The Trial of Winston Churchill

Fratton Fred · 20-02-2007 4:17pm #1

Accusations were made about Winston Churchill in another thread and it was suggested he could be the subject of a complete thread, so here goes.

Churchill is probably the most quoted and misquoted politician of the 20th century, for example

"I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes… to create a lively terror"

Those are Churchill’s own words, but not all of them. The full memo actually reads:-

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

Churchill was of course talking about laughing gas.

As for the bombing of Dresden and Churchill being responsible,
The Wikipedia article comes across very balanced, make up your own mind.

I suggest, that like every great person, the greater the man, the more people want to criticise and hence the popular myths that have sprung up regarding his record.

El Stuntman · 20-02-2007 4:29pm

I went to the Churchill Museum/Cabinet War Rooms in London recently

the best museum I have ever been to and a great tribute to a truly great leader

Ice_Box · 20-02-2007 4:43pm

He sent us the black and tans that my gradfather took great pride in shooting at.

MadsL · 21-02-2007 1:01am

Churchill claimed in a speech to the Union Debate, Oxford, that he was against reprisals, he also said that "I do think that something more than perfunctory lip-service is required in condemning the cold-blooded repeated murders of policemen and soldiers by people in plain clothes coming up with a smile on their faces and then shooting them through their jacket." He refused to stop the policy of reprisals until Sinn Fein would "quit murdering and start arguing."

El Stuntman · 21-02-2007 10:13am

Churchill's life should surely be examined in a wider context than some minor civil unrest in an insignificant little backwater of the British Empire post- WW1?

can we not put away our boring little Irish frame of reference and take a look at him from a world perspective?

wes · 21-02-2007 11:25am

El Stuntman wrote:

Churchill's life should surely be examined in a wider context than some minor civil unrest in an insignificant little backwater of the British Empire post- WW1?

can we not put away our boring little Irish frame of reference and take a look at him from a world perspective?

Ah lovely the way you excuse the crap the Brits heaped upon the Irish. They did the same sort of crap the world over, none of it should be ignored.

Zambia · 21-02-2007 11:54am

El Stuntman wrote:

Churchill's life should surely be examined in a wider context than some minor civil unrest in an insignificant little backwater of the British Empire post- WW1?

can we not put away our boring little Irish frame of reference and take a look at him from a world perspective?

I see where your coming from but if a bloke found a cure for all cancer and then killed my Da.

As far as I am concerned he's a Bollix , despite the world loving him.

El Stuntman · 21-02-2007 11:59am

wes wrote:

Ah lovely the way you excuse the crap the Brits heaped upon the Irish. They did the same sort of crap the world over, none of it should be ignored.

I'm not excusing it, I'm making the point that if you are assessing Churchill as a world figure, his contribution to Anglo-Irish history is a very small part of his overall contribution to world history.

do you agree?

wes · 21-02-2007 12:16pm

El Stuntman wrote:

I'm not excusing it, I'm making the point that if you are assessing Churchill as a world figure, his contribution to Anglo-Irish history is a very small part of his overall contribution to world history.

do you agree?

True, but this is boards.ie. Irish history is a big deal for us. So it isn't something that is likely to be ignored nor should it be.

El Stuntman · 21-02-2007 12:28pm

wes wrote:

True, but this is boards.ie. Irish history is a big deal for us. So it isn't something that is likely to be ignored nor should it be.

well I'm glad you agree anyway

FWIW, I would suggest that Churchill is one of the major historical figures of the 20th century (in a positive way, unlike say Hitler or Stalin)

Zambia · 21-02-2007 12:35pm

Ok I do see Stuntmans piont , consider this

If you agree with the following

1: If Britain failed to stop the Nazi invasion Ireland would have been annexed to prevent a landing area for possible US counter Invasion.

2: Churchills leadership was a key factor in the defence of Britain against the Germans

Then it stands to reason churchill also saved Ireland from the only real threat of Invasion in history.

wes · 21-02-2007 12:52pm

Zambia232 wrote:

Ok I do see Stuntmans piont , consider this

If you agree with the following

1: If Britain failed to stop the Nazi invasion Ireland would have been annexed to prevent a landing area for possible US counter Invasion.

2: Churchills leadership was a key factor in the defence of Britain against the Germans

Then it stands to reason churchill also saved Ireland from the only real threat of Invasion in history.

The Brits and American's had plans to invade Ireland during World War 2 as well. Churchill didn't save Ireland, he was saving Britain, it just so happened we were vital to that goal as well. So it was hardly out of the goodness of his heart.

El Stuntman · 21-02-2007 1:04pm

wes wrote:

The Brits and American's had plans to invade Ireland during World War 2 as well. Churchill didn't save Ireland, he was saving Britain, it just so happened we were vital to that goal as well. So it was hardly out of the goodness of his heart.

lol, sounds like a 'what have the English ever done for us?' kind of statement!

so stick your neck out - what's your verdict on Churchill as a historical figure?

Zambia · 21-02-2007 1:04pm

wes wrote:

The Brits and American's had plans to invade Ireland during World War 2 as well. Churchill didn't save Ireland, he was saving Britain, it just so happened we were vital to that goal as well. So it was hardly out of the goodness of his heart.

I am sure it wasn't but by saving Britain he also saved Ireland.

I mean this isnt www.Boards.de is it ?

wes · 21-02-2007 1:13pm

Zambia232 wrote:

I am sure it wasn't but by saving Britain he also saved Ireland.

I mean this isnt www.Boards.de is it ?

Just pointing out that it was more about saving there own skin rather than ours.

The British empire was hardly altruistic. The American's were the ones who insisted on on an end to Colonialism. I am pretty sure the Brits would have loved to have held onto as many of the colonies at the time.

Really the British during World War 2 weren't nice people, just because the Nazi's were a hell of a lot worse doesn't mean they were lovely people trying to spread civilization or whatever there excuse for colonialism was.

El Stuntman · 21-02-2007 1:25pm

wes wrote:

Really the British during World War 2 weren't nice people, just because the Nazi's were a hell of a lot worse doesn't mean they were lovely people trying to spread civilization or whatever there excuse for colonialism was.

wow - just wow :eek:

"thanks for saving Europe from fascist dictatorship and everything - ye bunch of b@stards!!"

test question: how do you feel about God Save the Queen being played at Croke Park this weekend?

seamus · 21-02-2007 1:30pm

The right leader for the right situation.

As a wartime leader for the British, he was bold, strategically intelligent and decisive. In peacetime, he would have been a drunken, oppressive sociopath.

Peaceful, liberal leaders are largely of little use when faced against an invading enemy. They tend to be apologetic, indecisive and (to sound awful) overly humane. Leaders like Churchill have no problem sending thousands to their deaths, or ordering the carpet bombing of an enemy city, potentially killing thousands, if it will gain a strategic advantage for their side.

wes · 21-02-2007 1:35pm

El Stuntman wrote:

wow - just wow :eek:

"thanks for saving Europe from fascist dictatorship and everything - ye bunch of b@stards!!"

test question: how do you feel about God Save the Queen being played at Croke Park this weekend?

They saved Europe sure. They had no trouble screwing over a whole load of people in there colonies and murdered a whole mess of people in there colonies. The British empire were better than the Nazi's and thats about the nicest thing I can say about them.

They liberated Europe and that was a great thing, but that doesn't absolve them of the all the terrible things they done to there many colonies in the Empire. I find it odd you seem to ignore that.

oscarBravo · 21-02-2007 1:44pm

El Stuntman wrote:

test question: how do you feel about God Save the Queen being played at Croke Park this weekend?

Let's get something absolutely clear up front - Churchill was off-topic for the muppetfest Croke Park thread, and Croke Park is off-topic for this thread. Unless I see nothing but on-topic posts like seamus's, this thread will be very short-lived.

csk · 21-02-2007 1:48pm

El Stuntman wrote:

"thanks for saving Europe from fascist dictatorship and everything

Funnily enough I thought if any one should be thanked, it should be the Russians.

can we not put away our boring little Irish frame of reference and take a look at him from a world perspective?

Maybe if we put away our boring anglo-centric frame of reference and take a look at him from a world perspective, then those "insignificant little backwaters" would become important- no ?

While Churchill was a great war time leader for Britain he was no friend of Ireland and was vehemently against Ireland's neutral stance. So you may forgive those of us who don't automatically bow down and worship at his feet.

Akrasia · 21-02-2007 2:13pm

the way we judge people is very interesting from a psychological and sociological perspective.

If someone is a very loving and caring husband and father, volunteers for charity, rescues injured animals and nurses them back to health, and has been devoting his life to finding a cure for alsheimers with a lot of success, most people would consider him to be a good and decent, now lets say this man was all of these things, but also a vicious racist who campaigned tirelessly to keep black people segregated and argues that slavery is alright and has publically stated that if any black man ever touches his daughter, even with his daughters consent, that he will kill him.

how would you judge this man?

now we have churchill. An imperialist a racist and a man with no reservations about ordering carpet bombing of civilian cities in Germany (far before Hitler ever decided to bomb British cities) and responsible for enormous suffering and pain in africa 'for the good of england'

He was a successful military commander and he had a lot of charisma. There are probably lots of positive aspects to his character that I don't know about... are these enough to compensate for his moral failings? Is it possible to redeem a brutal murderer?

Fratton Fred · 21-02-2007 2:41pm

Akrasia wrote:

now we have churchill. An imperialist a racist and a man with no reservations about ordering carpet bombing of civilian cities in Germany (far before Hitler ever decided to bomb British cities) and responsible for enormous suffering and pain in africa 'for the good of england'

He was a successful military commander and he had a lot of charisma. There are probably lots of positive aspects to his character that I don't know about... are these enough to compensate for his moral failings? Is it possible to redeem a brutal murderer?

the carpet bombing of civilian cities is open to debate, other than all cities are civilian. Dresden was an industrial stronghold of the reich, so you could argue it was a viable target. It was also bombed years after the blitz, so I'm ot sure where you go that one from.

Zambia · 21-02-2007 3:34pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

the carpet bombing of civilian cities is open to debate, other than all cities are civilian. Dresden was an industrial stronghold of the reich, so you could argue it was a viable target. It was also bombed years after the blitz, so I'm ot sure where you go that one from.

It was still a nasty thing to do but from what i have read about it it was deemed necessary by Churchills advisors.

I have also just spent some time catching up on Churchill himself . I think if I had to make a call on him i would have to say I'm impressed by the man.

Despite being a racist which lets remember at the time pretty much most people where.

He seemed a true patriot to his country.

He did make no secret of his opinion of Irish neutrality and I wont fault him for that as I think Neutrality is a crock of horse dung anyway.

If we judge everyone in this world by their lowest pionts well i doubt many of us would score high.

Zebra3 · 21-02-2007 7:19pm

Churchill's claims of freedom and democracy are sick when you look at the British Empire and its evil history.

And Britain did not liberate Europe from Nazi tyranny. It was the Soviet Union almost alone that defeated Nazi Germany. And Europe hardly enjoyed freedom when WWII was over.

Zambia · 21-02-2007 8:53pm

Zebra3 wrote:

Churchill's claims of freedom and democracy are sick when you look at the British Empire and its evil history.

And Britain did not liberate Europe from Nazi tyranny. It was the Soviet Union almost alone that defeated Nazi Germany. And Europe hardly enjoyed freedom when WWII was over.

Why did the allies bother with d-Day then ?

Fratton Fred · 21-02-2007 9:23pm

Zebra3 wrote:

Churchill's claims of freedom and democracy are sick when you look at the British Empire and its evil history.

pretty much every country that has had some sort of empire, and a lot that haven't, have an "Evil" past.

Zebra3 wrote:

And Britain did not liberate Europe from Nazi tyranny. It was the Soviet Union almost alone that defeated Nazi Germany. And Europe hardly enjoyed freedom when WWII was over.

errr no. That is an incredibly short sighted post.

Britain did not liberate Europe alone, that's for sure, but the Soviet union had a bit of help along the way. Britain also helped out a bit in North Africa as well.

purple'n'gold · 21-02-2007 11:11pm

From a British perspective, Ireland was not a colony as some of us so fondly like to think. We were part of the United Kingdom. The rest of the United Kingdom took exception to us breaking away, and by the time WW2 occurred they had not really got used to the fact that we were independent. They were initially miffed that we didn’t join in, but when it became obvious that we were neutral to one side only things settled down.

21-02-2007 11:12pm

You're missing something here about WW2. Britain & its immediate allies held up the German war effort for three years before America even started seriously thinking about joining in, and before Russia was invaded. While you might not like British Empire, and what it stood for, German occupation would have been alot worse for all of us. I can't really see the Aryan Brotherhood considering Irish people as being wonderful specimens of their humanity.

Britain served as a focal point for Germany to target for a number of years. They sacrificed alot & nearly bankrupted themselves mostly for their own survival. But we benefited as a side effect.

Against Churchill himself, he approved the bombing of German cities acknowledging the loss of civilian lives that would occur. Regardless of Dresden, the British air comand launched many bombing raids into German cities, at a time when navigating at night was more luck than anything. He knew that there would be many occasions of bombs going astray.

One positive aspect of Churchill was that he saw the threat that the Soviet Union held for all of us, and wanted to continue the war to retake his former allies. He had a sense of old class honor about aiding his allies, and thats a compliment to any politician in my book.

Fratton Fred · 22-02-2007 1:09pm

Deleted User wrote:

One positive aspect of Churchill was that he saw the threat that the Soviet Union held for all of us, and wanted to continue the war to retake his former allies. He had a sense of old class honor about aiding his allies, and thats a compliment to any politician in my book.

If you read the transcripts of the Yalta conference, Churchill fought hard for the former Polish government to be restored (Poland was, after all, the only reason Britain went to war in the first place). Unfortunately, Roosevelt was more concerned with forming the UN, so gave in to a lot of Stalin's demands, including the Soviet Union overseeing elections in Poland.

Roosevelt saw an American presence in Europe as lasting only a few months after the end of the war, but Churchill could see that without the yanks, the Soviet Union could carry on where Hitler left off, so his main objective was keeping the US in Europe and gave in to a lot of Roosevelt's demands. That all led to the strange decisions made by the allies after the war had ended and, I believe, to the repatriation of the Cossacks.

The Yalta conference was one of the biggest factors in European politics for the following 50 years.

csk · 22-02-2007 3:22pm

Deleted User wrote:

You're missing something here about WW2. Britain & its immediate allies held up the German war effort for three years before America even started seriously thinking about joining in, and before Russia was invaded. While you might not like British Empire, and what it stood for, German occupation would have been alot worse for all of us. I can't really see the Aryan Brotherhood considering Irish people as being wonderful specimens of their humanity.

According to wikipedia Operation Barbarossa began on the 22nd June 1941 less than two years after the beginning of WWII (September 1939).

Britain served as a focal point for Germany to target for a number of years. They sacrificed alot & nearly bankrupted themselves mostly for their own survival. But we benefited as a side effect.

While I would not in anyway want to diminish Britain's war effort or their sacrifice, it must be remembered that 44% of all military deaths of WWII were from the Soviet Union and roughly, between civilian and military deaths, 23million Russians died. That's all from the wikipedia article.

Now while they didn't defeat Nazism all on their own, reading through some of the previous posts you would be hard set to know they were involved in the war at all, never mind that it could be argued they actually played the largest part in the defeat of Nazism.

Fratton Fred · 22-02-2007 4:10pm

csk wrote:

According to wikipedia Operation Barbarossa began on the 22nd June 1941 less than two years after the beginning of WWII (September 1939).

While I would not in anyway want to diminish Britain's war effort or their sacrifice, it must be remembered that 44% of all military deaths of WWII were from the Soviet Union and roughly, between civilian and military deaths, 23million Russians died. That's all from the wikipedia article.

Now while they didn't defeat Nazism all on their own, reading through some of the previous posts you would be hard set to know they were involved in the war at all, never mind that it could be argued they actually played the largest part in the defeat of Nazism.

I don't think anyone has downplayed the part of the Soviets in the war, but the posts you refer to were in response to the statement that Britain did not liberate Europe, the Soviet Union did (Althought the term liberate could be subject to debate).

The Soviets lost a lot of people, to the Nazis, to the weather and many executed by their own people.

The Nazi war machiine being bogged down by winter on the eastern front was probably the biggest factor of the war in Europe, but what led them to be still fighting in winter? Hitler and his generals were convinced the Russians would be defeated by then and, possibly, they would have if it wasn;t for the fact a large chunk of Hitlers air force were engaged in bombing Britain, also their were aid convoys sent to Russia, there were German factories bombed from Britain and, importantly, their best general was tied up chasing around north africa trying to oust Montie.

so many factors to consider and yes, the Soviets were a big factor.

The Trial of Winston Churchill

Comments