Churchil was a nutter
Actually, Churchill was in the 100 BEST Britons. Quite rightly in my view. But then what do I know? I only lived through the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. But, I wouldn't expect you accept my opinion.
However, your view of Churchill is based on what exactly?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's interesting as my grand-parent's always hated Churchill. I suggest that you read a few biography's of him. All of them, even those which are biased towards him have quite a few negitive things to say.
Completely disregarding his pre-ww2 history, his wartime failure's were massive. He led the British empire from one defeat to the next. And whilist he can't take the blame for everything (as the higher ranking army, airforce and navy leader's can also be blamed for them) here's a few.
Norway. The distarious failure of the royal navy created a minor scandel in it's day (Churchill was the 1st lord of the admiralty)
Churchill was for attack Russia (which was then allied with germany) to help out the Fin's. Imagine what effect this would of had on the war.
Greece & Crete. A massive waste of both lives and equipment which had been synpthoned off from the western north africa front. The loss of this equipment effectivly lead to a nigh on 3 year battle in north africa. This was based on his "gung ho" style of leadership. The "we must attack them on all fronts" tactics led
to a rout by the massivly outnumbered british force.
Far East. The loss of the Prince of Wales (and the battleship i forget its name) which were the only capitial units of the RN then in the pacific. They were sent by Churchill as a "show of force". He though that this would stop Jap aggression (even though the Jap's outnumbered them 10 to 1) none of his advisor's agreed with this "thinking". (This resulted in the "the british empire has never suffered such a massive defeat". Showing his inability to judge the Japanese as being dangerous foe's on racist grounds.
The almost severing of ties between the Aussies, NZ's and British due to Churchill's wish to keep them in North Africa after the Japanese attacks. This probably lead to Austrialia's pro-US stance after ww2.
The North African field I could probably talk about all day. Suffice to say he constiently forced premature attacks before sufficent forces had been built up amongst other reasons. Churchill was wont to rant and raves against his general's throughout the war. But probably the worst example of this was 2nd El Alamein. An attack on Romel 5 days!!!!! before the America Torch landings.
They attacked by order from Churchill (on political grounds) even though the most sensible thing todo. Was to wait until the American's landed. The German's would of been forced to withdraw and we could of swept them up in the net so to speak. 2nd El Alamein was a distaster in both lives and equipment (they lost 60% of there tank force in this battle, a loss of 3 for 1 versus the Germans) all thrown away for a gain that they would of received anyway 5 days later.
Read a few biography's. The overriding presence of the domination of Churchill's "orders/ threats" appears in nearly every biography of every senior british general ever published. Nobody liked him or his absolutist style of leadership.
I can name a lot more if you like.
Last edited by A Civilian; 28th Aug 2002 at 22:27.