Winston Churchill had all of today's political, war, and social answers...

[Covert_US]

In here...
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/winstonchu138231.html

The world leaders of today could learn a lot from him.
----



Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.


War is mainly a catalogue of blunders.


Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential.


This is no time for ease and comfort. It is time to dare and endure.


In war as in life, it is often necessary when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so, it is folly not to work for it with all your might.


Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.


We shall show mercy, but we shall not ask for it.


It's no use saying, "We are doing our best." You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.

[gaijinsamurai]

I wish he were still around.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I don't. I've got nothing but contempt for the man.

He was the orchestra of the following campaigns:

Norway, (Led to Chamberlains resignation)

Singapore (Largest British/Empire/Commonwealth defeat in history)

Greece (Another whopper)

Dieppe

Forced Finland into a no win alliance with Germany

Gambled with Australia's security by refusing to release Australian personal

And who's policies ultimely caused the breakdown of the Commonwealth as a superpower.

[Kilgor]

And who's policies ultimely caused the breakdown of the Commonwealth as a superpower.

No, that would be the UK fighting ww2. The brits were totally economically and physically exhausted and could not hold simply hold or support their overseas "interests". They even had to keep the ration system going after the war had ended !

I would like to know how any other leader could have avoided this.

[Calanen]

He had his place, but he had his flaws. He was a good match for Hitler, because he was equally stubborn. He also managed to retain good relations with the USA, which was very important for England.

He was the Lord of the Admiralty in WW1 during the failed Dardanelles campaign, which was a miserable failure for the allies.

[wiking]

Besides, who else do you know who spent most of his adult life drunk 24/7 and live to the ripe old age of 90!

He was a marvelous carachter, and though in part to blame for the invasion of my country by Germany (Norway, plus if the Germans had been a few days late, the Brits would have invaded us first) he was a brilliant man who did lead not only Britain, but the world, to it's final victory in WW2.

5 minutes of studying The Man Himself and you cant help but love the chap.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Jaw jaw is better than war war

[Basillicus]

I'm not sure how Churchill would help us. In early 20th century he was a great leader, but his attitudes might would not work in a modern world. Carpet bombing cities isn't an option today.

And back then UK was at war with Germany, that is a clear target. Where are the Germans? They are in Germany => declare a war on Germany and kick their asses. Now the west is harrassed by a bunch of international terrorists. Sure you can declare a war on them too, but where are they? I can't see how Churchills methods would work.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I don't. I've got nothing but contempt for the man.

Singapore (Largest British/Empire/Commonwealth defeat in history)

Gambled with Australia's security by refusing to release Australian personal

And who's policies ultimely caused the breakdown of the Commonwealth as a superpower.

He also diverted large numbers of RAF fighter planes (which were much needed in the Middle East) to help defend Australia from Japanese air attacks.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

2 measly squadrons of Spitfires!!!!!!

Great contribution. Even though Australia contributed 20,000 men to the Empire Air Training Scheme.

We couldn't bring those trained men back. Even with the planes that we paid for. A few squadrons of Lancasters and Spitfires would of done wonders for the entire Pacific War in it 42.

But no apart from 2 squadrons we had to build a 2nd airforce around outdated Kitty Hawks and the few planes we could manufacture here.

[Calanen]

I'm not sure how Churchill would help us. In early 20th century he was a great leader, but his attitudes might would not work in a modern world. Carpet bombing cities isn't an option today.



It is when someone else is carpet bombing yours.

[Calanen]

He also diverted large numbers of RAF fighter planes (which were much needed in the Middle East) to help defend Australia from Japanese air attacks.

He also tried to keep the Australian forces in Middle East, when they were much needed in Australia. Curtin and Churchill had polite arguments via telegram over this, but Curtin eventually insisted they were returning home. And quite rightly too. Japan taking Australia would have been a disaster for the allies.

We had Japan on our door step. And two squadrons of fighter planes, while appreciated, was less significant than the fact that he wanted Australian troops to stay in the Middle East when Australia had Japan so nearby.

[themacedonian]

He also tried to keep the Australian forces in Middle East, when they were much needed in Australia. Curtin and Churchill had polite arguments via telegram over this, but Curtin eventually insisted they were returning home. And quite rightly too. Japan taking Australia would have been a disaster for the allies.

We had Japan on our door step. And two squadrons of fighter planes, while appreciated, was less significant than the fact that he wanted Australian troops to stay in the Middle East when Australia had Japan so nearby.

Lets not forget Galippoli. As far as I know it was Churchills plan.

What was he thinking???

... and pushing Turkey into war against the allies by confiscating turkish paid for ships and then demanding that Turkey does not buy ships from Germany.

aaaaaaaa Churchill.

[Thor]

Forced Finland into a no win alliance with Germany
Had UK really sent troops to Finland against Soviet Union that could have meant far-reaching consequences. Namely would Soviet Union have been enemies in 1940 and allies in 1941.. And would Hitler even have invaded in 1941..

[CMNot]

Like the UK had men to spare anyplace else...we were scraping lads up from everywhere.

The guy was a great wartime leader, was key to getting kit from the Americans and engaging with them in general.

He gambled that the Japs weren't going to get together for an assault on Australia (they were never going to have enough men and kit to cover it and secure their logistical lines) before the irresistible jugernaut of the US Navy/Marines came steam rolling into town.

He had his shortfalls. Name me one leader who hasn't. Name we one person you have ever known who hasn't. The man was human, thus fallible.

He was against a wholesale welfare state, immigration and high taxation. Sounds bloody good to me.

Above all, I struggle to think of a single better orator - not bad for a clutterer.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

He gambled that the Japs weren't going to get together for an assault on Australia (they were never going to have enough men and kit to cover it and secure their logistical lines) before the irresistible jugernaut of the US Navy/Marines came steam rolling into town

A gamble that should never been allowed to be policy.

Fact. Japan invaded Soverign Australian territory. Australian towns and cities were bombed, Many thousends of Australian's lost their lives because of his direct policies towards Australia yet he was still requesting more Australian troops.

To gamble a nations future is not something I can fathom. Especially considering the atrocities that were occuring in China. I'd hate to think what would of happened to any Australian town/city that may have fallen to the Japanese.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

2 measly squadrons of Spitfires!!!!!!

I just checked and actually it was 3 squadrons so we were both wrong but you're still less wrong :)

However it's worth checking this out http://newsletter.adf-serials.com/news0903.pdf

Myth or fact? Did Britain forsake us?
There has been a lot said during and since the war about this period. Many say that when help was needed that Australia had to look towards America for its aircraft. While true in most respects, especially numbers, I must point out that the majority of P40E fighter aircraft given were British Purchasing Commission ordered aircraft. The early P40E requests in January and February 1942 were made for 250 such aircraft, with Britain guaranteeing the supply of 125 from their allocations, providing that the USAAF matched that request with 125 from theirs allocations.
In the end, events took over and we eventually got an allocation of 150 P40E/E-1s. Top ups of another 15 or so came. One day I’ll look into the ratio of USAAF P40E-CUs and BPC RAF P40E-1-Cu’s to decide if they were in fact split.
For a country like Britain fighting and waging several wars on various fronts at the time of numerous setbacks (Malta, Libya, Burma, UK bombing and Dieppe raid), to supply their best in such a dark era was a selfless act. What’s more surprising, they supplied the Spitfires “free of charge”.

From http://newsletter.adf-serials.com/news0503.pdf
It must be remembered that the British also did reinforce the Far East in January and February
1942 with over 48 Hudson Bombers (flown out) and over 100 Hurricanes fighters (51 crated by sea
and the balance by aircraft carrier). However they were consumed by the fighting during this
period. During this time, the Australian Government realizing the imminent collapse of the
Netherlands East Indies, commenced making numerous requests to both the British and American
Governments for a early allocation of suitable Tomahawk type fighters as used by Australian
Squadrons in the Middle East. The choice was based on the availability of experienced pilots being
seconded back to Australia, and the fact that the supply of Spitfires or Hurricanes was practically
non- existent due to heavy fighting in the Europe/Middle East theatres.

I think Churchill is perhaps being blamed unfairly for this. He was more of a figurehead than anything else. Unlike nowadays in the UK we still had cabinet government during WW2 and much of the hard decision making was actually executed by Attlee (deputy PM) and Alan-Brooke (CIGS).

So how would you have felt if Australian troops had been pulled out of the ME at a critical time and that had so weakened the war effort there that the Germans were able to seize the Suez Canal and effectively cut the British Empire in two.

That would have enabled the Germans to potentially link up (or at least cooperate with) the Japanese on the Asian land mass - especially if the Germans had been able to defeat the Soviet Union. If that had happened it would not have been good news for Australia either.

Hard decisions and gambles had to be taken. That's the nature of war.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

To gamble a nations future is not something I can fathom. Especially considering the atrocities that were occuring in China. I'd hate to think what would of happened to any Australian town/city that may have fallen to the Japanese.

I'm puzzled. Do you really think that Churchill and his Cabinet didn't gamble with the future of Britain????????
I'd hate to think what would have happened if Britain had fallen to the Germans. It's not as though Churchill et al were inflicting some kind of risk on Australians that wasn't being inflicted on Britain as well.
'War is the province of danger' - von Clausewitz

PS Just in case you forgot. The bombing that the Japanese managed to inflict on Northern Australia was relatively minor compared to the Luftwaffe bombing and V-weapon attacks suffered by British civilians.

[oldsoak]

Churchill didnt walk on water - however, in his defence I would point out that the debacle of Singapore was not his fault. Everyone underestimated the Japanese, and over-estimated the defensive capabilites of allied forces.
Our fault lies in not agressively developing the Australian industry to the point where they cuold have provided additional production lines for Spitfires etc - or the production of comtemporary US kit. Imagine a production line for, say, P40's in 1941 in Australia and the impact that would have had.

[Kilgor]

I think people often don't realise how truely stretched thin the brits were at times in the war.

[AgentX]

"I cannot pretend to feel impartial about colours. I rejoice with the brilliant ones and am genuinely sorry for the poor browns."

He certainly didn't have all the qualities of a good man, but my honest opinion is that it was good for Britain to have him at that time.

[khukuri]

And who's policies ultimely caused the breakdown of the Commonwealth as a superpower.

You wanted the Great colonial empire to still be around? And you are supposed to be a lefty.... ?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

You wanted the Great colonial empire to still be around? And you are supposed to be a lefty.... ?

My only weakness. I'm quite the nationalist. But with extreme left social and economic ideals. :)

[Kant]

I think Churchills main fault was he believed the colonies still exsisted to serve the mother country. He was a product of his times.
As far I'm concerned he did us a favour in forcing us to become a bit more independant.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I think Churchills main fault was he believed the colonies still exsisted to serve the mother country. He was a product of his times.
As far I'm concerned he did us a favour in forcing us to become a bit more independant.

Surely you mean dependent on America?

[Kant]

Surely you mean dependent on America?

No.
We only became dependant upon America when they started to play around in Asia.
Because of forced independance, Australia had it's own Automobile, Computer and Heavy machinery industry.We became a third world economy when the red peril started appearing, and our Uncle Sam made us an offer we couldn't refuse.

[AgentX]

Surely you mean dependent on America?
Dependence is actually a mutual bondage.

[M1A2U2]

I believe the UK sacrificed its empire to stop facism, and for that I am greatful.

[AgentX]

No, UK lost its empire in saving its capital. But what really matters is both of us are grateful for that, regardless of the reasons.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

No, UK lost its empire in saving its capital. But what really matters is both of us are grateful for that, regardless of the reasons.

Well I'm not complaining. People here in the UK are materially much better off now since we gave up the Empire.

The Empire made a tiny group of people very rich but basically just mean't long separations, hard service and violent death/premature death from exotic illnesses etc for the majority of Brits involved in creating/running it.

[CMNot]

The Empire was waning many moons before anyone thought the Japanese may or may not invade Australia.

Without Empire, I struggle to see where we would have mustered the numbers from Commonwealth necessary to fight the war.

[Suicaine]

And who's policies ultimely caused the breakdown of the Commonwealth as a superpower.


you could argue that WW1 was the cause of the demise of the commonwealth as the major influence of the world and that Churchils era (including WW2) was just a catalyst, but thats another arguement.

i respect the man as a politician but disagree with some of the decisions he made, same as i respect tony blair as a politician but disagree with the labour party as a whole and favour a mid-far right view.

- Alex.

[gaijinsamurai]

Minardeau, I would have thought that as an Aussie, you'd include Gallipoli amongst Churchill's failures..........

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

He had his shortfalls. Name me one leader who hasn't. Name we one person you have ever known who hasn't. The man was human, thus fallible.

does Jesus count...? and uuummm George W. Bush duh! (haha ok i actually like/support the Prez it was just too good to pass up)

[Ed the bumbling fool]

A gamble that should never been allowed to be policy.


To gamble a nations future is not something I can fathom. Especially considering the atrocities that were occuring in China. I'd hate to think what would of happened to any Australian town/city that may have fallen to the Japanese.


Japan would have been unable to assault mainland australia or New Zealand within a sensible timeframe and even if they had the brisbane line policy would have ensured there defeat with heavy loss of life and equipment. Don't forget that England was 20 miles from a large German Army which was thus only 100 miles from London, while Darwin was still several hundred miles from any capable Japanese force (those in New Guinea where marching on low rations and exhausted and several thousand more miles from Either Sydney Melbourne or Canberra. This debate always degenerates into an emotional one especially in late April but cold hard facts back Churchill's decisions and arguments. The Dardanelles was a failure but many forget that many British french and Indian troops where also gambled on it. Had it been successful I have little doubt the war would have ended faster and we could possibly have intervened better in Russia in 1918 or 1919 thus saving world both WW2 and the Cold War. 80,000 men for a chance for world peace for 50 years. Thats not to bad considering what was happening in Flanders.
:bash:

[shadowsrider]

Small remark about intervention in Finland.
I was reading the history of Polish Carpathian Brigade (mountain infantry). After forming in France it was intended by Brits to send it to Finland because Poland was propably the only country eager to fight against Soviet Union.
Only the invasion of Norway stopped it and it was finally sent to Narvik.

[gaijinsamurai]

Churchill definitely had his faults, but I wouldn't include the fall of Singapore among them. As tragic as it was, I place the blame on the incompetence and apathetic leadership of the military commanders, as well as the strategic genius of General Tomoyuki Yamash*ta.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Churchill refused to give Singapore the supplies they needed. They had no air support. No naval support.

Yes in hindsight the Japanese did say that if the British had of held out for another day or they would of been forced to withdraw. but the fact remains. Singapore was not supported in the manner needed for a sucessfull defence.

I agree that Wavell and Percival were idiots. But to blame them for the disaster is missing the point.

[oldsoak]

Churchill refused to give Singapore the supplies they needed. They had no air support. No naval support.

Yes in hindsight the Japanese did say that if the British had of held out for another day or they would of been forced to withdraw. but the fact remains. Singapore was not supported in the manner needed for a sucessfull defence.

I agree that Wavell and Percival were idiots. But to blame them for the disaster is missing the point.

The problem was not with Churchill - the whole defence of Singapore was poorly thought from the beginning. Churchill should have at least expected that those sitting in Singapore had put in place an appropriate all round defence of the island - they didnt. We didnt even begin to dig proper defensive positions in case we "frightened the locals". :roll:
Malaya and Singapore did have air support, but these were simply outclassed bythe Japanese and because the west in general had a totally ill informed view of Japanese capabilities viewed through some frankly racist glasses.- as for Naval support, we did loose the PoW and the Repulse - had they survived, imagine how the battle of the Coral sea might have turned out.

We didnt even arm the locals until the very last - the Singaporean Chinese fought bravely and well, and we would have had no shortage of volunteers.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Churchill refused to give Singapore the supplies they needed. They had no air support. No naval support.

Yes in hindsight the Japanese did say that if the British had of held out for another day or they would of been forced to withdraw. but the fact remains. Singapore was not supported in the manner needed for a sucessfull defence.

I agree that Wavell and Percival were idiots. But to blame them for the disaster is missing the point.

Hmm... You do realize that there were reinforcements still arriving in Singapore when it fell don't you. They went straight into the bag.

Singapore was a **** up but I don't think you can blame Churchill on his own for it as many people underestimated the Japanese. The pre-war defences all faced out to sea and as Churchill wasn't in government before WW2 you can hardly blame him for that.

You can't blame Churchill for General Percival's major personality flaws and poor decision making either. He was a classic example of an authoritarian obsessive personality promoted way beyond his level of competence.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

You can try to defend Churchill as much as you want. But from Australia's viewpoint he is a failure as a wartime leader.

For starters prior to the fall of Singapore he said "If Australia is attacked we will abandon the Med and send all available assets"

Singapore fell, Darwin was bombed, Sydney and Newcastle shelled then he says "We will send all forced once the Japanese have landed in strength"

He kept changing the goalposts.

Churchill was more concerned about his own political survival instead of taking measures that would ensure a quick end to the war.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

You can try to defend Churchill as much as you want. But from Australia's viewpoint he is a failure as a wartime leader.

Then Australia's viewpoint or more precisely your view of it is extremely 'one eyed'

You're making judgements based on 20/20 hindsight of the past.

Perhaps you would have done better in the hot seat?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

England (Churchill) had the resources to contain Germany.

Especially after Germany invaded the USSR

Why then was the Empires/Commonwealth strength still directed at Germany?

When the far east was under direct attack?

[Jobu]

Churchill is a legend because his achievements greatly surpassed his failures.

[oldsoak]

England (Churchill) had the resources to contain Germany.

Especially after Germany invaded the USSR

Why then was the Empires/Commonwealth strength still directed at Germany?

When the far east was under direct attack?

Min, its not as simple as that. Churchill was flawed, but a lot of things were simply not his doing and had been set in place years before. i dont have much to say for the chap, but we have to give him a fair go.
WWI bankrupted the UK - we were in debt to the US. After WW1 we simply saw no reason for a large military outside of that needed for policing the empire - in fact the treasury and War ministry had a rule that said "no conflicts for 10 years" and all military spending was based on that on a year by year basis. We were that flat when it got to the game we had to re-arm overnight. That what "peace in our time" was about - Chamberlain actually bought the UK precious time in which to re-arm. We could not contain the Reich at that stage. Without the dominions and the rest of the commonwealth, we'd have gone under in the first few months. After Dunkirk, the only fully equipped division in the UK were the Canadians - G*d bless 'em.
The far east was not a simple campaign - our supply lines were quite stretched, and we simply lacked the wherewithal to fight over those distances. Without Malaya or Singapore, we could not project a naval prescence as far as Australia without air power. Without that ability, theres no way we could get troops there.

[Hollis]

You can try to defend Churchill as much as you want. But from Australia's viewpoint he is a failure as a wartime leader.

For starters prior to the fall of Singapore he said "If Australia is attacked we will abandon the Med and send all available assets"

Singapore fell, Darwin was bombed, Sydney and Newcastle shelled then he says "We will send all forced once the Japanese have landed in strength"

He kept changing the goalposts.

Churchill was more concerned about his own political survival instead of taking measures that would ensure a quick end to the war.

What would you have Churchill to say? Maybe he had nothing to send. My dad was in the China Fleet at that time. They had nothing but old ships to defend against the Japanese onslaught.
Would you have preferred him to tell the truth? Nothing was available?
Imagine what the response would have been in Australia. Some might say, "Lets surrender and ask for a negotiated peace, or beg for mercy."
I am sure some Australians would have said, "Surrender? HELL NO!!" But either way it would have a negative effect on the war effort and the ability to fight.
It takes a lot of effort to wage war, especially one that cost time and a lot of lives. Most people are not up to it. One comment I read about Churchill was that his greatest attribute was to booster moral during the darkest of hours. Yes, in a war we need to be cheered on. No differently than those on the front lines or those at home.
It is no different today with all the naysayers on the GWOT. All the negatively to create a culture of defeat. If it was done in WWII, Australia main language would be Japanese, West coast USA, Japanese, and East coast probably German. (ok speculation maybe).
So Imagine what would have happened. If Churchill told the "truth"... "Australia your screwed"
BTW, read the Battle of the Java Sea, My dad was on the USS Alden, one of the few ships that made it out and escaped to Australia.
Churchill for all his pros and cons, just may have been the right man at the right time.

[California Joe]

Minardiau is mental.

[Geezah]

Minardiau is mental.

He wears skirts, what does he know ;)

http://www.pipes.org/Images/2002/04.jpg

[California Joe]

I don't exactly think Teddy Roosevelt would fit into todays society very well either but he's one of my personal heroes and the guy was a straight up badass character.

[Geezah]

I don't exactly think Teddy Roosevelt would fit into todays society very well either but he's one of my personal heroes and the guy was a straight up badass character.

For sure he would......
http://www.exploretheoldwest.org/images/Teddy%20Roosevelt%20in%20the%20Badlands%20of%20North%20Dakota.gif

:D

[Mastermind]

I am a great fan of churchill's...and of Teddy R...of all strong, intelligent men of action. I even like , McArthur, Patton, Petan, Nixon, Grant, Sherman, Lee and even Custer and Sitting Bull and Geronimo (to name just a very few). Amazingly, none of my heros were perfect....No, not even one. They all had massive charachter flaws...most of them either drank excessivly or were pure ego maniacs. They all made tragic mistakes...some of which cost them their lives or a great many lives of the people they led. Almost all had terrible self doubts, suffered from bouts of depression, and several even struggled with thoughts of suicide and some even quit their careers at some point or another. Most were vilified by their contemporaries. Some were often brought up on criminal charges, some were exiled and some were even sentened to death for crimes they were accused of. Some died gallantly while in their service, others died in obscurity and shame.

How do I find faultless heros? I don't think they exist. All I know is, they all committed great deeds in the face of terrible opposition almost all of us would have quickly shied away from. They all met their adversaries on rough and unpleasant terrain and suffered terribly at the hand of both firends and foes. Yet, each gave me examples of courage, determination, intellect and skill that I have to admire in pure awe. They gave me the proof that we are capable of achieving any victory and can successfully oppose any foe no matter what the odds. They also gave me proof that how we live is just as important as how we die. That's why I read about them and admire them. For all their wrongs and weaknesses, they seem to have made at least 51% of their decisions correctly.

[mas-36]

It has struck me that many Americans regard W. Churchill as some great genuis, while the British tend to give him much more a critical eye, despite the fact that Churchill was British.

Would some of the British members of the forum care to explain this? Are we Americans looking at Churchill through rose colored glasses?

[PPSH41]

One of the most integral parts of destroying a country and its ideals is to destroy its heroes.

[oldsoak]

It has struck me that many Americans regard W. Churchill as some great genuis, while the British tend to give him much more a critical eye, despite the fact that Churchill was British.

Would some of the British members of the forum care to explain this? Are we Americans looking at Churchill through rose colored glasses?

- we're just a critical lot. I suspect theres a lot of 'murricans who cast a critical eye over American presidents past and present eg JFK etc. It could be argued that we've had to put up with his decisions good or bad in a more intimate way than the US has, so we tend to be more aware of the flaws.

[dangerclose]

If Churchill were alive today he'd be an American.

[Hydro]

If Churchill were alive today he'd be 143 years old.

[Lazy Lob]

He wears skirts, what does he know ;)

http://www.pipes.org/Images/2002/04.jpg

The Cutts compensator, a design masterpiece.

[Kilgor]

It has struck me that many Americans regard W. Churchill as some great genuis, while the British tend to give him much more a critical eye, despite the fact that Churchill was British.

Would some of the British members of the forum care to explain this? Are we Americans looking at Churchill through rose colored glasses?

Thats also a incorrect impression IMO

The BBC commissioned a poll in 2002 of the top 100 greatest Britons. Who came in at no. 1 was no surprise.

[PPSH41]

Thats also a incorrect impression IMO

The BBC commissioned a poll in 2002 of the top 100 greatest Britons. Who came in at no. 1 was no surprise.

This will soon be rectified by the high and mighty far left establishment. Soon children will know how Churchill was no better than the dictators he faught against and how the difference between the two is just a point of view.

[Ed the bumbling fool]

For anybody to even compare the bombing of darwin or attacks on eastern Australia with that on say Coventry london or lets say the Channel islands you must have a very poor ability to use logic.
a few points to consider.

Singapore fell quickly partially because Indo China came under Japanese control with the stroke of a pen at a time when the Commonwealth and Indian Armies where heavily involved in The Mediterranean.
Naval reinforcements in the form of warships including one of Britains Newest Battleships where sent and Sunk by the Japs.
To invade mainland australia the Japanese would have had to of won at least 2 major naval Engagements closer to the Queensland or NT coast. As is was they where stopped and beaten in the Solomon's. which indicates to me that the policy was correct.The major Naval Battle was still against the Uboats in the Atlantic and would be for some time to come.
What you seam to be saying is that one Australian Civilian is worth more than lets say 1000 merchant seamen, 1 million Indians or 500 londoners, that pre-haps is true in your mind but not mine. (Incidentally I am also Australian)

[Mastermind]

Sir Winston was appointed Prime Minister by King George VI on the 10th of May 1940. The nation was in a tremendous mess as developed by the previous administration of Chaimberlain, who had obviously been enamored of Herr Hitler and had deliberately left Britian in a dreadful state of preparedness for war in order not to offend the Germans. Although the appeasers had been swept from office, two days later, the German army rushed into France and the hot war was indeed on.

We should also consider the Japanese at the time. Very few, including Churchill at the time, gave the Japanese much credit for being a serious threat in 1940 or 1941.. In fact, during a meeting with Percival (the fellow who ultamately surrendered Singapore to the Japanese) only a year after becoming Prime Minister, Churchill told Percival that since the Japanese were unlikely to commence hostilities against the western powers, the defence of Singapore would be left wanting in order to provide immediate strengthening of the home front. It must be remembered, that Britian was fighting on several fronts and at the time, Churchill was actually engaged or had just been engaged by the all victorious Germans in France, Norway, Greece, in the Battle of Britian over London itself, the North Atlantic battles (which appeared Britain was certainly not winning)and North Africa. Almost all of Britian's allies had been defeated or were declaring themselves neutral. Even the USA was waivering as FDR was struggling with a very powerful Isolationist group in Congress for most of the time Britian had been engaged. And, don;t forget, the US had already been essentially defeated in all but ceremony with the disaster at Pearl Harbor and in the Phillipenes were fighting a losing battle for survival. The immediate future for Home Island Defense was grim to say the very least.

To accuse Churchill of failure in defending Singapore in 1942 is almost absurd. Most certainly, anyone would have sacrificed a distant colony under the same conditions in order to save what he could of the homeland. What possible other realistic choice was there? That he even sent the Repulse and P of W had to have been a terriffic gamble for almost no potential gain in return even if the presence of the two ships had a deterrent effect on the Japanese. In any event, the outcome was disasterous. It clearly demonstrated the rending decisions Churchill had to make on a daily basis...and there is where the heart of the matter lies....in war, not every decision is the right one...some decisions must be made that are going have a grave outcome no matter what...none of the outcomes will be good. All one can expect is to hope some one outcome will be the least disasterous. He never once shirked from facing those decisions.

His heart, wisdom and abject courage has to have won a special place in the history books. I know of no other person on earth at the time who could have managed to accomplish what he did under the circumstances.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

It has struck me that many Americans regard W. Churchill as some great genuis, while the British tend to give him much more a critical eye, despite the fact that Churchill was British.

Would some of the British members of the forum care to explain this? Are we Americans looking at Churchill through rose colored glasses?

Churchill was actually half American IIRC (I'm sure his mother American). I don't think his contemporary FDR thought he was a genius as there was a lot of conflict between them over strategic priorities during WW2.

I think it's just that (not surprisingly) Americans are less aware of Churchill's rather controversial record in domestic UK politics. When my grandparents were alive I asked them what they thought of Churchill as a Prime Minister and their responses could at best be called 'ambivalent'.

My personal opinion of him is that his 18 June 1940 speech is the finest known example of inspirational rhetoric EVER in that it set the tone for how our nation fought for its survival.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=418

I always find it amusing when Bush and Bliar posture in their vain attempts to somehow present themselves as 'Churchillian' leaders. They are fcuking pygmies in comparison.
No offence intended to real Central African forest dwellers - it's just a figure of speech.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

If Churchill were alive today he'd be an American.

Well he was a fat bloater so yeah he'd fit right in :roll:

[a_very_ex_STAB]

For anybody to even compare the bombing of darwin or attacks on eastern Australia with that on say Coventry london or lets say the Channel islands you must have a very poor ability to use logic.
a few points to consider.

Singapore fell quickly partially because Indo China came under Japanese control with the stroke of a pen at a time when the Commonwealth and Indian Armies where heavily involved in The Mediterranean.
Naval reinforcements in the form of warships including one of Britains Newest Battleships where sent and Sunk by the Japs.
To invade mainland australia the Japanese would have had to of won at least 2 major naval Engagements closer to the Queensland or NT coast. As is was they where stopped and beaten in the Solomon's. which indicates to me that the policy was correct.The major Naval Battle was still against the Uboats in the Atlantic and would be for some time to come.
What you seam to be saying is that one Australian Civilian is worth more than lets say 1000 merchant seamen, 1 million Indians or 500 londoners, that pre-haps is true in your mind but not mine. (Incidentally I am also Australian)

Top post. Couldn't put it better myself.
At the time 1941-42 the Western Allies had to trade space for time in a similar way to that in which the Russian's traded space for time and sucked the Germans into overextending themselves.
It wasn't pretty but there was no alternative at the time.

[Kant]

Churchill was actually half American IIRC (I'm sure his mother American). I don't think his contemporary FDR thought he was a genius as there was a lot of conflict between them over strategic priorities during WW2.



Winston Churchills mother was a mustang.
The daughter of the nouvelle riché American high society, she bought herself class by marrying English aristocracy.
That's where the phrase "Mustang Sally" came from.

[dangerclose]

Well he was a fat bloater so yeah he'd fit right in :roll:


Scoreboard

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/7458/teethuw2.jpg

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Scoreboard

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/7458/teethuw2.jpg

That's quite daring of you - seeing as you come from the nation that gave the world 'meth mouth' and 'BillyBob teeth' :)

[gaijinsamurai]

Churchill's mother was also half-Iraqois Indian, making him 1/4 Native American.

[wiking]

One of Churchills most, well...the word evil comes to mind, decissions was to gas rebellious Kurdish tribes in Iraq back in the day, a tradition carried on by Saddam.

Not a flame attempt, historical fact.

Not the greatest of decissions, and now that WW2 is at a bit more of a distance he'll probably be judged more for his less great actions, but I still think he really saved the world at large in WW2.

[Kilgor]

One of Churchills most, well...the word evil comes to mind, decissions was to gas rebellious Kurdish tribes in Iraq back in the day, a tradition carried on by Saddam.

Not a flame attempt, historical fact.

Not the greatest of decissions, and now that WW2 is at a bit more of a distance he'll probably be judged more for his less great actions, but I still think he really saved the world at large in WW2.

To my knowledge he advocated the use of gas, and I don't remember it actually being used. Two very different things, unless you can provide information otherwise.

[wiking]

To my knowledge he advocated the use of gas, and I don't remember it actually being used. Two very different things, unless you can provide information otherwise.

as i've understood it he ordered it, but the war department first stalled, and the plan was then scrapped because the RAF (might still have been the Royal Flying Corps back then) atleast claimed they did not have a proper functioning bomb for airplane use to carry gas.

I'll add a disclaimer though, i won't guarantee my understanding of it is correct.

[Hollis]

Churchill's mother was also half-Iraqois Indian, making him 1/4 Native American.


I asked my Boss about that, she says No.

"
A noted beauty—an admirer said that there was "more of the panther than of the woman in her look"—Lady Randolph Churchill also worked as a magazine editor and bore a fashionable tattoo of a snake twined around her wrist, which she hid with a bracelet when required.[citation needed] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources) Hall family lore insists that Jennie was part Iroquois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois), but no evidence of any Native American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States) ancestry has yet been uncovered, despite much genealogical digging.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennie_Jerome#_note-2) Moshe Kohn, in an article in The Jerusalem Post on 18 January (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_18) 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993) alleged that the Jerome family name was originally Jacobson, and that Jennie's ethnic ancestry was, in fact Jewish, at least on her father's side."

OH!!!! NO part of the evil Zionist conspiracy.

[Kilgor]

as i've understood it he ordered it, but the war department first stalled, and the plan was then scrapped because the RAF (might still have been the Royal Flying Corps back then) atleast claimed they did not have a proper functioning bomb for airplane use to carry gas.

I'll add a disclaimer though, i won't guarantee my understanding of it is correct.

yes, so the attack never went ahead. And there is a big difference between advocating and it actually going ahead.

FYI I think Churchill also wanted to mass gas German cities in ww2.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Put yourself in an Australian's shoes in 1942.

Singapore has fallen

Darwin bombed

The America fleet destroyed

Phillipines had fallen

And the Australian AIF is fighting in the Middle East.

And Churchill refused to send the troops back, wanted more men in Europe.

[Hollis]

Put yourself in an Australian's shoes in 1942.

Singapore has fallen

Darwin bombed

The America fleet destroyed

Phillipines had fallen

And the Australian AIF is fighting in the Middle East.

And Churchill refused to send the troops back, wanted more men in Europe.


US fleet was still there, Heck a few China Fleet ships were still afloat. What are you worried about? It worked.

If the US Fleet was distoried, How did I get here? Dad was on the USS Alden. Sometime back, in the history section, the Dutch had a great article on the Battle of the Java sea. It was a combine force, Dutch, British and Americans. The Allies gave more than they were given.

[Ed the bumbling fool]

Put yourself in an Australian's shoes in 1942.

Singapore has fallen

Darwin bombed

The America fleet destroyed

Phillipines had fallen

And the Australian AIF is fighting in the Middle East.

And Churchill refused to send the troops back, wanted more men in Europe.

I don't think were going to get anywhere with this one perhaps if the troops on Brighton Beach the AA guns from London, half the atlantic fleet and No 11 group had been put in Darwin and Cairns you'd be happy. In fact lets take the Indian army out of Burma and give you that as well.
I think you'd probably come up with something else such as Bloody whinnging poms are over here dodging the fighting ,drinking our beer and ruining Australia.

:bash:

[Calanen]

I don't think were going to get anywhere with this one perhaps if the troops on Brighton Beach the AA guns from London, half the atlantic fleet and No 11 group had been put in Darwin and Cairns you'd be happy. In fact lets take the Indian army out of Burma and give you that as well.
I think you'd probably come up with something else such as Bloody whinnging poms are over here dodging the fighting ,drinking our beer and ruining Australia.


No, how about we were just allowed to use our own troops in defence of our own country....nobody was asking the UK to provide any of its troops.

[Ed the bumbling fool]

I think were diverging from the original topic here but I believe Churchill's Aims was to have troops where they could be effective immediately and re arrange them later as the situation improved. In principle that meant that Australians from the desert could be moved back as conditions became favorable, they were in fact withdrawn before the Libyan campaign was stable with near disastrous result. both for those in Singapore and also for those still in Egypt. In effect by trying to hold to much we nearly lost it all.
My main point was that mainland Austrlia was not under direct threat or could be cover by forces other than the Desert army which was heavily engaged.
I guess one of the important aspects of being a Coalition leader is to compromise a bit here and there but at that moment the major threat wasn't to Syndey or Melbourne or even for that matter Weipa, but the Suez canal and the North atlantic sea battle.
Had Either of these been lost Australia's position would have been very grave indeed. Other Empire troops such as those from New Zealand and India were kept in the battle despite being in a similar situation at home. And history has shown that the Militias Still in Australia still had enough fight in them to stabalise the situation.
A similar situation today would be for the UK to turn to the US tomorrow and say they wanted to leave Iraq within a week.If this did happen you would imagine there would be quite a lot of debate and even a few harsh words said to try to reach an suitable compromise Some on both sides of the debate may even hold grudges for years to come as we have here.
The most important thing was that ultimately We won and many of Churchill's thoughts and misgivings particularly relating to post war politics have been proved to be Correct. These include the fates of Poland Yugoslavia greece india pakistan Vietnam and the middle east including Israel.
I fully appreciate the desire of a nation to have there best troops available in a time of crisis but also appreciate there is a bigger picture.

[11 Bravo]

He had his place, but he had his flaws. He was a good match for Hitler, because he was equally stubborn. He also managed to retain good relations with the USA, which was very important for England.

He was the Lord of the Admiralty in WW1 during the failed Dardanelles campaign, which was a miserable failure for the allies.



WC may have been brash about the dardenelles fiasco , but he made up for that in being probably the biggest player to get the Tank intorduced to the modern battlefield.
I have remembered a quote attributed to WC:

" The Vice of capitolism is it's unequal sharing of blessings ,
The Virtue of socialism is it's equal sharing of misery ".

[11 Bravo]

But with extreme left social and economic ideals. :)


Whew ! , now that's an Oxymoronic statement - idelas of the left - bloody vacant !.
I'll partially requote WC on this again :
" the virtue of socialism is it's equal sharing of misery".

[a_very_ex_STAB]

No, how about we were just allowed to use our own troops in defence of our own country....nobody was asking the UK to provide any of its troops.

AFAIK Australian troops were pulled out of the ME at the end of the North African campaign, which was as soon as it could practically be done. They certainly didn't take part in the subsequent invasions of Sicily and Italy which were launched from North Africa.

[oldsoak]

Correct - they ended up in Singapore, just in time for the balls up.

[Hollis]

sort of a side note, As far as fear of invasion, there was also a fear of a invasion of the West Coast of the US. The Japanese did manage to take some Aleutian Islands.


Whether the Japanese were capable of invading Australia, there is the Logistic of holding it, what it would take in numbers of troops to hold it, and re-supplying the troops.

Japan was only able to hold the mainland of China, which worked against them. If the Japanese did not overextend themselves they could have done better in China. Taking Austrialia for the Japanese might be the same mistake the Germans did in invading Russia. The advantage the Germans had with Russia, they could drive there. To take and hold Austrialia, might have been too much for the Japanese. The Japanese would have considered this.

It has been awhile since I read what the Japanese goals where in WWII.

[Mastermind]

I don't think the Japanese had any real goals for the end of their ambitions. The war was basically "wagging the dog" so-to-speak. After the war began, they established a thing called the "Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" that attempted to frame their war effort in a kind of benevolent anti-European masters thing that should have been a draw for those asians that had been colonized by the Europeans...India and SE Asia and even China, with some attraction in the Phillipines under the US and Spanish influence...but the brutality of the Japanese in enforcing their occupations under wartime drove most people back into the arms of the allies. The Co-Prosperity Sphere program was not ever seriously emplimented...but, after the war, it was realised how powerful it could have been if Japan had paid more attention to it. The uprisings in India, Pakistan and South East Asia in revolutions for independance and the rise of the Communists in China seems to have confirmed this.

It also would seem the Japanese were initially concerned with resources acquision, then security for their maritime communications, then they were merely fighting for survival. It comes back to the old adage that when you are up to your a$$ in alligators, it is hard to remember that your initial goal was to just cross the swamp.

[Baboonass]

Jaw jaw is better than war war

Jaw+War=Jar

???