Was Churchill overrated? - Page 5

lionhart · #**101** (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 06:08 AM

Was Churchill over-rated? Anyone who has read a few volumes of his autobiography would know the answer is "No". A VERY intelligent man who had his pulse of ALL the aspects of society and the war.

macker33 · #**102** (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devilsadvocate

Yes, Churchill was dead on about Stalin....Roosevelt certainly wasn't.

Hitler was dead right about him too.

rhs · #**103** (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 10:43 AM

I must say Macca your thread has certainly come along way . Did you expect it to take the direction it has ? It seems to have taken on a life all of its own, so many twists ,turns and convolutions its a real snake pit. As I said before it has bought out some hidden national characteristics. Good Thread Everybody.

Slipdigit · #**104** (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 02:15 PM

Yes, it has.

Discuss and leave the snideness out.

Drucius · #**105** (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

We just call the whole place England

We Scots would rather you didn't.

Kruska · #**106** (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drucius

We Scots would rather you didn't.

Hello Drucius,

now come on you albans!!, we are Europeans we are citizens of the EU, we are thriving for a greater Europe and are all one happy bunch and family, sharing a European Parliament,-so why be so picky about tribal issues?

BTW I am desperatly trying to find out, who is Scotlands head of state?? Maybe you can kindly help me out on this one?

Just imagine, a German being head of state in BAVARIA

unthinkable. In that case I would probably pilgrim to the USA.

Regards
Kruska

GrandsonofAMarine · #**107** (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urqh

Not been here a while, and not reading all the posts...suffice to say, first poster says lots...all or most true...and I was never a fan of Winni....too much knowledge of General strike attitude to make me a fan of his....Gallipoli, anything....but sorry....all is forgiven by us over here, and he will be always treated kindly by history...as first poster said, he stood up in 1940....Its enough...a few months are enough to salvage any other wrongs he may have done before...so to be honest...any critisisms mean nothing....Without him...Many of us would not be here now to critisize the great man.

EVERT great man of history has his flaws. This is something people don't often understand. The point is that despite their flaws--what person is flawless?--they managed to make a great contribution to mankind.

MLK, Gandhi, Roosevelt, Lincoln, Churchill,et all had "sins". We should all be aware of them so when people with agendas use them to tarnish their great accompishments we can be ready.That is what a good historian does. He tells the whole story so people can properly understand events and the decisions behind them.

Most great men are great because their particular skills and personal attributes are what the crisis they faced called for. They were at the right place at the right time. Churchill is the ultimate example of this. His tenacity and his defiance in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds would in another time be seen as arrogance and obstinance.

Who else could match his grasp of the English language? Read or listen to his "never has so much been owed to so few by so many" speech and try not to be moved. The man was as eloquent of a Statesmen as the world as ever known.

I deeply admire Churchill because of these traits. He combined superior intellectual powers with never say die attitude. I love that.

Those who question his reverence for the US are in error. Churchill without a doubt admired the US. He may have had some misconceptions about the US--as did Roosevelt about the English--but there is no doubting that he felt a deep affinity. The US has reciprocated that affection.

There is currently a US Naval ship called the "USS Churchill"--the only ship ever to be named after a foreign statesmen. On that ship there is always a Royal Navy officer stationed. That should give you an idea of how much appreciation the US has of one Sir Winston Spencer Churchill.

rhs · #**108** (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipdigit

Yes, it has.

Discuss and leave the snideness out.

Slipdigit if that was aimed at my post you have read something in it that was not there.

Starting from the first quite simple question I have avidly read this thread finding it both enlightening, puzzling and a source for further reading.The posts have shown a great many angles to the subject which I have never before considered.

I truly wish I could raise a subject that so many members would want to discuss and in such depth......rhs

Slipdigit · #**109** (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 05:53 PM

No, rhs, it wasn't directed at you. I just happen to post my instructions after you.

rhs · #**110** (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 06:09 PM

Thank you Slipdigit. I did not want you to think I was treating the forum with disrespect.
" Two Nations separated by a common language" came to mind. regards rhs.

TiredOldSoldier · #**111** (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hello hucks 216,
I tend to disagree on your 3 accounts,

1. Churchill disliked (hated) Germans even before Hitler came up, so the Nr. III doesn't count.
2. WWI surely wasn't caused or erupted just because of Germany alone,
3. Napoleon III declared war on Prussia not the other way around.

So no really good reasons for Churchill on those accounts.

Regards
Kruska

I admit I'm ignorant on item one, agree with you on the second, but the third .... the "Ems telegram" of 1870 was a deliberate provocation and Napoleon III falling for it and declaring war is only half the story.

My opinion of Chuchill is mostly based on reading his own books and some other ones by Roskill and other naval historians.
Definetly not a nice man but the right man for Britain at a critical time and a great man, leader and key figure of the XX century however you look at it.

On the other hand the British showing him the door in the 1945 elections is one of the things that makes me believe in democracy

.

Kruska · #**112** (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiredOldSoldier

I admit I'm ignorant on item one, agree with you on the second, but the third .... the "Ems telegram" of 1870 was a deliberate provocation and Napoleon III falling for it and declaring war is only half the story.........

Hello T.O.S.,

That Bismarck tricked Napoleon III via the Ems telegram is true, however both sides played their multiple tricks via. diplomatic matches were sometimes Nap.III almost got "his" way - but in the end Bismarck prevailed as the more cunning politican.

These two gentleman Bismarck and Churchill were both masters in diplomacy and cunningness in order to make their beloved country emerge as the winner.

Regards
Kruska

Kruska · #**113** (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhs

I truly wish I could raise a subject that so many members would want to discuss and in such depth......rhs

Hello rhs,

come on that is about the easiest thing don't you think so? especially the banning part at the end

Example:

1. (a real killer) Monty was just lucky
2. (second to none) Hitler did not want war

I have seen these discussions many times and I would be willing to offer guarantees

Oh well, nothing to do with the thread Churchill. Mods please feel free to remove this post

Regards
Kruska

rhs · #**114** (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 10:21 PM

Kruska,I admit when I saw the first post I thought it was prime Troll material, but the many members who have posted here have made this an incredibly interesting thread.
For the first time I have seen posters from all over the world give their views and opinions which show Churchill in a different light for various reasons. I may not agree or understand their reasoning but I will not reject their ideas outright.
My favourite subject, but not very well read on, is how the smaller nations caught between Germany and Russia reacted. Some difficult and trajic choices were made.
Back on track. I have no wish to stir the pot or get banned but a really cracking , well thought out thread to my name would be a feather in my cap.
Your academic sparring with RedCoat has given me much food for thought. Its why I like this forum

regards rhs.

Kruska · #**115** (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 10:27 PM

Hello rhs,

thanks for the compliments to redcoat (I still think he is English)

and me and the others who contibuted so far in keeping this thread from being closed.

Regards
Kruska

Drucius · #**116** (**permalink**) July 14th, 2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

BTW I am desperatly trying to find out, who is Scotlands head of state?? Maybe you can kindly help me out on this one?

Queen Elizabeth. The First Minister is Alex Salmond.

She's only an eighth German, you know.

redcoat · #**117** (**permalink**) July 14th, 2009, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hello redcoat, hmm.. redcoat sound English to me not British

I could be both, or I could just be British

Quote:

My friend I think you are somewhat overslept, I didn't write "Belgium get themselves", but: Why should GB because solely of Belgium get themseves

Why should GB "just because of Belgium"- therefore Belgium being the "sole" reason - So, why should GB because solely of Belgium get themselves..... It is obvious that the themselves applies to GB and not to Belgium.

If you write ' Belgium get themselves' this implies in English that the problem that the Belgians found themselves in was of their own making. I don't really think that being invaded, just because it suited Prussia's war plans, can be classed as 'their fault'.

Quote:

Allright redcoat since you are English upps.. sorry British I will help you on that one.

Believe it or not, a very good old friend of mine is from Bristol, even though he demonstrates the upper lip of the Toris he is actually a Scottsman well educated even though he sometimes shows up in his Kilt.

Now we and some other British friends of us had many many memorable discussions next to his lovely open fireplace about the causes for WWI.

One day he presented us a book published in 1900 (unfortunatly I honest to god, do not happen to remember the name of the British author).

Now the author of this book presents his views that in the cause of Britains decision to step out of the "Splendid Isolation" it needs to arrange an alliance. The two countries that are obvious to him to dominate Europe are GB and Germany. He leaves no room for doubt that due to the familial ties of their monarchies and their common enemy "FRANCE" that these two are by birth, logic and foresight natural allies. The impending colonial issues and territorial demands in Europe are by far easier to be resolved by these two as well then by GB or Germany singulary towards France and Russia.
It is understood to him that GB and Germany must work out a diplomatic agreement to proceed in this matter so as to avoid the impending danger of a war that is going to involve the greater half of the European monarchies, thus creating a new napoleonic war of biblical proportions as it has never occured before in Europe's history.
To the author only the alliance of GB, Germany and other minor European monarchies would secure a future stability or reduce a future war in its geograhpical and numerical dimensions.

In the later parts of his book he is giving detailed accounts in regards to cassualties due to the development of weaponary in the artilleristic and infantry weapons field in the event of future wars within the next decade.
The author also points out the unpleasant situation between Russia and GB.

Now after having read this book I was baffeld and had to agree with my friends that indeed this "alliance" would have been the solution.

Now what happened in real history?

As early as 1887 GB tries to undermine Germany's chance of rise by enabeling the Merchandise marks act - yes Gentlemen - Made in Germany is an idea Made in England. Goods from Germany need to be marked so as to be boycotted or taxed in order to rid exportchances for Germany.

Between 1900 and 1901 several diplomatic meetings between GB and G were held. None of them managed to reach an agreement. Due to the stubbornness on both sides in regards to naval and colonial issues. Furthermore Germany was convinced that it could handlle future issues with France or Russia singlehandedly, whilst GB was taking into cosideration that a mutual alliance with either France or Russia could solve its problem.
However neither France nor Russia were willing to agree with GB on terms. GB then looked towards Japan and decided to sign a fleet-pact with Japan - this agreement however set the basis for the Japanese-Russian war and enabled Japan to defeat Russia.

GB now being aware of getting dragged into a war with Russia's ally France agreed to conceed on terms in regards to Egypt and Marocco, as such in order to solve the colonial conflict and thus getting a closer relationship to France the Entente cordiale was signed in 1904.

Now the Marocco crisis is an interesting account. Despite breaking an agreement from 1880 with GB, France occupies Marocco. GB however does not take any actions. German interests in regards to trade and mining consessions are threatend.
Germany sends a small vessel to Agadir and GB threatens Germany if necessary to go to war together with France against Germany.

In order to solve GB's open issues with Russia in regards to Persia and Afghanistan the Treaty of Saint Petersburg was signed in August 1907.
At the same time GB also advises Russia to strengthen their military along the German border. Despite Germany having no interest or never shown interest of a territorial expansion at the time.

Germany in the meantime signed an alliance treaty with Austro-Hungaria.

Russia having been outed from expanding its influence in the Far-East after the Russian-Japanese war and who had conceeded to GB in regards to Central Asia now focused its intension towards the Balkan.

In January 1907 Sir Eyre Crowe -Foreign department notes: Now the only potent power against GB is Germany. Germany is consequently aiming with energetic power to dominate Europe and in the end they will break GB so as to inherit its position.
Despite Germany having no interest or never shown interest of a territorial expansion in the time.

In 1911 the British Chief of Staff promises towards the French CoS that in the event of a war between Germany and France, GB is going to commit six infantry divisions. So already in 1911 GB positions itsself towards Germany without any evidence of a threat from Germany towards GB. At the same time France feels more free to play ball with Germany in the event of disagreements.

So according to this early 20th century author, an alliance between Britain and Prussia was the sensible thing to do, if we couldn't have a policy of 'Splendid Isolation'.
When he wrote that I doubt he would have had much of an argument from his fellow Brits, but something happened to change that, what was it ?
The answer is quite simple. Prussia decided to build a navy that was strong enough to threaten Britain's Royal Navy.
Britain would probably have ignored Prussia's growing industrial might, and she might have looked the other way while Prussia built up her other armed forces, and started to throw her growing power around.
But get all these factors together, Prussia threatening to dominate mainland Europe through military aggression, and industrial muscle, plus a Navy that can challenge Britains command of the Sea, and Britain will not stand around and let it happen

Quote:

The rest is history as we know it, so who are the culprits and who are the main culprits who led to WWI??

IMO GB is definatly one of the main culprits.

Regards
Kruska

That Prussian humour is working overtime again.
Prussia had already declared war on France and Russia and invaded two neutral nations before Britain got involved...

redcoat · #**118** (**permalink**) July 14th, 2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hello rhs,

thanks for the compliments to redcoat (I still think he is English)

Kruska

If its any help, I looked in my passport, and my nationality is classed as... British

Kruska · #**119** (**permalink**) July 14th, 2009, 07:06 PM

Sooo.. you actually had to doublecheck on your passport to assure your identity towards your real feelings, interesting

Regards
Kruska

Kruska · #**120** (**permalink**) July 14th, 2009, 07:58 PM

Quote:

But get all these factors together, Prussia threatening to dominate mainland Europe through military aggression ...

redcoat, would you please be so kind as to forward an occasion between 1900 and before 28th July 1914 , were Prussia threatend any country in Europe by military aggression so as to dominate!!

Regarding the armsrace between Europe and Germany "threatening" British and other European army and naval power from 1904 - 1913 in average per/year:

Germany 12.84 Reichsmark per / head of population on the army
UK 12.78 Reichsmark per / head of population on the army

Germany 5.49 Reichsmark per / head of population on the navy
UK 17.20 Reichsmark per / head of population on the navy

The UK spend as much per head as Germany on the army.
The UK spend 3times more per head as Germany on the navy

Germany had to stand up against Russia and France in the case of a war - the spendings per head of those two countries are not even included into the above comparrison.

Now with that kind of numerical military spendings in total favour for the "maybe enemies" of Germany you are actually forwarding that Germany: threatened to dominate mainland Europe through military aggression

Redcoat, so far in our posting dispute Prussia - UK you have absolutly not provided a single proof or document or reference that supports your claims besides forwarding your unsupported personal opinions and trival comments!!

As I stated already before, this posting is getting meaningless and absurd, so if you want to continue come up with documents or reference.

Regards
Kruska

urqh · #**121** (**permalink**) July 15th, 2009, 12:08 AM

so winnie was a belgian fdr a soviet ww2 was caused by the prussian blucher and his black corps and i thought this was about winnie lets go back to 100 trs war though

Drucius · #**122** (**permalink**) July 15th, 2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

Regarding the armsrace between Europe and Germany "threatening" British and other European army and naval power from 1904 - 1913 in average per/year:

Germany 12.84 Reichsmark per / head of population on the army
UK 12.78 Reichsmark per / head of population on the army

Germany 5.49 Reichsmark per / head of population on the navy
UK 17.20 Reichsmark per / head of population on the navy

The UK spend as much per head as Germany on the army.
The UK spend 3times more per head as Germany on the navy

Where are these figures from?

Kruska · #**123** (**permalink**) July 16th, 2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drucius

Where are these figures from?

Why do you ask?

Do you have other figures? if yes I would indeed love to have a look on them.
Those figures are accessible to anyone who will dig into WWI literature.
BTW, almost identical figures can be found "even" in WIKI...

.

Regards
Kruska

macker33 · #**124** (**permalink**) July 17th, 2009, 10:16 AM

The figures are probably good.

redcoat · #**125** (**permalink**) July 17th, 2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kruska

redcoat, would you please be so kind as to forward an occasion between 1900 and before 28th July 1914 , were Prussia threatend any country in Europe by military aggression so as to dominate!!

No actual threats, but Britain did see German dominance of Europe by military aggression as a very real threat. This was not helped by the Haldane Mission of 1912, when British Secretary of State for War Lord Haldane went to Berlin to try to restrain Tirpitz's naval program. In the talks the Germans wanted a conditional promise of British neutrality in a continental war as a price for suspension of the new naval bill.
Tragedy & Hope - Carroll Quigley (Part 5: The First World War: 1914 - 1918)

Quote:

Regarding the armsrace between Europe and Germany "threatening" British and other European army and naval power from 1904 - 1913 in average per/year:

Germany 12.84 Reichsmark per / head of population on the army
UK 12.78 Reichsmark per / head of population on the army

Germany 5.49 Reichsmark per / head of population on the navy
UK 17.20 Reichsmark per / head of population on the navy

The UK spend as much per head as Germany on the army.
The UK spend 3times more per head as Germany on the navy

Germany had to stand up against Russia and France in the case of a war - the spendings per head of those two countries are not even included into the above comparrison.

Now with that kind of numerical military spendings in total favour for the "maybe enemies" of Germany you are actually forwarding that Germany: threatened to dominate mainland Europe through military aggression

These figures are quite meaningless in any comparison, Prussia did not have a vast Empire to police and control, Empires are costly to run (why Britain got rid of their Empire so quickly after WW2) Its also true that Britain went on a massive ship building program in response to Prussia's attempts to build a fleet capable of taking on the Royal Navy.
Lets not forget that the Kaiser himself referred to the British army as that 'contemptible little army' which is understandable when you realise that the British were only able to send six infantry divisions and one cavalry division when war first broke out

Read more: The British Army in 1914: World War One's Professional Fighting Force. | Suite101.com

Quote:

Redcoat, so far in our posting dispute Prussia - UK you have absolutly not provided a single proof or document or reference that supports your claims besides forwarding your unsupported personal opinions and trival comments!!

Seeing another poster has politely asked you for a source for the figures you gave above, and you have refused, don't you think this statement is more than a little hypocritical

Quote:

As I stated already before, this posting is getting meaningless and absurd, so if you want to continue come up with documents or reference.

Go on then, lets see yours.