Winston Churchill- what do you reckon?

notgivenaway · May 26, 2018

Gabbar Singh said:
Was he elected by his British Empire subjects? Calling him elected is like calling the South African Apartheid government as "elected". Where only 10 percent of the population could vote.

The colonial government was appointed by London. Unless you also think Vichy France was a legitimate French Government?

No one questions his commitment to British survival. The question is who was responsible for victory - the Soviets, who caused 85 percent of German casualties, or the British, who provided a base for the Americans to invade Europe?

the British he was head of, as PM. And the Mulberry harbours, that he helped pioneer, which aided the Normandy invasion.

SirOrmondeWinter · May 26, 2018

Gabbar Singh said:
Roosevelt asked Churchill to give independence to India. Churchill said non white people were unfit for freedom.

Roosevelt was a far better leader and human being, compared to Churchill.

Quote please?

No he wasn't, he ruled an America which still practiced its' own version of apartheid, had its' own colonies in the Philippines and wanted to appease Stalin. They're both great men but judge them by their times.

SirOrmondeWinter · May 26, 2018

Gabbar Singh said:
Was he elected by his British Empire subjects? Calling him elected is like calling the South African Apartheid government as "elected". Where only 10 percent of the population could vote.

The colonial government was appointed by London. Unless you also think Vichy France was a legitimate French Government?

No one questions his commitment to British survival. The question is who was responsible for victory - the Soviets, who caused 85 percent of German casualties, or the British, who provided a base for the Americans to invade Europe?

Britain who fought the Germans/Italians/Japanese from beginning to end. Britain who propped the Soviets up when they were on the verge of defeat having actively supported the Nazis for half the war and only declared war on Japan after the Yanks dropped the Hiroshima bomb.

Britain and the British Empire has always been a force for good in the world which isn't to say we're perfect. But in the words of one great man 'This was our finest hour'

SirOrmondeWinter · May 26, 2018

Gabbar Singh said:
They did. About 15 percent or less.

WW2 was won by industrial capacity. The USA and USSR had a far larger industrial capacity than the Axis. France and the UK were much smaller in industrial capacity compared to the USA and USSR.

In 1940, the Anglo-French Empires ruled over 600 million subjects. The Germans ruled over 75 million subjects. And yet they thrashed the Anglo-French Empires.

The USSR's industrial capacity propped up by British and American military aid! And the Axis never conquered the British and French Empires, in terms of territory and population they only seized a tiny proportion.

It's okay for you to admit that Britain is wonderful and won WW2, everyone else realises it.

notgivenaway · May 26, 2018

Gabbar Singh said:
They did. About 15 percent or less.

WW2 was won by industrial capacity. The USA and USSR had a far larger industrial capacity than the Axis. France and the UK were much smaller in industrial capacity compared to the USA and USSR.

In 1940, the Anglo-French Empires ruled over 600 million subjects. The Germans ruled over 75 million subjects. And yet they thrashed the Anglo-French Empires.

They didn't thrash the British, and only did thrash the French due to bad tactics and planning.

WW2 was won by a lot more than industrial capacity.

TotalAaron · May 26, 2018

Gabbar Singh said:
They did. About 15 percent or less.

WW2 was won by industrial capacity. The USA and USSR had a far larger industrial capacity than the Axis. France and the UK were much smaller in industrial capacity compared to the USA and USSR.

In 1940, the Anglo-French Empires ruled over 600 million subjects. The Germans ruled over 75 million subjects. And yet they thrashed the Anglo-French Empires.

yeah okay bud. you might want to read something that is not propaganda and learn just how world war two was fought and won. it seems you are towing the line of a bunch of discredited myths.

Gabbar Singh · May 26, 2018

TotalAaron said:
yeah okay bud. you might want to read something that is not propaganda and learn just how world war two was fought and won. it seems you are towing the line of a bunch of discredited myths.

I guess numbers are mythical to you. The British produced around 26,000 tanks and SP guns from 1939 to 1945. The Soviets produced around 89,000 tanks and SP guns in the same period. The Americans produced around 88,000 in the same period. The Germans produced 49,000 tanks in that period.

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

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

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

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

Gabbar Singh · May 26, 2018

notgivenaway said:
They didn't thrash the British, and only did thrash the French due to bad tactics and planning.

WW2 was won by a lot more than industrial capacity.

They chased the British all the way to Dunkirk. In North Africa, the Germans under Rommel kept defeating the British till massive American aid turned the tide.

As for industrial capacity:-

The British produced around 26,000 tanks and SP guns from 1939 to 1945. The Soviets produced around 89,000 tanks and SP guns in the same period. The Americans produced around 88,000 in the same period. The Germans produced 49,000 tanks in that period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...g_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet...g_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...g_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German...g_World_War_II

Kevinmeath · May 26, 2018

kandal said:
Churchill had been foul mouthing Indians long before this 'utmost peril'. So no point in complaining when Indians return in kind..

Which has got nothing to do with my comment.

However its also been pointed out that he said many positive things as well but some people prefer to misquote him in order to fit their preconceived prejudices.

I am also used to civilised discussion not rants.

kandal said:
He should have known that his colonial policy towards Indians was utmost important. Any decent British knew that without India there would be no British empire.

Now I know you'll find this difficult to cope with but actually when all is said and done the 'most important' part of the British Empire was actually Britain itself!

Kevinmeath · May 26, 2018

Gabbar Singh said:
Was he elected by his British Empire subjects?

No, surprise surprise the British Prime Minster is elected by the British.

Gabbar Singh said:
Calling him elected is like calling the South African Apartheid government as "elected". Where only 10 percent of the population could vote.

Sorry you got any evidence that the British electoral system was not fair or anything remotely like Apartheid South Africa --do you even know what Apartheid actually was?

Churchill would also be vote out of office-- a decision he accepted because he wasn't a dictator as some seem to think.

Gabbar Singh said:
The colonial government was appointed by London. Unless you also think Vichy France was a legitimate French Government?

Many officials were appointed in London and there were also local assemblies most colonies pretty much governed themselves -- British India was ruled by 'Indians', they were actually a very small number of British officials. Without the cooperation of 'Indians' Britain could simply not hold India-- one of the reasons for independence in 1947.

Gabbar Singh said:
No one questions his commitment to British survival.

That should after all be the main aim of a British ruler!

Gabbar Singh said:
The question is who was responsible for victory - the Soviets, who caused 85 percent of German casualties, or the British, who provided a base for the Americans to invade Europe?

No one person or country can claim to be responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany many played an important part. However one person who can easily be pointed out who played a significant role is Winston S Churchill.

Kevinmeath · May 26, 2018

What a wonderfully 'balanced' post in the first half claims one thing then in the second proves himself wrong!

Gabbar Singh said:
They did. About 15 percent or less.

WW2 was won by industrial capacity. The USA and USSR had a far larger industrial capacity than the Axis. France and the UK were much smaller in industrial capacity compared to the USA and USSR..

The World wars were indeed eventually about logistics and industrial capacity but its a great deal more complex than a simple numbers game.

Its distinctly possible that if a different British politician came to power other than Churchill then the outcome may have been very different.

Gabbar Singh said:
In 1940, the Anglo-French Empires ruled over 600 million subjects. The Germans ruled over 75 million subjects. And yet they thrashed the Anglo-French Empires.

Exactly numbers and industrial capacity count for little if not harnessed properly. Nazi Germany was (comparatively) prepared and even eager for war while the British and French really wanted to avoid it and this was reflected in their military and performance.

Gabbar Singh · May 26, 2018

Kevinmeath said:
No, surprise surprise the British Prime Minster is elected by the British.

Sorry you got any evidence that the British electoral system was not fair or anything remotely like Apartheid South Africa --do you even know what Apartheid actually was?

Churchill would also be vote out of office-- a decision he accepted because he wasn't a dictator as some seem to think.

Many officials were appointed in London and there were also local assemblies most colonies pretty much governed themselves -- British India was ruled by 'Indians', they were actually a very small number of British officials. Without the cooperation of 'Indians' Britain could simply not hold India-- one of the reasons for independence in 1947.

That should after all be the main aim of a British ruler!

No one person or country can claim to be responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany many played an important part. However one person who can easily be pointed out who played a significant role is Winston S Churchill.

The colonies were completely controlled by London. The leaders of the local assemblies ended in jail pretty often, for their political views and actions. Is that what a democracy is?

Britain's interests did not coincide with India's. Therefore a British hero does not have to be respected by Indians. Just like Ghenghis Khan may be a Mongolian hero, but the Arabs or the Polish don't have to love him or consider him as a great leader.

As for the order of importance of defeating the Nazis, Stain gets 85 percent credit, Roosevelt around 10 percent ( he gets maybe 85 percent for defeating the Japanese), and Churchill around 5 percent.De Gaulle maybe 1 percent. I am using the proportion of the casualties suffered by each country. Sound fair?

Kevinmeath · May 26, 2018

Gabbar Singh said:
I guess numbers are mythical to you. The British produced around 26,000 tanks and SP guns from 1939 to 1945. The Soviets produced around 89,000 tanks and SP guns in the same period. The Americans produced around 88,000 in the same period. The Germans produced 49,000 tanks in that period.
....................https://

No they are not 'mythical' but perhaps the poster is aware that something as complex as a world war is rather more complex than a simple numbers game.

Gabbar Singh said:
They chased the British all the way to Dunkirk.

The British were indeed alongside their French allies (despite 'winning' the numbers game?!) defeated in France in 1940-- but subsequently Germany was unable to stop them evacuating their army (or most of it) and was defeated in the air by the RAF and the Kreigsmarine v The RN wasn't really a contest.

Gabbar Singh said:
In North Africa, the Germans under Rommel kept defeating the British till massive American aid turned the tide. .................

Have you read anything about North Africa? because the battle ebbed back and forth.

GluteusMaximus · May 26, 2018

Churchill was a flabby alcoholic.

Gabbar Singh · May 26, 2018

Kevinmeath said:
No they are not 'mythical' but perhaps the poster is aware that something as complex as a world war is rather more complex than a simple numbers game.

The British were indeed alongside their French allies (despite 'winning' the numbers game?!) defeated in France in 1940-- but subsequently Germany was unable to stop them evacuating their army (or most of it) and was defeated in the air by the RAF and the Kreigsmarine v The RN wasn't really a contest.

Have you read anything about North Africa? because the battle ebbed back and forth.

I have. I am an avid reader of military history.

A couple of decades ago, Trevor Dupuy wrote a book called Future Wars. He worked for the RAND corporation, which used statistical analysis to predict wars. A surprise attack was given a factor of 2, for the 1st one week. He used it to assign values to different armies around the world. The factor was determined by the professionalism of the particular military. For example, the Israeli military is about twice as professional as the average Arab one.

In his analysis of WW2, the Germans were 20 percent better than the US and UK armies. The Germans were 150 percent better than the Soviets in the beginning of the war, and about 80 percent at the end of the war. However, since the Allies outnumbered the Germans more than 3 to 1, they compensated for this shortcoming and achieved victory.

Conventional War is a number game. Except guerrilla warfare perhaps,

Kevinmeath · May 26, 2018

Gabbar Singh said:
The colonies were completely controlled by London. The leaders of the local assemblies ended in jail pretty often, for their political views and actions. Is that what a democracy is?

Of course ultimately London ruled (it was an Empire) but the British Empire ruled through local elites, Indians ran British India without their cooperation --dubious after WWII-- the hold of Empire wasn't tenable.

Gabbar Singh said:
Britain's interests did not coincide with India's.

Why should the British run their Empire for the benefit of India? what Empire has ever been done so?

Gabbar Singh said:
Therefore a British hero does not have to be respected by Indians.

Of course he doesn't but equally blaming him for things he simply didn't do or was not responsible for is simply bad history.

Gabbar Singh said:
Just like Ghenghis Khan may be a Mongolian hero, but the Arabs or the Polish don't have to love him or consider him as a great leader.

Who has asked Indians to love him?

And he was a great leader the facts simply show that.

Gabbar Singh said:
As for the order of importance of defeating the Nazis, Stain gets 85 percent credit, Roosevelt around 10 percent ( he gets maybe 85 percent for defeating the Japanese), and Churchill around 5 percent.De Gaulle maybe 1 percent.

Simply made up statistics, sound good but are not really relevant.

Gabbar Singh said:
I am using the proportion of the casualties suffered by each country. Sound fair?

Fair? no at best simplistic.

For instance comparatively few Germans or Britons died during the Battle of Britain but its perhaps the most crucial battle of the war.

Kevinmeath · May 26, 2018

GluteusMaximus said:
Churchill was a flabby alcoholic.

Not true.

He may have been slightly overweight -- he lived to 90 so perhaps not unhealthy-- but I am sure we can not all be Adonis' such as yourself.

That he was an alcoholic is mainly Nazi propaganda, He certainly liked a drink and cigars and fine food but that doesn't make him an alcoholic he certainly didn't like drunks (not that he wasn't occasionally especially in his youth.)

Kevinmeath · May 26, 2018

Gabbar Singh said:
I have. I am an avid reader of military history.,

Quite frankly I find that hard to believe-- certainly you have read little about North Africa and even the UK in WWII since you make spurious outlandish comments not supported by the facts.

Perhaps you let your nationalism rule your head.

Gabbar Singh said:
A couple of decades ago, Trevor Dupuy wrote a book called Future Wars. He worked for the RAND corporation, which used statistical analysis to predict wars. A surprise attack was given a factor of 2, for the 1st one week. He used it to assign values to different armies around the world. The factor was determined by the professionalism of the particular military. For example, the Israeli military is about twice as professional as the average Arab one.

In his analysis of WW2, the Germans were 20 percent better than the US and UK armies. The Germans were 150 percent better than the Soviets in the beginning of the war, and about 80 percent at the end of the war. However, since the Allies outnumbered the Germans more than 3 to 1, they compensated for this shortcoming and achieved victory.

Conventional War is a number game. Except guerrilla warfare perhaps,

And there is a saying about computer models -- 'crap in crap out'.

Giving mathematical numbers to human situations is fraught with difficulty and anyone who 'avidly' reads military history would understand the comment--its fought on grass not paper.

Ighayere · May 26, 2018

Kevinmeath said:
Now I know you'll find this difficult to cope with but actually when all is said and done the 'most important' part of the British Empire was actually Britain itself!

Without its colonies it wouldn't even have been an empire, so is that really true? And besides that, before the 20th century, people in Britain who were actually in the know understood quite well that Britain's earlier colonies (particularly in the Caribbean, though I'm sure some loot from other places helped as well) were integral to its industrial revolution and sometimes even stated that outright.

Ighayere · May 26, 2018

Kevinmeath said:
No, surprise surprise the British Prime Minster is elected by the British.

Sorry you got any evidence that the British electoral system was not fair or anything remotely like Apartheid South Africa --do you even know what Apartheid actually was?

Churchill would also be vote out of office-- a decision he accepted because he wasn't a dictator as some seem to think.

I think his point was pretty clear - colonized peoples didn't vote for the overall leadership of the empire at all. That's quite clear. So the politicians in the British isles that were exercising ultimate authority over those colonized groups obviously were not democratically elected by those people in the colonies.

most colonies pretty much governed themselves

This is completely wrong. A place having some lower level administrators from the local population while being governed by some other group of people from far away is not at all the same thing as actual self governance.

Search

Search

Winston Churchill- what do you reckon?

notgivenaway

SirOrmondeWinter

SirOrmondeWinter

SirOrmondeWinter

notgivenaway

TotalAaron

Gabbar Singh

Gabbar Singh

Kevinmeath

Kevinmeath

Kevinmeath

Gabbar Singh

Kevinmeath

GluteusMaximus

Gabbar Singh

Kevinmeath

Kevinmeath

Kevinmeath

Ighayere

Ighayere

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions