Sir Winston Churchill

[Pcdunn]

He was clearly the right type of man at a specific and unique moment in history, however his utter disdain for the working classes shone through brightly.

He was an an old patrician of an upper class system that he was determined to preserve at all costs.

In January 1919 a huge trade union rally took place in George Square, Glasgow. This was the latest act in a series of working class protests seeking to gain better working conditions. Taking part in the rally were men, women, children and babies in prams.

Churchill confined all local army soldiers to barracks in Maryhill, in case they sympathized with the workers , and sent a total of 10,000 troops, numerous machine guns, 6 tanks and a Howitzer, and many hundreds of police officers, to confront the workers.

One of the Governments regulations of engagement for the dispute stated:

“It is undesirable that firing should take place over the heads of rioters or that blank cartridges should be used.”

So, respect and gratitude for what he helped to achieve in WW2, but it is tempered with a clear understanding that he had no respect at all for working class men, women and children.

I didn't know this story, but I'm not surprised. I gather he was young and a bit reckless in the First World War era. History Channel recently did a TV documentary series on the world's leaders during both World Wars, comparing how their experiences during the First shaped who they were during the Second. Very enlightening programs.

[Robert]

Well, Churchill did at least go out and see action during World War One. But he was adamant that George VI would not be allowed to go to Normandy for the landings.

Of course, what I said was not literally true - war can sometimes give people something that they didn't have before - with the big proviso that they managed to survive. For example, women kept the country running during WW1, so they got the vote - it would have been too silly not to give it to them. And WW2 led to the creation of the welfare state.

On the other hand, I offer this example :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/fiji/11379123/British-nuclear-test-victims-finally-receive-compensation-from-Fiji.html

(not strictly a war event but you see what I mean)

[Robert]

And then there's this - 70 years too late :

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2013/february/26/130226-arctic-convoy-heroes-can-begin-applying-for-their-ww2-campaign-medal-now

[Robert]

Another one : in 2000 Her Majesty's Most Gracious Government put an end to this shabby little dodge :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1367131/Gallantry-medals-to-be-tax-exempt.html

[Ginger]

It can be argued, I think, that Churchill's visceral and implacable hatred of Hitler was in part, and quite possibly for the most part, driven by his outrage against a low-born rabble rouser who had upended the natural order of society, and thereby made trouble for everyone on a scale seldom seen before.

[Mayerling]

Churchill did indeed write to the military chiefs regarding the possible use of poison gas against the Ruhr and other German cities. This was in 1944 at around the time of the V2 rocket attacks.

There was a stockpile of chemical weapons built up in case the Germans used it in the coming D-day landings. However the military did not think it a good idea because of possible retaliatory action on the Germans' behalf.

Churchill, only half convinced but knowing there would have been the utmost protests by Anglican Church leaders, the Left, and others, let it go for the moment, and ultimately of course it was never used.

There was a potentially disastrous result in terms of public relations had they used the chemical warfare. You have to recall that the full story of the "Final Solution" was not known to the general public before the camps began to be liberated in 1945, and so the German use of "Zyclon B" on Jews and other camp inmates was not a matter of general awareness. In 1944 there was an incident at Bari, Italy, when during the bombing of the ships in the harbor by Nazi planes, one ship was hit and it was carrying poison gas.
But it was an Allied ship. The result was many civilian and military casualties, and the Goebbels propaganda mill was able to accuse the Allies of bringing back the horrors of chemical warfare from a quarter century earlier. No further attempts were made for the rest of the war to actually ship such weapons to Europe. Churchill's suggestion (no matter how much certain Nazis would have deserved such a response) could never have gotten very far.

Jeff

[Robert]

Hi Ginger

I don't think so. Obviously he'd have been a bit less bitter if Hitler had a 'von' before his name and if Germany had been a monarchy, but he had a soft spot for Mussolini, who was 'low born,' and in the late 30s was prepared to swallow an alliance with Soviet Russia as a means of containing Hitler.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff

I think the bottom line is, regardless of whether the government is fascist, communist or democratic, if there's just been a war and the people who fought in that war think that they might be entitled to something, the message is "We don't need you any more, so push off." I don't know what it was like in the USA in 1919, but I noted 1932 and Macarthur.

It must be admitted neither country delivered well to returning vets from World War I. The U.S. did created the Veteran's Bureau during the War (the same one they finally made a cabinet post ten years ago), but there was a nasty scandal in the Harding Administration involving Col. Forbes, the friend of Harding's who was put in control, and who looted the agency (Harding - in my mind to his everlasting credit - did one thing here that no other President is recorded as having done: he physically beat the hell out of Forbes at the White House, calling him a yellow rat, and then fired him). The 1932 Anacostia Flats incident of the Bonus Marchers was due to a twenty year period tacked on by Congress to pensions for surviving Great War veterans. They needed it by 1932 and were marching on Washington, quite peacefully, to get the bonus. But the War Secretary, Patrick Healey, and Douglas MacArthur (the chief of the War Staff) went crazy and broke up the camp killing two marchers. Hoover had wanted some ending to the incident, but not this (especially before the 1932 election, which he lost). It is pleasant to say that veteran groups in the U.S. remembered Anacostia Flats for a long time - which is one of the reasons that Douglas MacArthur never was able to become President.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Hi Ginger

I don't think so. Obviously he'd have been a bit less bitter if Hitler had a 'von' before his name and if Germany had been a monarchy, but he had a soft spot for Mussolini, who was 'low born,' and in the late 30s was prepared to swallow an alliance with Soviet Russia as a means of containing Hitler.

To be fair, many people in the 1930s thought well of Mussolini - that phrase, "he made the trains run on time" was created in the 1930s, and even the caricature of Mussolini as "Napoleoni", played so well by Jack Oakie in "The Great Dicatator", comes off as a nicer dictator type than Chaplin's Hitler-clone, "Hynkel". George Bernard Shaw always liked "take charge" types, and he made a terrible play called "Geneva" and defends figures who represent Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. It's rarely revived.

Jeff

[Robert]

Jeff, interesting to speculate whether Mussolini could have gone on after the war if, like Franco, he had remained neutral.

[Ginger]

...in the late 30s was prepared to swallow an alliance with Soviet Russia as a means of containing Hitler.

Churchill, I believe, would have held his nose and made an alliance with Hell if it would hurt Hitler. Stalin, who quite possibly killed more people than Hitler (and most of them his own countrymen too), confined his troublemaking to Russia for the most part, only occasionally managing to inspire strikes, riots, etc, in Britain and America. Hitler was a direct threat.

It's worth bearing in mind that in early 1945, Churchill had the War Office draw up plans for re-arming the surrendered Wehrmacht, and driving east toward Moscow with the British, American and German armies. His generals talked him out of it as militarily unfeasible (they weren't yet aware of the atom bomb), and in any event it would have been politically impossible in a war-weary world. I think it shows his attitude toward Stalin, though.

[Robert]

Hi Ginger

Well, of course that was just what the Germans were hoping for in the last weeks of the war. I think Churchill saw and recognized in Hitler the same restless spirit he saw in himself, and knew the kind of man he was dealing with. 'Consolidation' was not one of Hitler's favourite words.

[GUT]

I am not sure that there was another man who could have lead England the way Winni dd, but he was supported by a Monarch [and his wife] who also showed a lot of guts, I remember an interview with the Queen mum about sending "The Children" out of London and can't help but think that the "people" must have got a lot from such an attitude.

Something like

The children won't go unless their mother does

I won't go unless my husband does

The King simply won't go

I know that that wasn't exactly the words but that was the whole meaning behind it.

[Ausgirl]

Hitler was a bloody awful wartime leader.

...was he though? He seems to have done alright, for a while there.

A bloody awful example of a human being, sure. But genuine question - what makes him an 'bloody awful' wartime leader? -- the general foulness of his agenda, aside.

[Robert]

Hi Ausgirl

The British might conceivably have been able to hold out against Hitler, but we certainly couldn't have toppled him. For that, we needed Germany to be at war against the Soviet Union and the USA. Happily for us, Hitler obligingly delivered both requirements.

He knew nothing about the Soviet Union, its terrain, its climate or its people. He paid zero attention to political preparation, taking no steps to try to exploit nationalist sentiment within its constituent republics. His policy was one of blanket brutality. He threw men away, ignoring the advice of his Generals whose opinions he despised on account of his triumph over France in the teeth of their misgivings. He underestimated the fighting spirit of the soviet troops, convinced that their 'racial inferiority' would present him with an easy victory. He came to see the whole theatre as a battle of will-power. He refused to make strategic retreats. And when the final defeat came, large quantities of troops were scattered round the periphery of his empire, instead of concentrated in the centre where they were needed.

Re America, he himself declared war. We will never know if the Americans would have ignored Germany and concentrated solely on Japan. Hitler made the decision for them. If he thought that the Japanese would reciprocate by attacking the USSR, he was very quickly disillusioned.

Yes, he had quite a good first two years, but from mid 1941 his fate was sealed.