100 WORST Britons - according to the Daily Mail

[InFinRetirement]

Field Marshal Earl Haig...Responsible for the needless death of countless British Tommies in World War 1

True. But also responsible for the death of over 20,000 in ONE day - on 1st July 1916 on the Somme! Over 450,000 casualties while under his command!!

Bomber Harris...For the bombing of Dresden in 1945.

Not true. Churchill ordered it - at the behest of one Joseph Stalin.

Oliver Cromwell...Power-hungry hypocrite who claimed everything he did was ordained by God

Nothing has change in Parliament then.

There were many more. Just picked two or three from a Mil standpoint.

[Gainesy]

Was Johnny Rotten on it?

[thom]

Or Neil Kinnock??

[rivetjoint]

Or our "friends" Admin Guru or WEBF :)

[InFinRetirement]

:D None of the above!

[BEagle]

Was The Scottish Officer featured?

[Scud-U-Like]

Haig - Agree. Some would argue he was just doing his best, according to the rules of war at the time. But his war of attrition resulted in enormous numbers of British casualties, partly because of his wish to keep his offensives all-British affairs, instead of waiting for support from French and US forces.

Harris - Disagree. I think a WW2 Lancaster crew member summed it up very succinctly:

"If you couldn't get the German in his factory, it was just as easy to knock him off in his bed. And if old Granny Schiklegruber next door got the chop, that's just hard luck."

Cromwell - Disagree - Not quite as bad as Charles I, who claimed to rule by divine right.

[kbf1]

Tony B Liar multiplied by 100

[L J R]

I vote for the chap who short changed me at least ten quid in a bar in Oxford last weekend -- tosser.....

I will resist the temptation to name the establishment in this forum.




.

[mutleyfour]

Prince Edward (Current one) must have been on the list!

Or maybe he was on the "100 Britons who squeezed as much out of his position as possible!!!"

:p ;)

[BlueEagle]

The Duke of Cumberland (the one that ravaged Scotland).

[InFinRetirement]

mutleyfour

Prince Edward is in the list.

Lynda Lee Potter said the following

PRINCE EDWARD....Frequently exploits his family with a penchant for blaming minions

[maninblack]

I take it that The Mail didn't include the forces sweetheart, Mrs. Thatcher, who presided over:
The wholesale destruction of the army medical services.
The closure of the military hospitals.
The introduction of a series of kit issues that rendered a servicemans life in the field more painful and dangerous.
A "morale boosting" payrise that gave servicemen about 3%, over 18 months when inflation was running in excess of that.

I never did understand why most people in the forces supported her when she so royally shafted all three services in succession.

[A Civilian]

There has to be a entry for Churchil. A monumental ***ked up person if there ever was one. The first to take the credit for suscess and the last to take the blame.

And with a massive belief in his own abilities and insights which lead us to defeat after defeat in WW2. No wonder he was snozzled every hour of every day of his life.

[InFinRetirement]

A Civilian

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?

[A Civilian]

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.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

A Civillan

Lets take a look at some of your points, shell we?

"Completely disregarding his pre-ww2 history, his wartime failure's were massive. He led the British empire from one defeat to the next."

Perhaps you might not have considered that for the first few years of the war, the allies were losing the war, due to the combination of blitzkreig and the strength of the axis forces. This is the main reason the allies may have appeared to lurch from one disaster to another.

"Norway. The distarious failure of the royal navy created a minor scandel in it's day (Churchill was the 1st lord of the admiralty)"

Indeed he was First Lord of the Admiralty. The key mistake Britain made was not to act fast enough. Churchill realised the strategic importance of Norway, to deny bases for U boats, surface raiders and aircraft, and to cut of supplies of Scandinavian iron ore for the German war machine. The Germans realied its importance too - and acted first.

"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."

At the time Russia was on Germany's side, remember? If Hitler had not attacked Russia then they would proably have still been allies. At the Red Army had suffered from Stalin's purges, and was ill equipped.

"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."

I thought the Greek campaign was due to strategic reasons, principally access (maintaining it ourselves and denying it to the Germans) to oil from the Middle East. Crete was captured by German airborne troops after a seaborne invasion was thwarted by the RN. As for attacking them on all fronts, you might consider that fighting on several fronts simultaneously is what put an end to the third reich.

"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 other capital ship you are thinking of was the Battlecruiser
Repulse. This was force Z. Force Z was destroyed by very heavy air attacks by Japanese aircraft. Force Z had sailed without a carrier. Whether a carrier, and her fighters, could have saved Force Z is something we will never know. Incidently a (fairly) reason programme on Channel 4 covered the loss of Singapore in some detail. The main culprit (according to the programme)? The commander in Singapore. It wasn't just Churchill who dismissed the potential of the Japanese, in fact there is little evidence to suggest he did. But many people of that time were dismissive of the Japs - for racial reasons. Certainly the Singapore commander was.

I canit be bothered to comment on your other comments but consider this......

When Churchill entered No10 we had almost lost the war. The speed and ferocity of Blitzkreig, the superiority of Axis forces and the state of our defences (neglected in the 20s and 30s) brought us close to defeat. The Battle of France was lost as the French Army collapsed. The BEF fell back to the French coast, centred around Dunkirk. Britain was defeated.

But when the BEF was evacuated, Churchill managed to turn this into a moral victory. And this, in my opinion, was what made him such a great leader. He INSPIRED people, to banish ideas of defeat or a shameful capitulation from their minds, and to fight on.
Could Britain have survived 1940 without his leadership? I don't think so. Later he was instrumental in gaining more and more insistance from the USA until they entered the war. When they did he played a major part in getting the Americans to concentrate on the European (and Atlantic) theatre before the Pacific.

He made some mistakes, yes, but could anyone else have taken his place in 1940?

Churchill had imense leadership, character, courage, determination, tenacity and vision. For these reasons he will always be a great hero, the greatest of horoes, to me, and to very many others, particularly those of us with true blue British blood to whom patriotism isn't just a concept but a real emotion.

Churchill was not only Britain's saviour in the war years, he was also, IMHO, the epitome of Britain and what to be British means.

[BlueEagle]

If the spelling wasn't so bad, (English not your first language, is it A Civilian ? ), I would say we had just found Moritz Suter!

[Jackonicko]

While I deplore A Civilian's language and appalling spelling, he's dead right on Norway, the attitude to Stalin, etc. and ignores Churchill's appalling record between the wars (his attitude to the Unions, the General Strike) and the Dardanelles and Gallipoli in WWI. Massive achievements, for sure, but accompanied by massive failings - perhaps Churchill should be on BOTH lists, bad and good.

[SixOfTheBest]

I can't believe that certain peeps would even consider placing one of GREAT Britains GREATEST heroes on the WORST list! Notwithstanding the fact that some of his decisions were suspect, WE WON! Let us not forget that, as Beags rightly puts, he effectively snapped victory from the proverbial. In my opinion (and I daresay i'm probably not alone on this one), without the great times-reading-cigar-smoking-charismatic-yet-doesn't-mince-his-words Mr Churchill, we would probably be all wearing black garb and goose-stepping about the place shouting in annoyingly edgy visigoth/hun accents. Too frequently, we allow poor decisions (in this case, the minority) to tarnish great ones (in this case, to not accept defeat). I can think of a few worst Britains:

Liam Gallagher (and his T!at brother)

Ken Dodd

Wrotter

The Krankies

Lemmon Drop Kid

[Talking Radalt]

Is that purveyor of hard hitting, thought provoking, quality print-journalism Piers "I've got beady eyes and crinkly hair" Morgan on the list?:(

Or did they just put "Piers Morgan, sensationalist trouble maker and tit merchant"?:p

Or better still, "Piers Morgan, sensationalist band-wagoneer and tit":D

[A Civilian]

I don't want to start a massive WW2 tactics thread so im not going to reply WE Branch Fanatic to your post on that.

Suffice to say that many people think that just because Churchill was the sitting PM during WW2 then that automatically mean's that he was a hero. And tend not to want to know the details of WW2 itself and Churchill's part in it.

Churchill was certainly charismatic and had an almost unnatural way with words unlike myself as many ppl have pointed out :)
Some people say that we WON WW2. I'd more acturatly state that we were on the winning side :( Certainly the fall of France was not his fault (i think he became PM on the very day the Germans invaded) yet the subsequent stratigic decisions that he directed and were implemented by his general staff where almost all distarious undertaking's.

That we would all be wearing swastica's now if not for his "leadership" is suspect. Germany could never of invade the UK due to our naval strength even if our airforce had of been destroyed in the BoB. If America hadn't of been attacked by Japan we would of certainly been forced to sue for peace in early 1942. Our Bank of England was broke. And we lacked suficent ships to force the u-boat blockade withoutneutral countries shipping construction. The Alliance between Japan and Germany was certainly fragil. They were on the other side of the planet from each other, they could not come to each other's aid. And it is just pure luck that Germany declared war on America nothing more.

DUNKIRK WAS NOT A VICTORY. Just because we rescued 250,000 men does not make it a good thing. Most of these men were subsequently captured in north africa or at Singapour. Where these victories? People always state things like Dunkirk and 2nd El Alamine as being great victories THEY WERE NOT given surrounding events in the world.

Ask a German about WW2 and they will imeditaly talk about the great battles on the eastern front against the Russians. The North African and other western battles our barely remembered today. We simply had little effect on the german military machine. And who's order's were we under at that time?

All of Churchill's bluster and "fighting spirit" led to nothing but body bag's in defeat after defeat. Like I said perhaps ppl should read a few biograph's or general histories about Churchill before you decide to equalate him with some sort of great war hero.

[Biggus]

A Civilian

If, as you say, you leave in spelling mistakes to annoy people, let me congratulate you on your success. Unfortunately a large number of your errors are grammatical, making your text painful to read, and diluting your point. Still if you want to sabotage your own efforts....

[ORAC]

Being a great leader does not necessarily mean being a great general. I would like to make a comparison in the case of Churchill with George Washington, in view of his lineage I hope the Americans among us will not be offended.

Washington - Statesman:

As the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army the services and achievements of George Washington are unique in the world's history. He was much more than the Commander in Chief. He was the one necessary person, whose calm, unswerving, determined sense of patriotic duty to country, and ability put real backbone into the Revolution and kept it from collapsing or merging into a civil conflict, under the hardships and unexpected privations encountered during the eight years of war. Without General Washington at its head it could never have succeeded. His faith in the cause and his devotion to the ideals it embodied made him the symbol of America -- the spirit of the Revolution.

Washington - General:

While Washington was in overall command of the entire American war effort, simple logistics and the limitations of that era prevented him from personally managing the course of events in all the colonies. Consequently, he was in direct command of American troops in only a few battles of the Revolutionary War. He lost most of them. In fact, among the consequences of Washington being driven from the battlefield were the losses of America's most populous city (New York) and her capital (Philadelphia). Then and now, critics point to these sobering facts as a reminder of Washington's failures as a military commander. They go further, arguing that even his successes were relatively small-scale affairs (Trenton and Princeton) and resulted from the overconfidence or incompetence of his enemies as opposed to any brilliance on his own part. And they point to Yorktown, the crowning achievement of the American Revolution, as the best evidence that America could not have won the war without French assistance.

----------------------------------------

So I would rate both Churchill and Washington as being great leaders, but lousy generals. The two not being mutually exclusive

[A Civilian]

My posts have bad grammer and spelling because a) im in a rush to write them. B) because I don't have a spell checker on my PC and it takes to long to use internet ones. And c) because i have Dyslexia.

Some people belive that a post is worth reading only if it is has perfect spelling and grammer. Other's belive that a post is worth reading if it transfer's the author's intended opinion. The former people generally don't go very far in life.

[Fay Deck]

A Civilian,

I hope you are merely trying to provoke a response by your posts. However, it is good to see that with the benefit of decades of hindsight you are able to see the mistakes that Churchill made. Unfortunately for poor old Winnie, he had to react in real time. Anybody can be wise after the event and those that refuse to display any humility whatsoever when berating others' genuine efforts are beneath contempt.
You sound to me like a frustrated pseudo-intellectual who, having found an audience, is desparate to blurt out their ill considered tripe. ( The raving nutter to be found in every town centre springs to mind.)
Reference your last post:

a. Don't be in such a rush to write. Attempt to gather your thoughts into a coherent argument and write them down in slow time.

b. No comment.

c. You cant be dyslexic because if you were you wouldn't have spelt dyslexia correctly!

Now be a good chap and P*SS OFF.

Fay

[InFinRetirement]

A Civilian is entitled to his opinion, even though he expresses himself badly, and dyslexia is not to be laughed at.

However, 338,226 souls were taken off at Dunkirk, not 250,00, and while not a victory in the truest sense it was a victory over adversity.

ORAC, as usual, expresses himself well and sums up the issue very well too. A point that A Civilian seems reluctant to concede or just will not recognise.

In all battles, in all wars, in all of history you have to have ONE single element above all others. Not Generals, not Commanders but LEADERS. Churchill was a great leader and that sums up his part in winning the war. Leaders tell the commanders what they want, if they can't produce it they get fired. It happened to many such commanders at the hands of Churchill.

[Scud-U-Like]

Churchill was undoubtedly a flawed man. For example, had Dowding not stood his ground against Churchill, there wouldn't have been a Battle of Britain, because we wouldn't have had any fighters left. Dowding's reward? The chop.

What goes around comes around, however, and Churchill himself was chopped by the British electorate after the War.

Above all, he successfully led Britain through the War and inspired courage in a nation sometimes teetering on the edge of defeat.

He was no saint and those who treat him as such are missing the point. He was a man who thrived on controversy and would have enjoyed the cut and thrust of this thread.

I don't think anyone in this thread has spoken out of turn, except the school bully element, of whom Churchill would most definitely have disapproved.

[andrewc]

A Civilian

While it is fair enough to knock Churchill on a number of areas
where he took direct control of British military policy,

- the commitment of POW & Repulse to Singapore without
a carrier escort,

- the involvement in Greece which turned a won position
in North Africa against the Italians into another two years
of hard fighting,

On the other hand the Norway campaign could be viewed as
a pyrric victory for the Germans...their navy lost 50% of its
destroyer strength and two major surface combatants - which
made Sealion improbable. While the Allies gained the Norwegian
shipping fleet which made a significant difference to the
Battle of the Atlantic.

As for Churchill pressing attacks in the desert, a lot of that
has to be due to him reading Ultra reports with Rommel saying
the Africa Korps had only ten running tanks, while his theatre
generals are telling him the Germans have hundreds of AFV's
so they can't attack...you can see his point of view!

If you compare him with Stalin / Hitler, both made a far worse
hash of leading their country in wartime.

I'll go with Scud-u-Like the right leader for the time but
not a military genius,

-- Andrew

[henry crun]

A Civilian, some of the things you say about Churchill are undoubtably true, but at the time of his assuming the premiership was there a better candidate ?

The foreign secretary, Halifax, was favoured but he was a defeatist and an appeaser who actively conspired to make peace with Hitler. If he had achieved his aims you can bet your bottom dollar that it would have been on Hitler's terms.

Even after Churchill's "we shall never surrender" speech, Halifax, aided by others in the FO, was indicating to the Germans that peace proposals would be made.

The world would be a very different place if Churchill had not taken the reins of power because, as In Fin put it, he provided leadership when it was so desperately needed.

[InFinRetirement]

Scud! You are dead right about Dowding and Churchill, and it is slightly miffing that Churchill took the credit. But nonethless his leadership took it through.

The rest of your post! Exactly on the money.

[A Civilian]

Fay Deck

Wow. You almost caught me out with your subtle wordplay. Perhaps you should go join the police. Your ability to outthink people would certainly be respected.

Im not merely trying to provoke a response by my posts. Yes anyone can be wise after the event, but this is not the point im making. The point was does "Churchill deserve to be on the list of the top 100 Brition's" to do that you have to judge Churchill on his record and not on a stupid school boy notion of his greatness simply due to his "win" in WW2. IMHO it's common for British people to self-decive themselves regarding W.C. His mistakes were legion, was renowned for giving stand and die order's and often complained that sometimes "we did not suffered enough casualties" during battles. These same attributes are often quoted as being amongst the given reason's for Hitler's madness.

That he was determined to beat Hitler is one of his strongest positive points but he completely failed to do so in this regard. Because of this, and because of his prior record in government I certainly don't regard Churchill as being in the best one hundred.
That he was perhaps the right leader from 1940-41 during our time of retret, maybe. Was he the right leader afterwards I do not think so.

[Aerodyne.]

What about adding two fine young British artists to the pantheon
of the worst 100:
Tracey Emin- Purveyor of 'pish' stained bed sheets.
Damien Hirst-Beef & wet fish dispoiler.


P.S. Almost forgot !,i would like to have seen Leonard Cheshire
and Gareth Edwards listed amongst the top 100 Britons.

[InFinRetirement]

Aerodyne.

Leonard Cheshire WAS among the top 100 Britons.

Don't think Gareth was though.

A CivilianHis mistakes were legion, was renowned for giving stand and die order's and often complained that sometimes "we did not suffered enough casualties" during battles.

His mistakes were legion! Where did you dig that up from? Certainly Hitler gave those orders that every man must die and NOT retreat vis a vie Stalingrad, Bastogne, Normandy, Caen and many other theatres of war - but where and when did Churchill do the same?

Now don't start stretching the imagination. Remember your Dunkirk figures, which were hugely wrong.

[A Civilian]

>>>>Remember your Dunkirk figures, which were hugely wrong.

Technically around 100,000 of those 350,000ish were French & some Belgians who were then re-landed back into France before the French surrender and subsequently became POW's

"we did not suffered enough casualties" is a direct quote from Churchill about a battle during the north african war. It was repeated by Alan Brook WC's Chief of staff if I remember correctly (i cant remeber excatly). This is a different quote from Alan Brooks diaries

"Churchill] has only got half the picture in his mind, talks absurdities and makes my blood boil to listen to his nonsense. I find it hard to remain civil. And the wonderful thing is that 3/4 of the population of this world imagine that Winston Churchill is one of the Strategists of History, a second Marlborough, and the other 1/4 have no conception what a public menace he is and has been throughout the war! It is far better that the world should never know and never suspect the feet of clay on that otherwise superhuman being. Without him England was lost for a certainty, with him England has been on the verge of disaster time and again ... Never have I admired and despised a man simultaneously to the same extent."


Churchill like Stalin and Hitler did not like to give an inch of ground. During 1st Torbuk it was under his advice that it would be turned into a fortress. At 2nd Torbuk even though it had been decided mot to repeat the fortress idea he changed his mind just before the germans attacked and resulted in substantional losses in men and equipment. Not only in Torbuk but in the supporting forces that had to keep the lines of communications open. Churchill was not a beliver in tactical retreat when the situation demanded it. The african army was often forced to fight battles that would of better been fought at different locations.

[Toddington Ted]

One quote that I heard recently regarding Churchill was that, regarding appeasement amongst the countries of Europe when trying to come to terms with Hitler, he said "Each one feeds the crocodile, hoping that the crocodile will eat him last" There is no doubt that, without his leadership we, as a nation, would have been "eaten" eventually.

Turning to others who could have been on the list, among the 100 worst people in Britain I would place Doctor Beeching, who electrocuted the railways instead of electrifying them. Thanks to short sightednness by him,and successive Govts, the West Coast Main Line will be closed for months with very few alternative routes left, as he had them all dismantled.

Among the 100 best I would place Isambard Kingdom Brunel, George Jackson Churchward (Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Great Western Railway from 1902 until the 1920s) and the late Dai Woodham of Barry Scrapyard, South Wales, who never got round to cutting up 213 steam locomotives, thereby allowing idiots like me to buy one for restoration.

Oh yes, that chap Mitchell, who designed something called the Spitfire....: :D

[InFinRetirement]

TT. Brunel IS on the 100 best Britons list. Mitchell and your others are not. Bader is though - him of Spitfire fame - it says.

Here is a list of them as published by the Daily Mail and taken from Google.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,4949114%255E13780,00.html

[canberra]

what a lot of people dont know about washington is that he was an officer in the british army. he was the commander when the british army suffered its only defeat at the hands of native americans. on the subject of churchill, yes he was flawed(apart from aircrew arent we all?) but as they say"come the hour cometh the man". i was annoyed that bill slim and tom finney werent on the hundred greatest britons list.

[Kiting for Boys]

Clearly a nutter - he liked Dundee

Churchill was MP for Dundee (1908-1922)

Served with the Grenadiers until the new year (1916) when he was appointed Colonel of the Sixth Batallion Royal Scots Fusiliers serving in the line in Flanders

More Scotish PMs
(Blair - born and educated in Scotland
Campbell-Bannerman, Douglas Home, eh that's it....)