 8: War and Aftermath, December 1916-June 1919 (Hillsdale: Hillsdale College Press, 2008),  p 649)

 

Churchill went on to say at the same War Office meeting:  “If it is fair war for an Afghan to shoot down a British soldier behind a rock and cut him in pieces as he lies wounded on the ground, why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze? It is really too silly.”

(Ibid. p 662)

 

There's some dispute over whether the British actually used gas in  Iraq.  No sources made that accusation at the time; that came first in 1986.  For lengthy discussions, see:

 

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/605488

 

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-and-chemical-warfare/

 

On 9/12/2024 at 5:43 AM, Cameroni said:

"People sometimes question why on Earth did people not listen to Churchill's warnings about Hitler in the late 1930s," says Charmley, "to which the short answer is that he'd used exactly the same language about Gandhi in the early 1930s."

 

Churchill opposed both Hitler and Gandhi, but for very different reasons and used much different language when warning about them.  He saw Gandhi as a threat to the British Empire,  while he regarded Hitler as a threat to the balance of power in Europe.  He viewed Hitler as a dangerous yet effective dictator and Gandhi as an unrealistic mystic without the skill, acumen or experience to lead a highly diverse country. He famously referred to Gandhi as a half-naked fakir.

 

He was specifically concerned with  Hitler's oppressive domestic policies; the rearmament of Germany and Hitler's goal of territorial expansion.  Unlike most European politicians, Churchill had actually read Mein Kampf and had seen jackbooted Nazis in the streets of Germany before Hitler took power.  He had a real fear of what Hitler could accomplish.

 

His warnings went largely unheeded because appeasement was the favored policy of British governments in the 1930s.  Concessions to Hitle were seen as the best way to avoid war and appeasement was favored by the public, especially the upper classes.  In the 1930s, Churchill wasn't trusted by many members of the Conservative party due to his failure as First Lord of the Admiralty and his switch from the Liberal Party.

Edited September 13 by Evil Penevil

[G_Money]

Churchill, Britains finest statesman under scrutiny of the modern day liberal POS.

[Cameroni]

3 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

 

That's a misunderstanding arising from quoting only  part of what Churchill  said.  Below is the full quote.  "Lachrymatory gas" refers to what we call "tear gas" today.  In 1919, tear gas, mustard gas and deadly chlorine gas were all called "poison gas."  Churchill was referring to the use of tear gas, not deadly gas.

 

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare.  It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses; gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected. "

(WSC, minute from the War Office, 12 May 1919, in Martin Gilbert, ed., Winston S. Churchill, Document Volume 8: War and Aftermath, December 1916-June 1919 (Hillsdale: Hillsdale College Press, 2008),  p 649)

 

Churchill went on to say at the same War Office meeting:  “If it is fair war for an Afghan to shoot down a British soldier behind a rock and cut him in pieces as he lies wounded on the ground, why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze? It is really too silly.”

(Ibid. p 662)

 

There's some dispute over whether the British actually used gas in  Iraq.  No sources made that accusation at the time; that came first in 1986.  For lengthy discussions, see:

 

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/605488

 

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-and-chemical-warfare/

 

 

Churchill opposed both Hitler and Gandhi, but for very different reasons and used much different language when warning about them.  He saw Gandhi as a threat to the British Empire,  while he regarded Hitler as a threat to the balance of power in Europe.  He viewed Hitler as a dangerous yet effective dictator and Gandhi as an unrealistic mystic without the skill, acumen or experience to lead a highly diverse country. He famously referred to Gandhi as a half-naked fakir.

 

He was specifically concerned with  Hitler's oppressive domestic policies; the rearmament of Germany and Hitler's goal of territorial expansion.  Unlike most European politicians, Churchill had actually read Mein Kampf and had seen jackbooted Nazis in the streets of Germany before Hitler took power.  He had a real fear of what Hitler could accomplish.

 

His warnings went largely unheeded because appeasement was the favored policy of British governments in the 1930s.  Concessions to Hitle were seen as the best way to avoid war and appeasement was favored by the public, especially the upper classes.  In the 1930s, Churchill wasn't trusted by many members of the Conservative party due to his failure as First Lord of the Admiralty and his switch from the Liberal Party.

"And it's important to note that he was in favour of using mustard gas against Ottoman troops in WW1, says Dockter, although this was at a time when other nations were using it."

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

 

So Churchill was also in favour of using mustard gas.

 

 

[placeholder]

On 9/13/2024 at 12:34 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Churchill of course didn't need a program of extermination. The British had already done their extermination, piracy, theft when they made the Empire. Churchill had already benefitted from the British Generalplan Ost, the Empire was already established. Churchill's and Hitler's racism came from different places.

 

I think it is clear that both Churchill and Hitler were deeply rooted racists. However, Churchill benefitted from his vast travels in other parts of the world and his exposure to other ethnic groups. Often that reinforced his racism, but it most likely also mellowed it a bit. Nobody can deny that Churchill refused to participate in the American ban on colour in military buildings and wrote to the Americans to tell them so. One could say Churchill's racism was not full of hatred as it was with Hitler at times. For the simple reason that Churchill came from the establishment, he was at the very top, in a very priveleged position in the hierarchy. He also saw himself as the head of the greatest Empire in the world. His empire was already set up.

 

Hitler, on the other hand came from a nation that had been in constant struggle with people from the East. Germany did not have an empire to speak of. Churchill did not need Lebensraum, he had the Empire. Germany on the other hand did not. Britain had won WWI, Germany was humiliated, had large swathes of its territory annexed by Poland, Romania, Czechs, etc. Hitler experienced defeat in the field, not victory at the top of the hierarchy as Churchill did despite his humiliation at Gallipolli

 

So Germany did not have an empire. Hitler was full ressentiments after WWI and the humiliations that were heaped on Germany. It was natural that Churchill's racism would be more mellow, so to speak, not as vicious and full of hatred as Hitler's.  Of course Churchill did not need to exterminate people,  his British ancestors had already taken care of that, the British Generalplan Ost had been implemented. Indeed many of the world's nations today owe their boundaries to British colonialism. Indeed some of our problems today, like Palestine, stem from British resettlement policy.

Churchill may have been a beneficiary of the Empire but he didn't create it.  It was a fete accompli. Hitler set out to create a nightmare ,of an empire by waging a war of extermination. 

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Churchill may have been a beneficiary of the Empire but he didn't create it.  It was a fete accompli. Hitler set out to create a nightmare ,of an empire by waging a war of extermination. 

True, the Empire was a fait accompli, Churchill did not create it. 

 

But he did fight to maintain it long before he became PM, all his life really. We have seen that the British role in the Bengal famine led to 3 million deaths. The genocide of the Amerindians by the British and Spanish, eager to forge their empire, cost 130 million lives.

 

Arguably all these wars of extermination were nightmares of another dimension.

 

We should not pretend the British empire was a fluffy dream for the people  who were there before the British arrived. Of course for Churchill totally justified on racial theory alone.

[jayboy]

Sir Isaiah Berlin, Social and political theorist,philosopher and historian of ideas.

 

On Churchill

 

"Like a great actor— perhaps the last of his kind—upon the stage of history, he speaks his memorable lines with a large unhurried and stately utterance in a blaze of light as is appropriate to a man who knows that his work and his person will remain the object of scrutiny and judgment to many generations. His narrative is a great public performance and has the attribute of formal magnificence. The words, the splendid phrases, the sustained quality of feeling, are a unique medium which convey his vision of himself and of his world, and will inevitably, like all that he has said and done, reinforce the famous public image, which is no longer distinguishable from the inner essence and the true nature of the author: of a man larger than life, composed of bigger and simpler elements than ordinary men, a gigantic historical figure during his own lifetime, superhumanly bold, strong, and imaginative, one of the two greatest men of action his nation has produced, an orator of prodigious powers, the savior of his country, a legendary hero who belongs to myth as much as to reality, the largest human being of our time"

 

.

[placeholder]

47 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

True, the Empire was a fait accompli, Churchill did not create it. 

 

But he did fight to maintain it long before he became PM, all his life really. We have seen that the British role in the Bengal famine led to 3 million deaths. The genocide of the Amerindians by the British and Spanish, eager to forge their empire, cost 130 million lives.

 

Arguably all these wars of extermination were nightmares of another dimension.

 

We should not pretend the British empire was a fluffy dream for the people  who were there before the British arrived. Of course for Churchill totally justified on racial theory alone.

Churchill's racial beliefs, which were common at the time, did not advocate Mass extermination or call people of other races subhuman to justify said extermination.

 

[nauseus]

On 9/11/2024 at 5:15 AM, Tug said:

Right wing populist politicians are now mouthpieces for Putin in my humble opinion.This is just another way for putin to sow discord among the world’s democracy’s.

 

Immediately off topic again. Well done Tug.

[placeholder]

On 9/13/2024 at 10:44 AM, Cameroni said:

 

Yes very much so, he had several Jewish friends, who as we've seen gave him substantial gifts of money. However, we have also seen Churchill himself expressing opinions which by today's standard would have seen him firmly dragged into the antisemitic corner, blaming the jews for persecution.

 

The quote you provide is of course flatly contradicted by other quotes from Churchill where he goes on record to show precisely he was against others due to race and birth:

 

In 1902, Churchill stated that "The Aryan stock is bound to triumph" and also:

 

I do not admit ... for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.

 

Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the USA, reports in his diary that during a White House lunch in May 1943 Churchill "said why be apologetic about Anglo-Saxon superiority, that we were superior, that we had the common heritage which had been worked out over the centuries in England and had been perfected by our constitution."

 

Churchill's personal doctor, Lord Moran, commented at one point that, in regards to other races, "Winston thinks only of the colour of their skin."

 

But not only was Churchill's stance against other men, based on their birth and race, ideological, no, he also took actions which killed people, that were born out of this strong racism Churchill harboured. For instance during WWII Churchill's role in the Bengal famine was appalling. Despite pleas by his own British colonial administration to ease the Indian famine, Churchill stockpiled food in front of the Indians' noses and prioritised it for the British people, knowing full well there was a famine in India, the food was there and could have helped ease the starvation, but he  stockpiled the food there for further shipment to Britain. Three million Indians died as a result of starvation.

 

Churchill described the Arabs as a "lower manifestation" than the Jews, whom he viewed as a "higher grade race" compared to the "great hordes of Islam"

 

in his 1920 article which he titled "Zionism versus Bolshevism", he wrote that communism, which he considered a "worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious ma

 

Actually the same instances of decent behaviour can be observed by Hitler on occasion, however, on others he behaved absolutely  abominably. Both men show that there is good and bad in all men. But we should certainly be very modest in declaring Churchill a champion of equality. He wasn't always.

I've been meaning to ask you. Do you believe the Germans had a program to commit mass extermination of the Jews including but not limited to the use of poison gas in death camps? That approximately 6 million Jews were murdered in this way? And that millions of others were murdered similarly?

[nauseus]

On 9/11/2024 at 1:43 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Yes, he should have.  Had Churchill accepted the peace offer Germany made in 1940 the world would have been spared 20 million deaths and horrific suffering, not to mention cultural and economic destruction. 

 

World War II, as it happened, happend the way it did in large part due to the decision of Winston Churchill not to accept Germany's peace offer of 1940.

 

Churchill of course wanted to save the British Empire. That was his whole purpose. However, by continuing the war Churchill lost the British Empire for Britain. Churchill was a loser of WWII just as he was in WWI.

 

His only hope to retain the British Empire was indeed to make peace in 1940. Hitler, whose book Mein Kampf Andrew Roberts mentions, had written in it admiringly of the British Empire. He had repeatedly declared that the British Empire was necessary as a bulwark against the Communist threat. 

 

Whilst everyone, even at the time, knew the Nazi Soviet pact was disingenous and just buying time for both sides, and it was a matter of time before the conflict erupted due to massive ideological antagonism (Nazism really came into being to combat the socialist threat). However, between Germany and Britain there was no ideological conflict and Hitler had said he would guarantee the existence of the Empire. 

 

I think he meant the German Empire.

[nauseus]

On 9/11/2024 at 4:00 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Why? On what basis? There was no compelling underlying ideological struggle between Germany and Britain. On the contrary,both sought to combat socialism at the time.

 

Hitler had repeatedly expressed the Empire was needed as a bulwark against Communism. He had written approvingly of the Empire in Mein Kampf.

 

He was jealous.

[nauseus]

On 9/11/2024 at 4:51 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Did you accept the Allies killing  23,000 women, children and the elderly in one night, like in Hamburg or 100,000 like in Tokyo or 150,000 like in Hiroshima?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

 

It's not a question if we accept it. Neither Churchill nor Chamberlain knew of the death camps or Einsatzgruppen in June 1940 when the German peace offer was rejected.

 

It's called war. If all these regretable events had not occured, would you be happy to accept millions more deaths that would have come with years more of it?

[nauseus]

On 9/11/2024 at 4:53 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Britain would not have been a "vassal" state. It would have retained its Empire. It would have been a relation among equals, Germany with its colonies in the East and Britain with it's world Empire.

 

As it was, Churchill fought to retain the Empire, and lost everything so now Britain is a vassal state of the United States. Just like Germany.

 

That is a very clottish comment.

[nauseus]

On 9/11/2024 at 4:49 PM, RayC said:

 

Oh my giddy aunt🤦

 

Better keep that gin bottle out of sight.

[Cameroni]

37 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Churchill's racial beliefs, which were common at the time, did not advocate Mass extermination or call people of other races subhuman to justify said extermination.

 

 

Churchill himself called for the use of Mustard gas on the Ottomans.

 

He also wanted and got, the strategic bombing directive, which sought to kill German civilians. That was a mass extermination of civilians.

 

Churchills lack of action in Bengal, despite his own administration begging for it, led to 3 million deaths of starvation.

[Cameroni]

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I've been meaning to ask you. Do you believe the Germans had a program to commit mass extermination of the Jews including but not limited to the use of poison gas in death camps? That approximately 6 million Jews were murdered in this way? And that millions of others were murdered similarly?

 

The current narrative in academia is that 960,00 jews were killed in Auschwitz, 865,000 are thought to have been gassed on arrival.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp

 

According to Raul Hilberg, whom I greatly respect, the Einsatzgruppen killed another 1.4 million Jews.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen

 

I have looked at this issue all my life, and read all the transcripts of the Irving trial, so I am aware of the pitfalls with numbers. I won't  go into it here, since this is not a holocaust thread but a thread about Churchill. But broadly speaking of course I accept that a large number of jews were killed by the 3000 Germans in the Einsatzkommando and those operating death camps. Clearly they were not killed by accident.

 

The number however, if you have followed the history of the Auschwitz death toll you will be aware of the changing figure there, this is subject to investigation and will continue to be evaluated by academia in the future. At the moment the holocaust is a scared cow, so whilst there is progress in scholarship people are very wary not to stray off path. In the future this will change.

[nauseus]

On 9/11/2024 at 8:59 PM, Cameroni said:

I thought you might have.

 

The proof is of course that Churchill was opposed to Nazi Germany as early as 1933. Long, long before he would have known anything about the holocaust.

 

It's called foresight.

[Cameroni]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

It's called war. If all these regretable events had not occured, would you be happy to accept millions more deaths that would have come with years more of it?

 

I would have much preferred the war had ended after the invasion of Poland.

[Will B Good]

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Churchill himself called for the use of Mustard gas on the Ottomans.

 

He also wanted and got, the strategic bombing directive, which sought to kill German civilians. That was a mass extermination of civilians.

 

Churchills lack of action in Bengal, despite his own administration begging for it, led to 3 million deaths of starvation.

 

 

Not sure it was just a lack of action.....food was 'stolen' for the war effort and other food supplies destroyed to prevent the Japanese sweeping into the subcontinent.......some estimates put the total number of deaths close to those in the holocaust.

[proton]

16 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Churchill himself called for the use of Mustard gas on the Ottomans.

 

He also wanted and got, the strategic bombing directive, which sought to kill German civilians. That was a mass extermination of civilians.

 

Churchills lack of action in Bengal, despite his own administration begging for it, led to 3 million deaths of starvation.

 

Leftists myths again

from https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/masani-bengal-famine/

 

The famine raged for about six months, from the summer of 1943 until the end of that year, and estimates of its victims range from half a million upwards, depending on whether one includes its indirect and long-term effects. Most famine experts agree that famines can be caused by both nature and human agency, but never by any single individual. So how has a 67-year-old British prime minister in poor health, 5000 miles away, fighting near-annihilation in a world war, come to be charged with causing such a cataclysmic disaster?

 

 

Anyone who believes that Churchill was an enthusiast of lethal gas must produce better evidence than we have seen so far—and some acceptable explanation for the many instances when, faced with its possible use, Churchill and his commanders demurred. While he never advocated the first use of lethal gas, Churchill's main aim in both world wars was victory.

Edited September 14 by proton

[nauseus]

On 9/11/2024 at 9:10 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Firstly, whether Churchill made the correct "moral" decision largely depends on perspective. If you are jewish or British then of course yes, but if you are Japanese, German, then not really, because after the war 1.7 million Germans died in the ethnic cleansing of 14 million Germans, 900000 Japanese civilians were murdered in carpet bombings. This just depends on perspective.

 

Indeed, it would have been a Nazi led Europe, but Britain would have retained her empire, and that would have been her only option to retain her empire. That's really what Churchill wanted. Had he been a more insightful politician he would have understood this, and that fighting Germany was precisely going to achieve the opposite of what he wanted, to save the Empire.

 

 

Hitler would have invaded Britain if he thought that he could achieve it with acceptable cost. That's why so much bombing was done in 1940 as troops and barges were readied in France. If Britain had been lost, then so would the empire. There's no need to complicate things too much. Churchill's immediate priority was the defence of Britain and he was right.