[Closed] History advice - Churchill

dunno the true historical accuracy of it but Churchill the wilderness years (1928-39) appears to be on youtube in it's entirety.

As a listen rather than a read - Churchill created a lot of the myths about Churchill - you maybe learn a lot about him by looking at Frederick Linderman instead

Not BoJo’s - apparently it’s full of errors. What a surprise.

Podcast downloaded and I'll have a look at You Tube too. Thanks.

If anyone has book suggestions please I'd be grateful.

Roy Jenkins 'Churchill' will be what you are after. It is superb and will provide a timely lesson in the 20th century political journey.

linky

Thank you Vader. Sounds like exactly what I am after..

Edit - ordered the book!

@maccruisekeen thanks - excellent podcast. Are those podcasts all of a similar ilk?

Are those podcasts all of a similar ilk?

Similar but not all as good as that one (I suppose how much you like an episode depends on your interest in the subject mater really) - the one by him called 'The Basement Tapes' is a really, really good listen though.

you maybe learn a lot about him by looking at Frederick Linderman instead

While I'm no fan of Churchill, (or Lindermann for that matter) to lay the blame of the Burma Famine as heavily at their feet as that podcast does, does revisionist history no service. While it does mention that Burma had been invaded, there was a natural disaster, and there was a scorched earth policy which was bad enough, it fails to mention that by 1943 each province fearing the effects of the famine, was hastily banning transfers of food, the India Govt had set up a "class system" of need in order to ration food (you can guess I'm sure, that the bottom of the heap got the least help) and secondly were in denial themselves about the urgency and depth of the crisis.

In short, Lindermann and Churchill certainly didn't help, but they weren't (by any means) the pair responsible for it continuing as ferociously as it did

There is no such thing as a "natural" disaster. Disasters are socio-technical constructs.

https://www.nonaturaldisasters.com/

There is no such thing as a “natural” disaster. Disasters are socio-technical constructs.

Apologies, you're of course correct. The storm surge that destroyed a good part of Bengal's farmland and inundated the land in a 20ft wave was terrible but only partly to blame for the famine that followed which was almost entirely avoidable

So Churchill is kinda the Nicolas Cage of 20th century politics. His best work (rallying the public to fight the Nazis) was pretty impressive, but his worst was pretty hard to overlook too.

His best work (rallying the public to fight the Nazis)

I think, if you're talking about the war effort to defeat the Nazis you really have to channel your inner Churchill and go full on "Narzee"...Any clue as to why it continually pronounced it like that?

Churchill has become a myth, he was without doubt a racist, a man who loved the Empire and stood on anything that challenged it.
He was a dreadful military strategist with an obsession for the "soft under belly of Europe" and Gallipoli, he had no faith in the British Army.

He was a brave and stubborn individual and his service in WW1 proved this, his stubborn approach in WW2 was based on the fact that he thought the US would ride to the rescue and they did.

He changed the course of history, but not in a measured way, he was at best the right character in the right place at the right time. All the other stuff is a built myth.

Eisenhowr had the measure of him and used him to his and the Allies advantage on many occasions. His book Crusade in Europe is a good counterpoint although its of its time.

Also worth reading Dunkirk Fight to the last Man by Hugh Sebag Montiforie, provides the military chaos behind the politics at the time. This is what the UK gov was facing during those few weeks.

Reading lost 🙂
The Audit of War - Corelli Barnet (a right wing Tory MP) his book might surprise you.

The Poor Bloody Infantry - the grim reality of the British Army in WW2

The above ptovide a fairly concise view of the social, economic, political reality that faced Churchill and some of the actions he took.

His best work (rallying the public to fight the Nazis) was pretty impressive

Seems to be the common view now but I'd say arguable. the electorate when asked in 1945 took a different view on who should lead the country.

Churchill and go full on “Narzee”

It may be a more accurate pronunciation - 'Nazi' isn't the name Hitler chose for his movement - its a nickname coined by his opponents - "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte" NA tionalso ZI alistische - the 'Na' and the 'Zi' were combined as a slur  "The term "Nazi" was in use before the rise of the NSDAP as a colloquial and derogatory word for a backwards farmer or peasant, characterising an awkward and clumsy person"

The Audit of War – Corelli Barnet (a right wing* Tory MP) his book might surprise you

It probably won't. It's a ****ing terrible book full to the brim of the sort of declinist nonsense that's having to be re-written now. His technical knowledge/understanding about the various tactics, equipment and operational command are especially risible. Worth a read if only to understand why the study of the History of the UK and it's war need to be de-tangled from the myths and legends of both the nonsense of the "we stood alone against the Nazis" and equally "We hung on by our fingertips until the Americans and Russians joined in"

*putting it mildly

Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

is as good a summary as I've read anywhere.

As a listen rather than a read – Churchill created a lot of the myths about Churchill – you maybe learn a lot about him by looking at Frederick Linderman instead

Really interesting, thanks - I'll have a scout through some of the others. Great shout! 🙂

Seems to be the common view now but I’d say arguable. the electorate when asked in 1945 took a different view on who should lead the country.

Being a peacetime leader is a different thing to being a wartime leader. What Churchill did was to inspire Britain to keep fighting at a time when things looked pretty grim. I don't disagree with the criticisms of his strategic ability, but none of the wartime leaders actually seemed to be strategic geniuses. I remember reading a somethingion of the Allied war effort along the lines of, "A series of disasters culminating in victory." Overall, the Allies had a huge advantage in industrial capacity, so Axis defeat was basically inevitable once America joined in, regardless of strategy.

criticisms of his strategic ability, but none of the wartime leaders actually seemed to be strategic geniuses.

But at least they had the common sense to get out of the way of the folks that did. A lesson "The corporal" never learned

I'd also disagree with the view of the allied war as "a series of disasters" From the Battle of Britain that essentially ended the use of the Luftwaffe as an offensive weapon over the western front and at El Alamein and Malta onwards the allies never lost another significant battle against the Axis. The Germans may have hung on longer than was sensible in some places, but they never seriously threatened as they had done in 39/40. Again it's one of the myths about the Allied war effort that needs serious rethink in this country. We won because once we got seriously going at it, we and our allies had better tactics, weaponry, equipment, logistics, operational control, morale, and training. We were better at war fighting than a country lead by a moron and staffed by sycophants busy spending a good deal of their country's wealth of killing a sizable proportion of it's own citizenry...who'd have thought, eh?

And more controversially perhaps, even if the Americans hadn't joined in fighting, we still would've won. and perhaps even more controversially still today, in the early 1940's Churchill knew that was a racing certainty as well.

That to me; is Churchill's legacy. (I'm still not a fan of the man)

And more controversially perhaps, even if the Americans hadn’t joined in fighting, we still would’ve won.

I hope you include the Russians in "we". Why didn't Hitler invade Britain? Mainly because Stalin was more and more of a threat in the east. Cynics such as me suspect the Yanks only "joined in fighting" when they realised that Europe was about to become communist if they didn't. The race for Berlin began.

EDit: the most objective and interesting sources I've read were junior's history books when he was in Lycée and my Polish father-in-laws book collection - he spent WWII on the run in Europe eventually being demobbed with the Brits in Italy and returning to the UK as he'd have been killed by the soviets if he'd returned to Poland, his father died after after five years in a soviet prison as he had been in the Polish military.

I hope you include the Russians in “we”. Why didn’t Hitler invade Britain? Mainly because Stalin was more and more of a threat in the east.

If you read his post he says "we and our allies". Also Hitler didn't invade for various reasons, but mainly due to the fact the Germans didn't have air superiority so a crossing would have been far too risky given the strength of both the RAF and Royal Navy. Also he had no real gripe with Britain and hoped we would just stay out of things.

I hope you include the Russians in “we”.

You can if you want, if they'd remained neutral, (as per the pact, not that I think for a minute Hitler had ever thought he would abide by it) we still would've won. Certainly invading Russia shortened the war and made it easier.

Why didn’t Hitler invade Britain?

2 things mainly, Thing 1. His forces didn't have the equipment, training, resources, military strength, logistics or supply capability to mount an invasion, and Thing 2. The Navy.

suspect the Yanks only “joined in fighting” when they realised that Europe was about to become communist if they didn’t

I don't think there's much evidence is there?  On the other hand, there's much evidence that Roosevelt and Churchill had a good relationship and were aligned in their thinking and anxiety to defeat Fascism.

I did read his post and that's a straight non-doctored quote. Here's another one

Again it’s one of the myths about the Allied war effort that needs serious rethink in this country. We won because once we got seriously going at it, we and our allies

He recognises that Britian got seriously going once it had allies. All the serious getting going was done with the Americans. Before that it was a damage limitation excercise retreat to an island and then fending off the Gemrmans till they realised the Russians were causing them more trouble.

It does amuse me when someone jumps in to interpret someone else's post to attack me, I'm confident nickc is capable of speaking for himself, he's good at it.

Jenkins's biography is generally regarded as one of the best single volume ones. Andrew Roberts published a very well reviewed one a couple of years ago. The definitive biography is by Martin Gilbert but that runs to six volumes.

It does amuse me when someone jumps in to interpret someone else’s post to attack me,

Please don't accuse me of attacking you. You questioned his use of "we". I simply pointed out he had in fact said "we and our allies". It does amuse me when......etc

the Gemrmans till they realised the Russians were causing them more trouble.

The Russians weren't causing them more trouble. The Russians were doing nothing. Hitler attacked the Russians for various reasons but mainly because he wanted their oil fields. Until then the Russians were no threat to him.

supernova
Full Member

Not BoJo’s – apparently it’s full of errors. What a surprise.

Nah, they're not errors. It's just written about Johnston's imaginary Churchill, rather than the real one. The one that Johnston thinks "What would you do in this situation, fantasy Churchill? Exactly what I want to do? Great! I am so damn Churchillian".

FFs read the quote in my post and don't modify it, Kenyp, he didn't say what you claim in that paragraph and you're distorting it, just like the vast majority of British commentators on WWII history, keep eating up the nationaistic dross, cheering Dunkirk spirit and voting Brexit (not you, nickc, I know you voted remain and I'm quite happy to debate with you, I'm taking exception to Kennyp distorting it)

Edit: and a view on Churchill, judged by the values of his times he did well. Judged by today's values he suffers the Eric Clapton syndrome. Clapton was/is a great guitarist and Churchill was a great politician and whichever way you look at it without him many of you would never have been born, I wouldn't.

He recognises that Britian got seriously going once it had allies.

I'll clarify. If you look at the resources that Britain and Germany could bring to bear at the start of the war, Britain dwarfs those of Nazi Germany by an order of magnitude. In 1940 it's Navy is the largest in the world,  it's air defence the most sophisticated, It has the largest Empire, and was ins't Empire is Dominion, and what isn't Dominion, is Commonwealth, fully a third of the worlds Merchant Navy is under British control, (many of the fleets of occupied Europe subsequently flee to the UK) a quarter of the world either trades in; or holds it's currency reserves in Sterling. By "once we got going" I mean once we bought all that to bear...which took to about 1942, after the defeat of France, there was only ever going to be one outcome, and the cabinet papers of the time reveal that they understood this. (They reckoned 1949 at best)

Churchill in particular understood both European warfare and German warfare/campaigning in particular (probably in fact better than Hitler did) and was a Geo-politician in a way that none of the Nazi cabinet could grasp. They viewed the world through their own idiocy (ie that it was all a big Jewish Conspiracy)

Thank you nickc, I knew you'd make your point of view clear. And thank you for stating 1942 and making it clear the Americans are in the "once we got going".

My view is that the Russian action and territorial gains in 39-41 took the pressure off the UK by diverting resources that led to the balance of power you state. The Russians were critical even before Barbosa.

And I agree that Churchill was the better tactician.

you’re distorting it, just like the vast majority of British commentators on WWII history, keep eating up the nationaistic dross, cheering Dunkirk spirit and voting Brexit (not you, nickc, I know you voted remain and I’m quite happy to debate with you, I’m taking exception to Kennyp distorting it)

Good grief, where exactly have I invoked this so-called Dunkirk spirit or spouted nationalist dross? I pointed out some facts that anyone with even a basic knowledge of the history of that time would have known. You are the one with some sort of ill-informed anti-British agenda for whatever reason. And for what it's worth I voted remain.

And for what it’s worth I voted remain.

Good man.

You are the one with some sort of ill-informed anti-British agenda

And that's the crux off it, you attacked because of your perceived view of me, a foreigner. So what's anti-British here? Go on quote me. You need to get over me, Kennyp. You didn't need to accuse me of misquoting when I hadn't (I think nickc's clarification makes that abundantly clear)

Being pro-European doesn't make me anti-British. I'm anti-Johnson/Conservative/Lexit (with their Dunkirk spirit - roll eyes smiley her) but that's just politics. I'm also pro Lib-Dem/Plaid/SNP. There's good and bad in many places, being objective about it doesn't make you anti-that place.

I think the use of WWII references in current politics, Gavin somebody from education most recently, is toxic.

And that’s the crux off it, you attacked because of your perceived view of me, a foreigner. So what’s anti-British here? Go on quote me. You need to get over me, Kennyp. You didn’t need to accuse me of misquoting when I hadn’t (I think nickc’s clarification makes that abundantly clear)

The thing is though, as I said, I didn't attack you. You are being paranoid. And I couldn't honestly care less if you are a foreigner or not. Kindly try and resist putting words into my mouth or attributing views to me that I clearly don't hold. I didn't accuse you of misquoting, I tried to clarify a point that had been made. Then I pointed out things like the real reasons Hitler didn't invade Britain, not the one you gave.

I also happen to be pro-Lib Dem, though anti-SNP. I think leaving Europe was a daft mistake for Britain to make. I don't have to get over you because I really don't have an issue with you, other than you falsely accusing me of attacking you. If we could settle that issue then maybe we could shake hands (metaphorically) and move on and stop sniping at each other. I'm happy to say I'm sorry if it came across as accusing you of misquoting someone.

I’m not sure Churchill was all that well liked in the war, although I think the vast majority of people recognised the value of his leadership. Although not directly about Churchill, Alanbrooke’s war diaries are quite enlightening. He was the CIGS (Chief of the Imperial General Staff) basically head of all things military, and it was a constant battle to keep Churchill out of day to day military matters. Having said that Alanbrooke did recognise the impact Churchill had on unifying the nation...

I think though most people at the time saw Churchill as the man for the moment, rather than the hero he is often presented as today. People wanted to create a different world in 1945, and I feel this helps explain his election loss, seemingly at the very peak of his victory..

Then I pointed out things like the real reasons Hitler didn’t invade Britain, not the one you gave

We can have a minor difference of opinion, no worries.

If we could settle that issue then maybe we could shake hands (metaphorically) and move on and stop sniping at each other.

Agreed. Peace.

I like history me but mainly Asian and Eastern history starting from Turkey.

I think Churchill was brilliant at what he did considering the situation.

However, if you are looking for a perfect being to look up to there is non in the political arena.

People wanted to create a different world in 1945, and I feel this helps explain his election loss, seemingly at the very peak of his victory..

For sure though I remember my father, who I can no longer consult to verify this, telling me he wasn't that popular with the troops who would return his V signs spun round (don't really see V signs any more. Another topic).

He campaigned in '45 as the victorious war leader, now fighting for the future of Britain. He lost in a landslide. This does not fit today's popular narrative to the extent that friends I'd consider bright and educated are unaware of this. Though I guess why should they be?

There are no perfect 'hero's' in history anywhere. Everyone is flawed if you look deeply enough. Even people like Mother Teresa have their controversies. The important thing about looking at people from history is to look in the context of the times. We sit in our nice comfy modern times that have been built off the back of people from previous times that we're all to quick to criticise for their 'out dated' views without understanding the times. The reality is we all, if born into different times and circumstances, have the capacity to be slavers, nazi's and all manner of despicable people in history. We've all won the lottery of life being born in this time in this part of the world and forget that not so many decades ago things were pretty shit for almost all people living and people were pretty desperate and could be driven to do terrible things.

There are no perfect ‘hero’s’ in history anywhere. Everyone is flawed if you look deeply enough. Even people like Mother Teresa have their controversies. The important thing about looking at people from history is to look in the context of the times. We sit in our nice comfy modern times that have been built off the back of people from previous times that we’re all to quick to criticise for their ‘out dated’ views without understanding the times. The reality is we all, if born into different times and circumstances, have the capacity to be slavers, nazi’s and all manner of despicable people in history. We’ve all won the lottery of life being born in this time in this part of the world and forget that not so many decades ago things were pretty shit for almost all people living and people were pretty desperate and could be driven to do terrible things.

How dare you !!

we’re all to quick to criticise for their ‘out dated’ views without understanding the times.

My point was that he's better regarded now than he was at the end of the war - the height of his popularity supposedly - as evidenced by a landslide election defeat and anecdotes from those who were around. Kind of a direct contradiction of "we're quick to criticise".

My point was that he’s better regarded now than he was at the end of the war – the height of his popularity supposedly

Attlee was also popular, he had effectively been deputy prime minister and ran the country whilst Churchill focused on the war effort

EDIT: He was in fact formally Deputy Prime Minister, the first time the title was used.