This will be a fun thread, as I will use it to throw some of cerberus' allegations about Hitler into relief:

"In the summer of 1940, therefore, Churchill and his government quite deliberately, if in their view inevitably, chose to sacrifice England's existence as an independent power, a power living and waging war on her resources, for the sake of 'victory'. It was the most romantically noble gesture of them all; the climax of British altruism in foreign policy.

The decision redounded immediately to the benefit of the United States, where the British government, far from husbanding gold and dollars, now proceeded to pour out its last reserves on American munitions, raw materials and industrial equipment. England's plight and profligacy was America's prosperity. By late August 1940, while the Luftwaffe was still rumbling over southern England, glinting silver crosses in the sky, the Chancellor of the Exchequer reckoned that the English gold and dollar reserves would run out by December. By June 1941 the adverse balance with the United States would have grown to some 800 million pounds. The Chancellor added somewhat nervously that his note had been written on the assumption that the Cabinet's 'confident expectation of abundant American help would not be falsified; otherwise we should have to fall back on our own resources, and therefore it was important to husband what was just in the case . . ."

Yet in point of fact the British had little reason at this time for their 'confident expectation' that America would pension them once they had gone broke, for no reassuring promises had been forthcoming from Washington. So far as the British Government knew in August 1940, as they poured out their gold and dollars, the beginning of 1941 would present them with the unimaginable catastrophe of being unable to keep the nation in food and work, let alone wage war even in the most limited fashion.

The readiness with which Churchill entrusted England's future to American charity was prompted not only by his resolve to wage war beyond the national means in pursuit of victory, but also by a belief that America was not just another rival nation-state, but a friend. For Churchill, half-American in blood himself, was a life-long believer in the romantic British myth of Anglo-American cousinhood and of the common destiny of the English-speaking peoples; that myth which had already exercised so calamitous an effect on British policy in the past. There was to be little less appeasement under Churchill than under Chamberlain; the difference lay in that Washington instead of Berlin was now its focus, in that the American President instead of the German Führer was now the recipient of concessions and ingratiating missives.

The Second World War therefore saw the disastrous culmination of the long-standing but unreciprocated British belief in the existence of a 'special relationship' between England and America. For the Americans -- like the Russians, like the Germans, like the English themselves in the eighteenth century -- were motivated by a desire to promote their own interests rather than by sentiment, which was a commodity they reserved for Pilgrim's Dinners, where it could do no harm. Churchill's policy therefore provided the Americans with the opportunity firstly, of prospering on British orders, and secondly, of humbling British world power, a long-cherished American ambition. From 1940 to the end of the Second World War and after, it was America, not Russia, which was to constitute that lurking menace to British interests which Churchill, in his passionate obsession with defeating Germany, failed to perceive."

Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power (New York, William Morrow & Company, Inc., 1972), pp.588-599

For obvious reasons the advent of 'Lend-Lease' was represented as an act of unparalleled generosity. In fact, it was clearly to America's advantage that American weapons should be carried into battle by the fighting men of England and the empire rather than by the sons of American mothers. Even after the United States entered the war in December 1941 -- and not then by her own volition -- it was still clearly to her advantage that England should be enabled to wage war on a far greater scale than would have been possible on English resources alone.

Lend-Lease gradually consumated the process Churchill had begun of transforming England into an American satellite warrior-state dependent for its existence on the flow of supplies across the Atlantic. Indeed the very terms under which Lend-Lease was operated both encouraged England to become the more dependent on American and emphasised the fact of her dependence. England had to agree not to sell any articles abroad which contained Lend-Lease material, nor any goods, even if British-made, similar to goods received under Lend-Lease. An organisation of American officials in England policed observance of these requirements, whose essential purpose was to ensure that British industry was switched wholly from exports to war production. By June 1944, while 13 million out of a total of a British labour force (over fourteen years of age) of 23.5 million were either in the armed forces or civilian war employment, the American figure was 24.9 million out 62.2. million; or only 40 percent as against the British 55 percent; an unequal sacrifice.

Not only did the British export trade in the products of advanced technology collapse as the result of Lend-Lease but, when the war was drawing to an end, it was to prove difficult or impossible for Britain to revive such exports because of Lend-Lease regulations and American supervision of them. It was an illuminating aspect of the 'special relationship' that this American control was only extended to the English, and not to the less compliant Russians, who took all they could by way of aid without surrendering a jot of their independence. By 1944 British exports were down to 31 percent of the 1938 figure, a figure which testified to the destruction of the essential basis of England's existence as an independent and self-sufficient power; testified likewise to the degree to which, like a patient on a heart-lung machine, she was no dependent for life itself on the United States.

Thus the British and imperial armies which marched and conquered in the latter half of the war, in North Africa, in Italy, in Burma, in Normandy and north-west Europe; the great bomber forces which smashed and burnt German cities; the navy which defeated the U-boat; these were not manifestations of British imperial power at a new zenith, as the British believed at the time and long afterwards, but only the illusion of it. They were instead manifestations of American power -- and of the decline of England into a warrior satellite of the United States. Thus the 'victory' of 1945 itself was, so far as the British were concerned, partly illusion too; for although Germany had been defeated, England was not, of her own right and resources, a victor. She emerged into the post-war era with the foundations of her former independent national power as completely destroyed as those of France or Germany, but with the extra, and calamitous drawback, that, as a 'victor', she failed to realise it.

For, unlike the collapse of French power in 1940 and German power in 1945, the collapse of British power had not been made evident by defeat in the field; its historical movment was not fixed by the entry of conquering troops into the capital, or by well-filmed and photographed ceremonies of surrender. Instead, British power had quietly vanished amid the stupendous events of the Second World War, like a ship-of-the-line going down unperceived in the smoke and confusion of battle.

Ibid., pp.591-593

"Winston Churchill was the subject of much criticism and unpopulariyt in the course of his long political career. He was dismissed as an adventurer and accused of irresponsibility. Yet he claimed to be a farsighted statesman of wide views, surveying every problem in detachment, and in time this claim seemed justified by the record."

AJP Taylor, Churchill Revised: A Critical Assessment (New York: The Dial Press, Inc., 1969), p.15

"His practical knowledge was limited. He has served as a young officer in India and as a war correspondent in the Sudan and South Africa. He often visited the United States. He knew nothing of England beyond the society of political London and the great aristocratic houses. The life of ordinary Englishmen was beyond his ken, until he studied it from outside as the head of some government department."

Ibid., p.16

"Despite the seeming rationality with which his state papers were composed, Churchill was strongly swayed by emotions -- usually generous, sometimes the reverse. He responded eagerly to the call of patriotism in the drum-and-trumpet spirit, which coloured his writing of history. He appreciated both the romance of war and its horrors."

Ibid.

"If he had an intellectual weakness, it was an inability to understand economics. He remained at heart a believer in laissez-faire and Free Trade. He could understand social reform, but not socialism. His deeper weakness was impatience, particularly in his earlier years. When he was set on a course, he wanted results at once and was angered by the dead weight of habit. He expected everyone to move at the same rate as himself and, knowing his inner consistency, was not worried by the charges of inconsistency which his impulses toward new enthusiasms often provoked. To others, therefore, he often seemed irresponsible, a reputation which clung to him, not altogether undeservedly, all his life."

Ibid., p.17

"Churchill went into battle against the strikers, reinforcing law and order with the use of troops, and insisting that no concessions be made until the strikers returned to work. By 1912 Churchill's earlier Radical reputation was dispelled so far as the industrial workers were concerned, and it was never fully restored later, despite his national leadership during the Second World War. Anyone who is puzzled over Churchill's electoral defeat in 1945 will find much of the explanation in the industrial disputes more than thirty years before."

Ibid., p.19

"One more problem sent Churchill into battle in the years just before the First World War. This was Ireland. Churchill was not an eager Home Ruler by background. Indeed his father had been almost the first to evoke the resistance of Ulster. But when Ulster sought to prevent Home Rule and threatened to rebel against the British Government, Churchill again took up the challenge. He prepared to send ship to Belfast in the hope of overawing Ulster and he also perhaps encouraged the sending of troops. The Unionists accused him of planning a "pogrom," a charge still disputed by historians. The truth will never be fully known, but it seemed at any rate that Churchill was again answering threats from others by threats and strength of his own."

Ibid., p.20

"He sought a back door into Germany and found it in the Dardanelles. An expedition to force the Straits and take Constantinople had every appeal for Churchill. It would rest on British sea power; it was an idea both unexpected and highly ingeniousl if successful, it would bring victory without great casualties. The Dardanelles affair showed Churchill at his best and worst. He pressed it relentlessly on the admirals and his ministerial colleagues. He stood forth with the courage and determination of a true leader. Though othres acquiesced and some even welcomed the campaign, Churchill never denied that he was its chief originator, nor would it have gone on so long without his persistence. When it failed, he complained that others had not matched his drive and intensity."

Ibid., p.21

"Churchill merely assumed that battleships could force the Straits unaided. When this failed, he assumed that there was a powerful army available for Gallipoli and assumed also that this inhospitable peninsula presented no formidable military obstacles. Beyond this, he assumed also that the fall of Constantinople would inflict a mortal blow on Germany. All these assumptions were wrong. The Navy failed. The Army failed. Even if they had succeeded, it is difficult to see what they would have accomplished. Churchill in fact embarked on a rash gamble and then brushed aside the difficulties without consideration. As always with Churchill, when he wanted something, he was convinced that he could have it, and he convinced others also. Those who succumbed to his promptings bore their share of responsibility, but it is not surprising that they shifted the lame on to Churchill once the campaign failed. He on his side did not shrink from responsibility. If anything, he grasped at it impatiently and too readily."

Ibid., p.23

http://globalfire.tv/nj/04en/history/churchillunknown.htm

http://globalfire.tv/nj/graphs/chchllgun.jpgWinston Churchill, exterminatio-nist, racist and anti-Semite was yet voted the "greatest Briton".


The Churchill you didn't know

Thousands voted him the greatest Briton - but did they know about his views on Gandhi, gassing and Jews...

[Churchill in favour of gassing 'lower grade' of races]:
"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes." -- Writing as president of the Air Council, 1919

[Churchill the racist]:
"It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organising and conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King." -- Commenting on Gandhi's meeting with the Viceroy of India, 1931

[Churchill the racist]:
"(India is) a godless land of snobs and bores." -- In a letter to his mother, 1896

[Churchill in favour of exterminating lower grade of races]:
"I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place." -- Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937

[Churchills views on communist Russia, more extreme than Hitler's]:
"(We must rally against) a poisoned Russia, an infected Russia of armed hordes not only smiting with bayonet and cannon, but accompanied and preceded by swarms of typhus-bearing vermin." -- Quoted in the Boston Review, April/May 2001

[Churchill on the Irish spectre, horrid and inexorcisable]:
"The choice was clearly open: crush them with vain and unstinted force, or try to give them what they want. These were the only alternatives and most people were unprepared for either. Here indeed was the Irish spectre - horrid and inexorcisable." -- Writing in The World Crisis and the Aftermath, 1923-31

[Churchill wanted to sterilize the mental ill]:
"The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate... I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed." -- Churchill to Asquith, 1910

[Churchill in praise of Adolf Hitler]:
"One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations." -- From his Great Contemporaries, 1937

[Churchill condemns the Polish exile government]:
"You are callous people who want to wreck Europe - you do not care about the future of Europe, you have only your own miserable interests in mind." -- Addressing the London Polish government at a British Embassy meeting, October 1944

[Churchill handing over whole nations to Stalin]:
"So far as Britain and Russia were concerned, how would it do for you to have 90% of Romania, for us to have 90% of the say in Greece, and go 50/50 about Yugoslavia?" -- Addressing Stalin in Moscow, October 1944

[Churchill the Anti-Semite]
"This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." -- Writing on 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 1920

Fade , when looking at people like Churchill or Hitler for me its a case of "warts and all".
I have no doubt Churchill had his faults , one which is often given is that he directed the British war effort whilst drunk.
He took a drink but he said that "he had taken more out of alcohol than alcohol had taken out of him".

Warts and all Fade , no problem with that .
As far as Hitler goes , I have yet to see some of the major posters here like FB , Dr. B or even yourself acknowledge that Hitler had major flaws.
You might be less inclined to the "propaganda image" than FB or Dr. B. , but you have to admit they see AH through the most rosey tinted enhancing vision aids that you can posibly get.
This is daft and plain silly and they demand fair play from modern history .
Catch a grip lads as long as you play poacher and game keeper with reality its just not possible to take you seriously.

As far as AH goes I don't think Fade I made anything up it can all be traced to fact , without wanting to go down another word play avenue as to what is or is not a fact and who makes decisions in that realm.

To be honest I have never sat down and read a biography of WSC , but have picked up some impressiosn of him along the way.
Yes its certainly a man who had faults and he made mistakes , but he was often correct in his judgement and in common with Hitler he was a great motivator of men .
He did not suffer fools glady , for GB he was the right man at the right time.
Unless you would rather have seen Halifax as PM in 1940 ?
Will read what you have posted up.
Cheers .

"He intervened constantly in foreign affairs, much to the annoyance of Lord Curzon, the Foreign Secretary, and he cared little for Lloyd George's strivings for general appeasement, particularly when these were extended even to Soviet Russia."

Ibid., p.23

"The Turkish problem ended with a curiously Churchillian twist. Lloyd George wished to support the Greeks against the Turks. Churchill opposed this policy to the utmost of his endeavor. In 1922 the Greek Army was routed. The victorious Turks advanced to the Straits and threatend the British garrison there. Lloyd George was ready to fight, and the prospect of fighting captivated Churchill also, even in a war which he thought mistaken. Or maybe the Turks, by threatening instead of pleading, temporarily forfeited, like others, their claim to his generosity. At any rate, in this Chanak crisis, as it was called, Churchill once more became a warmonger in appearance. the British people were weary of war. They refused to support Lloyd George. The Conservative party turned against him, and he fell from power forever. Churchill fell with him."

Ibid., p.24

"Again, Churchill never considered party or the need to conciliate his supporters. He regarded party as an instrument for putting him into office, not as an association which he should serve."

Ibid., p.25

"He had no doubt of his own consistency. He was always ambitious to serve the greatness of the British Empire and to promote the principles of democracy and ordered freedom. The consistency was less obvious to others. He had been friendly to the workers and hostile to the trade unions; against great naval expenditure and then for it; friendly to Germany, hostile to her, and then friendly again; hostile to Turkey, and then friendly. He had denounced the House of Lords and was soon to champion its remaining privileges. He had supported votes for women and was soon to oppose a further extension of female suffrage. By 1922 anti-Bolshevism was the only cause to which he seemed indissolubly wedded, and even this did not last forever. His record was blotted by impulsive acts of folly or bad temper: Tonypandy, where he was accused of sending troops against strikers; Sidney Street, where he directed an attack on a probably mythical anarchist; Antwerp; and worst of all, Gallipoli."

Ibid., p.26

"Churchill became Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not distinguish himself in the conduct of Great Britain's financial affairs. His most substantial step was to carry through the return to the gold standard at the prewar parity in 1925. This is often held to have had a disastrous effect on Great Britain's economic position, though perhaps its influence has been exaggerated. Churchill did not grasp the economic arguments one way or another. What determined him as against a romantic devotion to British greatness. The pound would once more "look the dollar in the face"; the days of Queen Victoria would be restored."

Ibid., p.27

"He made permanent the instruction to the service chiefs that they need not plan for a major war in the next ten years. He was thus mainly responsible for the extensive British disarmament which he was later to denounce bitterly."

Ibid., pp.27-28

"The general strike appeared to Churchill as his finest hour. Where Baldwin sought conciliation and compromise, Churchill strove to transform the general strike into civil war. He referred to the workers as "the enemy," brought armed troops into the streets of London, and wished to make the unions illegal. It was the old pattern: a romantic charge into battle against the imaginary enemy of Bolshevism. Fortunately, neither Baldwin nor the trade-union leaders were inclined to mount the barricades. The general strike passed over without grave social disturbance and Baldwin did his best to restore good feeling. Churchill for his part had completed the estrangement between himself and the industrial workers, who were after all a substantial part of the British people."

Ibid., pp.28-29

"Churchill was again on an unpopular path. His alarm at the German Air Force had some foundation, though his actual figures were exaggerated -- as the similar figures about the Germany Navy had been exaggerated before 1914. Then British public opinion had been ready to maintain naval supremacy at all costs. Now public opinion tended to regard great armaments -- even their own -- as a cause of war. Churchill imagined that both British and French would respond to the call of greatness as they had done in the past."

Ibid., p.31

"Churchill was beyond all such calculations. Though he had no long-standing ties with the King or personal obligations, he could not resist the appeal of romantic loyalty. Churchill flung himself into battle on the King's side and continued to fight even when the King himself had given up the day as lost. There are some occasions when the wise course for a statesman is to remain silent. This was not in Churchill's nature. In December 1936 when Edward VIII abdicated, Baldwin was triumphant. Churchill was again solitary and discredited."

Ibid., p.33

"Churchill stressed, indeed exaggerated, Germany's preparations for war and believed mistakenly that everything there was being sacrificed for the sake of armaments. This led him into an equal exaggeration on the other side. Believing as he did that life in Germany was being conducted under almost intolerable strain, he expected that the increased demands of actual war would cause the Nazi system to break down of itself."

Ibid., p.37

"Though he deported that Soviet Russia was not an ally, he insisted that she still represented a balance against Hitler and foresaw the time when Germany and Russia would be enemies. He even applauded the occupation of Poland's eastern lands by the Red Armies, as barring Hitler's road to the east."

Ibid., p.39


The abortive project left a legacy in the shape of a continuing Allied interest in the extreme north, and Churchill welcomed the German invasion of Norway on April 8. He believed that the Germans were now exposed to British sea power and made prophecies of success more extravagent than any given by Neville Chamberlain. The prophecies were belied. Sea power was ineffective without control of the air. Failure to appreciate this illustrated yet again the curious contradiction in Churchill's nature as a strategist. He had repeatedly emphasized the importance of air power, more so perhaps than any other civilian statesman. Yet when it came to action, he could not resist the call of tradition and romance, and imagined that the Royal Navy could still assert the old supremacy unaided. The mistake of the Norwegian campagin was to be repeated in the Mediterranean, and still more disastrously at Singapore."

Ibid., p.40

"Nor did he tolerate rivals near his political throne. Halifax, the only possible alternative as prime minister among the Conservatives, was early deported to Washington as ambassador, and Stafford Cripps, a possible Labour alternative later on, was similarly maneuvered into obscurity."

Ibid., p.42

"With these limitations, Churchill held the supreme direction of British policy. The strategy of the war was his -- at any rate so far as this strategy was determined from the British side. He also intruded into the detailed operations of war and, when told that Hitler constantly interfered with his generals, replied: "I do the same." Great Britain has never known any such civilian direction of war excerpt perhaps in the case of the elder Pitt."

Ibid., pp.42-43

"There are other indications that Churchill's extremism was not universally shared. Obscure approaches for peace were made toward Hitler in the summer of 1940, and the foreign office held out against repudiating the Munich settlement until 1942. In regard to Churchill himself, there can be no doubt. Compromise with Hitler could only have been made under some other leader. Churchill remarked: "I have only one aim in life, the defeat of Hitler, and this makes things very simple for me."

Ibid., p.43

Fade I have often mentioned their total immoratity when it came to the care of the mentally ill and handicaped anad have posted this up as a signpost as to the integrety of the party.
In reply you say this was to make way for a healthy race.
Richard Overy used the term gardening for this attitude and approach , that it may be Fade but its still inhumna and icannot be excused in any civilised society.
I have not slandered NS system they made a very good job of it themselves.
As far as Kershaw goes with his direction on NS economics , Richard Overy comes to the same conclusions , are both completely wrong.
Again was Goring and JG wrong as well ?

Back to WSC.
Fade Empire was dying for a long time and Churchill did not destroy it single handed.
Empire was on borrowed time from the end of the 19th century.
GB was a fading star in international terms after WW1 , "The Times They are a Changin"
Me thinks you perhaps admire Empire ruling all those black people keeping them in their place and endorsing white rule and all that.
Empire is about money and the making of money usually at the expense of those being ruled.

Halifax , he did right to isloate him.
Halifax would have reduced GB to a puppet state for Herr Hitler to exploit and use.
Churchill may have been stuborn and against making terms with Germany , he was right not to do so.
As far as being responsible for WW2 that does push things a bit.
FB seemed to go with what you said regarding Poland .
APJT was right when he said that hitler did not plan for war in 39 it certainly was a bluff and a miscalcuation on his part.
British and French declaration of war , you blame the west when in fact it was Hitler who made the move.
Poland had little chance , she knew Russia would not allow her to exist and that destruction of Poland was a Soviet goal.
Hitler wanted Poland by hook or by crook to get a land border with russia so as to be able to wage war in the east.
He said in March 39 that danzig was not the real issue , but that aquiring living space in the east was , this had no plans for a polish State.
His attempts to woe the Poles failed , they knew rom West and East they would be next.
This route to war was not Churchills but Hitlers, Churchill could see were it was leading war was not an "if" but a "when".
Hitler had no problem waging a limited war in Poland , he had been denied one for with the Czechs. he was not to be outdone with Poland , the miscaluclation and misreading of the political language and climate led to war.
Churchill was not in the cabinet as far as I can recall , he cannot be responsible , a handy scape goat given his later track record but in 39 you will have to lok to AH/ VR and JS .
The Poles themselves , either way they were next. Hitler was making more demands and if they were met he would ask for more and more just like Czech.
Look forwad to seeing what you put up Fade.
if you have not finished with Churchill , are you going to balance the warts with his good points. :D
When it came to writing and public speaking he could whip the Fuhrer any day. :222

:: When it came to writing and public speaking he could whip the Fuhrer any day.

Hilarious, even for you, cerberus. There is simply no comparison between Hitler and Churchill's oratory, as the former created a mass movement which propelled him to political power whereas that was not the case with the latter. Actually, by the end of the war, the British people were disgusted with Churchill.

"His influencing of public opinion was also an odd story. Official organisations, from the Ministry of Information to the political parties, tried to take a defined line, and Churchill made guerilla raids into publicity by means of radio addresses -- addresses at first enormously popular, later both less effective and out of tune with what most people were thinking."

Ibid., p.41

:: Fade I have often mentioned their total immoratity when it came to the care of the mentally ill and handicaped anad have posted this up as a signpost as to the integrety of the party.

Which I find to be quite amusing, given the wholesale slaughter of millions of the unborn in the Western democracies, which I might had, has been more devastating than the cumulative effects of both World Wars. And you people whine about the so-called 'Holocaust'.

:: In reply you say this was to make way for a healthy race.

Yes. Progressive National Socialist Germany privileged the healthy over the sick, the young over the old, the future over the present. This choice was clearly reflected in its domestic policies. On the other hand, the sick Western democracies have institutionalised stealing from the healthy to sustain the sick, the robbery of the young to support the senile, and the slaughter of the unborn as a 'choice' of the now-living, all in the name of what you people call morality.

:: Richard Overy used the term gardening for this attitude and approach , that it may be Fade but its still inhumna and icannot be excused in any civilised society.

I laugh at what you describe as a 'civilised society'. Tell me. Is this the same society that slaughters its unborn by the millions? In representative democracies, who loses, cerberus? I will tell you: those who cannot defend themselves, future generations.

:: I have not slandered NS system they made a very good job of it themselves.

Child: Mommy, why did you kill me?
Mother: That's my right as a U.S. citizen.

http://www.lpca.us/pro-li5.jpg

:: As far as Kershaw goes with his direction on NS economics , Richard Overy comes to the same conclusions , are both completely wrong.

This is absolutely false. Kershaw argues that the German economy was in crisis in the summer of '39. Richard Overy points out how such arguments were made on erroneous prewar British predictions.

:: Again was Goring and JG wrong as well ?

Goering actually argued that inflation affects democratic and totalitarian states differently. But once you take his words out of context, such misrepresentations become possible.

:: Back to WSC.

Alright. I will be blunt: Winston Churchill destroyed the British Empire.

:: Fade Empire was dying for a long time and Churchill did not destroy it single handed.

This is false. The Empire was not dying at all. In fact, it had recovered since the Great War. The oil wealth of the Middle East would have sustained it had it not been for the incompetance of the British ruling class. Furthermore, Winston Churchill singlehandedly destroyed the British Empire with Lend-Lease.

"Great Britain, largely thinks to Churchill, kept in the front rank almost until the end of the war and exhausted her resources in doing so. The original decision to accept Lend-Lease was pressed to its logical conclusion. Great Britain abandoned the remants of her export trade at America's behest and accumulated a vast debt in the form of sterling balances. Churchill's faith in American good will was inexhaustible. He assumed that somehow the United States would restore the British Empire to its former greatness, or maybe he thought that the Empire would again become great of itself, once the Axis threat was removed. In a sense, there were no Anglo-American relations during the war. There was only Churchill's personal connection with Roosevelt."

Ibid., pp.55-56

:: GB was a fading star in international terms after WW1 , "The Times They are a Changin"

That's not so at all. Whereas French and German power collapsed as a result of military defeat on the battlefield, the decline of British power was entirely conscious, a product of misguided leadership. For more on this see Correlli Barnett's The Collapse of British Power.

:: Empire is about money and the making of money usually at the expense of those being ruled.

And as Barnett and Taylor explain above, Winston Churchill consciously destroyed the British Empire in exchange for Lend-Lease. He sacrificed the Empire on the altar of 'victory'.

:: Halifax , he did right to isloate him.

A settlement with Hitler could have saved the British Empire, destroyed Communism, and averted the Cold War.

:: Halifax would have reduced GB to a puppet state for Herr Hitler to exploit and use.

Nonsense. Far from it. That is precisely what Winston Churchill did to Great Britain. He made it into the American satellite that it remains this day.

:: Churchill may have been stuborn and against making terms with Germany , he was right not to do so.

On what grounds? It is Churchill's fault that Europe was annihilated as a center of world power and partitioned between the Americans and Soviets.

:: As far as being responsible for WW2 that does push things a bit. FB seemed to go with what you said regarding Poland

Bull****. Churchill knew very well what Chamberlain's guarantee of Poland meant.

"The following spring, after Hitler's next transgression, Neville Chamberlain abruptly reversed his course and gave the impracticable guarantee to Poland, without even securing Russia's support. Churchill endorsed it, whereas Lloyd George sagely pointed out its folly. Churchill's impulse overrode his judgment. In reterospect, he seems less certain about his choice:

Here was decision at last, taken at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground, which must surely lead to the slaughter of tens of millions of people.
Yet at the time he, along with almost all Britain's political leadership except Lloyd George, supported this irrational guarantee in the fond belief that it would check Hitler. Never has there been a more astonishing case of collective self-delusion under the influence of righteous indignation."

Ibid., p.205

:: APJT was right when he said that hitler did not plan for war in 39 it certainly was a bluff and a miscalcuation on his part.

Hitler did not have any intention of attacking the Empire. He wanted, in fact, to save it, and would have done so had Britain been guided by wiser statesman. Instead, Britain's incompetant political leadership launched a war against the ONE NATION that was not a threat to the Empire and made an alliance with the ONE NATION most likely to destroy it, America. It was Britain and France that started the World War, not Germany.

:: British and French declaration of war , you blame the west when in fact it was Hitler who made the move.

That's bull****. Germany did not declare war on Britain or France. It was Britain and France that declared war on Germany, transforming a minor border dispute WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE THEM into a world war. There was absolutely nothing Britain and France could have done to save Poland. It was Chamberlain's guarantee of Poland that led to the breakdown in negotiations. That brought on the invasion. That brought on the World War.

:: Poland had little chance

Nonsense. Poland refused to come to terms with its neighbours because of the British guarantee. If the guarantee had not been given, then Poland and Germany would have most likely have come to a settlement.

:: she knew Russia would not allow her to exist and that destruction of Poland was a Soviet goal.

The dispute between Poland, Germany, and Russia was never any concern of the West. However, it was the incompetant British government which decided to bring RUIN upon Western Europe for NOTHING. Poland lost its political independence regardless.

:: Hitler wanted Poland by hook or by crook to get a land border with russia so as to be able to wage war in the east.

This is false. Hitler actually first sought an alliance with the Poles.

:: He said in March 39 that danzig was not the real issue , but that aquiring living space in the east was , this had no plans for a polish State.

Which contradicts his earlier attempts to make an alliance with the Poles, so you are probably taking Hitler out of context here, once again.

:: His attempts to woe the Poles failed , they knew rom West and East they would be next.

They refused to come to a settlement because of the British guarantee. It was the British, once again, who are responsible for inciting the World War.

:: This route to war was not Churchills but Hitlers, Churchill could see were it was leading war was not an "if" but a "when".

Churchill had been an irrational, romantic warmongerer his entire life. That warmongering clique of his, The Focus, was also taking money from the Poles, Czechs, and Jews. It was the pressure of Churchill and his cronies upon Chamberlain that led to the guarantee. The guarantee led to the breakdown in negotiations, which brought on the German invasion, which led to the British and French declaration of war, which started World War 2.

:: Hitler had no problem waging a limited war in Poland , he had been denied one for with the Czechs.

Hitler did not want a far with the West. That is absolutely false.

:: was not to be outdone with Poland , the miscaluclation and misreading of the political language and climate led to war.

Nonsense. No one had a gun to the head of the French and British. It was entirely their decision to declare war on Germany. It was their declaration of war which transformed a local border dispute into a World War. It was that decision which destroyed Western Europe and led to the slaughter of millions of Europeans.

:: Churchill was not in the cabinet as far as I can recall , he cannot be responsible

It was the pressure of Churchill and his clique of Jewish warmongerers upon Chamberlain that led to the guarantee. It was that guarantee which ultimately brought on the war. It was a catastrophe for all of Europe. But what does that matter, so long as that romantic warmongering swine made a name for himself?

:: a handy scape goat given his later track record but in 39 you will have to lok to AH/ VR and JS .

Churchill was hardly innocent in bringing about the Second World War. Once again, he was actively at work prior to the war trying to incite it. It is indisputable that Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. France did so reluctantly. The decision was Britain's. It was Churchill and his clique that brought ruin upon Europe.

:: The Poles themselves , either way they were next.

It was Churchill himself who offered to Stalin to partition Europe into Soviet and British spheres of influence.

:: Hitler was making more demands and if they were met he would ask for more and more just like Czech.

Non Sequitur.

:: if you have not finished with Churchill , are you going to balance the warts with his good points.

What good did Churchill ever do? He wrecked the British Empire, the West, the Occident, saved Communism and took money from the Jews. He was a catastrophe.

Fade I have often mentioned their total immoratity when it came to the care of the mentally ill and handicaped anad have posted this up as a signpost as to the integrety of the party.
In reply you say this was to make way for a healthy race.
Richard Overy used the term gardening for this attitude and approach , that it may be Fade but its still inhumna and icannot be excused in any civilised society.

Is it moral, civilised and compassionate to allow suffering to continue?

Whilst in line with Hitler's belief in Eugenics the decision was actually related to war needs.

I have not slandered NS system they made a very good job of it themselves.
As far as Kershaw goes with his direction on NS economics , Richard Overy comes to the same conclusions , are both completely wrong.
Again was Goring and JG wrong as well ?

Possibly.

Back to WSC.
Fade Empire was dying for a long time and Churchill did not destroy it single handed. Empire was on borrowed time from the end of the 19th century.

The British Empire was wrecked because the British Elite lacked the moral and spiritual strength to hold such a disparate organism together post 1945.

Halifax , he did right to isloate him. Halifax would have reduced GB to a puppet state for Herr Hitler to exploit and use.

I very much doubt that. Hitler was only asking of Britain to stay off the European continent and stick to running its empire, an empire which he offered to help defend with German soldiers.

Churchill may have been stuborn and against making terms with Germany , he was right not to do so.

Hardly. Quite possibly the most ruinous policy pursued by a western state in the last three hundred years.

British and French declaration of war , you blame the west when in fact it was Hitler who made the move.

Britain and France interfering in the east would be like Germany interfering in Ireland, in regards to Britain, and Germany interfering in Algeria, in regards to the French. It was a matter which should not have been of there concern.

Poland had little chance , she knew Russia would not allow her to exist and that destruction of Poland was a Soviet goal.

Then with little cost [compared with being swallowed up from the west by Germany and the east by Soviet Russia] they could easily have made a pact with Hitler.

He said in March 39 that danzig was not the real issue , but that aquiring living space in the east was , this had no plans for a polish State.

Would you be able to tell me the precise details of this: where? In what context he spoke such words?

Churchill was not in the cabinet as far as I can recall , he cannot be responsible , a handy scape goat given his later track record...

Those who called for war, who denounced a credible and sensible policy such as appeasement, whose agents might well be in all departments cannot be responsible?

When it came to writing and public speaking he could whip the Fuhrer any day.

I disagree, on grounds that it is likely the German people would not have been able to understand a word he was saying:p

Churchill's Military Incompetance

"In January 1938, he declared that: "The air menace against properly armed and protected ships of war will not be of a decisive character." Eight months later he reiterated this opinion, and went on to say: "This, added to the undoubted obsolescence of the submarine as a decisive war weapon, should give a feeling of confidence and security so far as the seas and oceans are concerned, to the Western democracies."

He also discounted, though he does not mention it, the effect of air power on armies. For in 1938, his verdict was: "It may be said with some assurance that the whole course of the war in Spain has seemed to show the limitations rather than the strength of the air weapon . . . It would seem therefore, that so far as the fighting troops are concerned, aircraft are an additional complication rather than a decisive weapon." Many observers drew the opposite deduction from analysis of these operations -- a deduction that was to be confirmed in the Polish and Western front campaigns of 1939-40, where the German divebombers in combination with tanks proved the decisive factor."

Ibid., pp.203-204

"His habit of miscalculation, made all the worse by his misunderstanding of modern mechanised warfare, was soon shown again during Germany's invasion of France -- when his call to the armies to abandon the idea of defending water-lines and rely instead on "furious assault" not only showed his failure to realize that the French Army lacked the modern means of effective counterstroke, but encouraged the Allied forces to forfeit their last chance of stemming the German breakthrough. If they had concentrated every effort on holding the remaining water-lines, they might have had a chance -- but they forfeited this through trying to concentrate their forces, inadequately mechanised, for a counteroffensive against the German flanks in 1914 style."

Ibid., pp.208-209

Churchill and The Neutral Countries

"His pugnacity was predominant, and the reverse of prescient. From the first month of the war onward, he was agitating for action that meant violating the neutrality of the Scandinavian countries in the imagined aim of gaining an offensive advantage against Germany. This is made clear by his own account and the memoranda he includes, even though he omits some of his more inflammatory utterances at the time which all too obviously hinted at his intention. An example was his broadcast of January 20, 1940, to "the neutral nations," specifically urging "Scandinavia," "Belgium," and "the Dutch" to "do their duty in accordance with the Covenant of the League" and "to stand together with the British and French Empires against aggression and wrong." After listening to it I predicted to various correspondents that it was likely to spell the early doom of these small countries close to Germany, so obvious were its implications as to what he was planning. To some extent he saw this was likely to provoke Hitler to take forestalling action, but he laboured under the delusion that "we have more to gain than lose by a German attack upon Norway and Sweden."

Churchill regretfully records that at first the "Foreign Office arguments about neutrality were weighty, and I could not prevail." But his arguments were helped by Russia's invasion of Finland, and the wave of feeling it aroused in England: "I welcomed this new and favourable breeze as a means of achieving the major strategic advantage of cutting off the vital iron-ore supplies of Germany."

He was oblivious of the fatal consequences of pushing Russia and Germany closer together, and embroiling Britain in war with both -- at a time when she was perilously weak everywhere, especially on the Western front. While Hitler talked of "thinking with the blood," the leaders of the democracies unfortunately acted in accord with such emotional thinking.

Only the sudden collapse of Finland saved Britain from being at war with Russia, and thus doubly stretched and strained. Yet Churchill then reverted to the plaon of action on the Atlantic coast of Norway, to gain control of that neutral area.

The captured records of Hitler's conferences show that until early in 1940 he still considered "the maintenance of Norway's neutrality to be the best course for Germany," but that in February he came to the conclusion that "the English intend to land there and I want to be there before them." His definite decision to order a move into Norway was taken a few days after Churchill had sent a direct order to the British destroyer Cossack to push into Norwegian waters and board the German ship Altmark, carrying British prisoners, which had taken shelter there. The Norwegian Government protested against the inroad into Norwegian waters, but their gunboats' passive acceptance of it convinced Hitler that Norway was Britain's accomplice, and became the detonating spark of the forestalling action he now ordered.

Early in March, Churchill gained sanction for his scheme, helped by the French Government's eager support, but then it was temporarily upset by Finland's collapse on March 13 -- which deprived the Allies of their primary pretext for going into Norway. However, the scheme was soon revived, and at the end of March it was agreed between the two Allied governments that the mining of Norwegian waters should be carried out on April 5, backed by the landing of forces at the chief Norwegian ports, in the hope and belief that the Norwegians would acquiesce. But it was postponed until the 8th in order that Churchill might go to Paris and make a further effort to persuade the dubious French to agree to his additional project of dropping by air a stream of mines into the Rhine and other German rivers. That three-day delay proved fatal to the prospects. For Hitler had ordered his move into Norway, and Denmark, to begin early on the 9th.

In the event, the small German invading force forestalled and upset Churchill's plan, capturing the chief ports of Norway at the moment when the defenders' attention was absorbed by the British advance into Norwegian waters. The British were caught unready to meet this retort, and their countermoves were badly bungled. Churchill's dream-castles had thus tumbled down in succession. Yet the blame fell on Chamberlain, as Prime Minister, and his enforced resignation opened the way for Churchill to take his place. It was the irony, or fatality, of history that Churchill should have gained his opportunity of supreme power as a result of a fiasco to which he had been the main contributor.

Ibid., pp.206-208

When it came to writing and public speaking he could whip the Fuhrer any day.
Do you think your German is good enough to form a proper judgment on Hitler's speaking and writing skills? Even Germany's today's leading literature critic, the Jew Marcel Reich-Ranicki, wrote a few years ago a longer article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper on Hitler, where he admitted that he was the best speaker of the 20th century.

Do you think your German is good enough to form a proper judgment on Hitler's speaking and writing skills? Even Germany's today's leading literature critic, the Jew Marcel Reich-Ranicki, wrote a few years ago a longer article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper on Hitler, where he admitted that he was the best speaker of the 20th century.

Which again proves that Cerberus is more jewish than an ex communist, polish Jew like Ranicki. Cerberus is like a lil japping poodle, barking at the moon. The Führer is such a gigantic historical figure, such a titan, that I can only laugh about Cerbs selfrightous, hypocritcal whining. Your rants are like a drop of water on the Sun. *pooof*

A good speaker yes but I would prefer churchill , not for any political reason.
More Jewish than an ex communist Polish jew .
My word that is some insult.
A Giant historical figure , one of the major figures of the last century , no doubt he left his mark and I won't argue with you.
Self righteous , I must have learned that rom you Dr. Brandt.
Rants , I learnt that from the Fuhrer.

Fade , yes Churchill made some major mistakes and he was not beyond fault.
regarding aircraft and ships , he was not the only one to make that mistake.
Regarding submarines I would say he was not the only one.

Look at the Kriegsmarine and the Z plan.
Now just how was this to be accomplished.
In 1939 the U-Boat arm was well under strength , there was no sign of an operational carrier in the near future and Hitler had gone first for the battleship as the main arm , Raedar was a "big ship" man as well.

The Royal Navy had operational cariers and had a number coming on line throughout the war , had Churchill been so blind all I can say was he was more open to listening than Hitler was.

"The only thing that really frightened me was the U-boat Peril". Churchill.

Churchill did embark on daft ventures .
Greece in 1941 was wrong , he went against advice . Major mistake.
Italy it was not a soft underbelly but it did lend support to Stain and it did prove that Germany would face invasion sooner or later.
The Far East he made the same mistake tere that Hitler did in Russia , he considered the Japanese not up to the job. Big mistake , huge mistake.
Neutral Norway.
To board Altmark was correct. The Altmark had not declared herself to the Norwegians , she was carrying POWs who should have been handed over in a neutral country , fair game fade in these circumstances.

As far as this making Norway a target. Had Norway declared war ?
Hitler took her to ensure iron ore got through as the baltic froze in winter and to ensure German seatrafic to Narvik was not sunk by RN .
he also was advised by raedar that Norway would be needed to provide both sea and air bases to continue a war against GB.
Altmark was not the fuse that you believe it to be, there were others as well , more pressing ones I venture to say.

On balance who was the most incompetent .
Hitler or Churchill.
It has to be Hitler hands down and no contest,the Fuhrer wins.
Churchill could listen , he could take advice and he made decisions which were generally sound.
He did recognise that the Atlantic was critical , he took steps to ensure that this battle was won.
Unlike Hitler he eventually got it right in North Africa and he did learn to leave generals to fight the battles.
You quoted that Churchill lacked the command experience skills , Hitler demonstrated that he never had any , much to the cost of the German Army.
Who in their right mind would make Himmer an Army Group Commander ?
Not a fan of Monty , but I would take him any day above Himmler .
Russia was littlered with German graves ,good soldiers who died because their commanders were not allowed to do so.
At least half a million german soldiers died or were taken prisoner along with every piece of equipment they had beacuse of the will of the Fuhrer and his unwillingness to take reasonable steps when warned in good time.
You want to see real military incompetence , look no further.
PS Before you say what about Singapore , that baby was not Churchills alone , it was something which came from the "Empire".
The loss of force Z , yes they should never have been there without a carrier.

:: A good speaker yes but I would prefer churchill , not for any political reason.

He could not pronounce his words. He never created a mass movement. Throughout the majority of his career, he was seen as a discredited extremist and a warmongerer.

:: More Jewish than an ex communist Polish jew .My word that is some insult.

He went into debt to his Jewish friends after he lost money in the stock market. He also lost his father's estate.

:: A Giant historical figure , one of the major figures of the last century , no doubt he left his mark and I won't argue with you.

The legacy of Churchill is Europe in flames, half of it occupied by the bolsheviks of the Soviet Union, the other half occupied by the capitalists of America. He was a disaster from the perspective of anyone but the enemies of his own nation.

:: Self righteous , I must have learned that rom you Dr. Brandt.

He put his own personal romantic fantasies above the common good of the Empire.

:: Rants , I learnt that from the Fuhrer.

No one ranted like Churchill. ;-)

:: Fade , yes Churchill made some major mistakes and he was not beyond fault.

He wrecked Europe and the Empire. But he became 'famous' in the process. That was all that ever mattered to him.

:: regarding aircraft and ships , he was not the only one to make that mistake.

Yet Churchill was more responsible than anyone else for spreading the disinformation in the late 1930s.

:: Regarding submarines I would say he was not the only one.

I never said there were not plenty of fools in the British political leadership. I agree. He was not alone by any standard.

:: Churchill did embark on daft ventures .

The invasion of Greece, his old 'backdoor' fantasy, just like Gallipoli.

:: Greece in 1941 was wrong , he went against advice . Major mistake.

It was another Gallipoli. He was motivated by basically the same idea.

:: Italy it was not a soft underbelly but it did lend support to Stain and it did prove that Germany would face invasion sooner or later.

It was a waste of resources.

:: The Far East he made the same mistake tere that Hitler did in Russia , he considered the Japanese not up to the job. Big mistake , huge mistake.

Agreed.

:: Neutral Norway.

He brought on the German invasion.

:: To board Altmark was correct. The Altmark had not declared herself to the Norwegians , she was carrying POWs who should have been handed over in a neutral country , fair game fade in these circumstances.

It was Churchill's desire to occupy the Norwegian ports. So the Germans had every reason to invade. Had it not been for Churchill, circumstances in Scandinavia would have been different.

:: As far as this making Norway a target. Had Norway declared war ?

Churchill was planning to violate Norway's neutrality. The Germans simply beat him to it. In other words, Churchill was the cause of the entire debacle.

:: Hitler took her to ensure iron ore got through as the baltic froze in winter and to ensure German seatrafic to Narvik was not sunk by RN .

That is not what Taylor has argued at all.

:: he also was advised by raedar that Norway would be needed to provide both sea and air bases to continue a war against GB.

Yet the British were already planning to take the air bases and sea bases beforehand. They were about to violate Norway's neutrality. The Germans simply beat them to the punch to pre-empt the invasion. It was always the German's argument that they were protecting such countries from the British. A legitimate fear, I might add.

:: Altmark was not the fuse that you believe it to be, there were others as well , more pressing ones I venture to say.

Oh really. That excerpt came from Basil Liddell Hart. Here is some biographical information:

Basil Liddel Hart was born in 1895 and educated at St. Paul's School and Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, where he took the honours course in history. He served on the Western Front in World War 1, and his illustrious career as a contributor and recorder of modern warfare includes: evolution of the Battle Drill system in 1917; the "expanding torrent" method of attack that became the basis of the blitzkrieg technique; a role in the modernisation of the British Army as consultant to the War Ministry in the twenties and thirties; and authorship of more than thirty books, translated into over two dozen languages. Described as "the greatest military thinker of the twentieth century," he was knighted in 1966.

:: On balance who was the most incompetent . Hitler or Churchill.

This is an easy one: Churchill. At least Hitler lost on the battlefield.

:: It has to be Hitler hands down and no contest,the Fuhrer wins.

Churchill was instrumental in starting the war that destroyed European primacy in world affairs. He wrecked Europe and the British Empire. He turned the greatest empire in world history into an American satellite in less than five years.

:: Churchill could listen , he could take advice and he made decisions which were generally sound.

Bull****. Churchill refused to tolerate men of competance in his inner circle, unlike Lloyd George. He was one of those people who had to dominate everyone around him.

:: He did recognise that the Atlantic was critical , he took steps to ensure that this battle was won.

Yet you are missing the point: had it not been for Churchill and his warmongerers, there never would have been a battle in the Atlantic.

:: Unlike Hitler he eventually got it right in North Africa and he did learn to leave generals to fight the battles.

He singlehandedly caused the invasion of Greece by the Germans which ended in a stunning debacle and reversal on his part.

"For whle the defeat of the Italian forces in Africa incomplete, Churchill tried to open uup another fresh avenue in the Balkans. The landing of a British force in Greece naturally preciptated a German invasion of that country. Yet the force was dispatched at a time when it was clearly recognized that Hitler did not intend to move against Greece. The outcome was a second "Dunkirk," together with a reverse in Africa."

Ibid., p.211

:: You quoted that Churchill lacked the command experience skills . . .

I didn't say that. Look at the disaster at Gallipoli, for instance.

:: Hitler demonstrated that he never had any , much to the cost of the German Army.

ROFL well. Hitler never went to any professional school of architecture either yet he possessed enough knowledge about the subject to have been awarded a doctorate.

:: Who in their right mind would make Himmer an Army Group Commander ?
Not a fan of Monty , but I would take him any day above Himmler .

LOL by the time of D-Day, the British were politely ignored for the rest of the war.

:: Russia was littlered with German graves ,good soldiers who died because their commanders were not allowed to do so.

Yet the General Staff was full of traitors as well. If the generals had their way, there never would have even been a march into the Rhineland.

:: At least half a million german soldiers died or were taken prisoner along with every piece of equipment they had beacuse of the will of the Fuhrer and his unwillingness to take reasonable steps when warned in good time.

More often than not, the primary front of warfare is the psychological impression made upon enemy commanders. A good example of this was in the campaign in France.

:: You want to see real military incompetence , look no further.

One word: Singapore.

:: PS Before you say what about Singapore , that baby was not Churchills alone , it was something which came from the "Empire".

"These disasters cast a deeper shadow on Churchill's strategy. For his boldness in the Middle East was accompanied by a blindness about the Far East. The Chief of the Imperial General staff, General Sir John Dill, reminded him in May 1941 that "it has been an accepted principle of our strategy that in the last restort the security of Singapore comes before that of Egypt. Yet the defences of Singapore are still considerably below standard." Churchill replied: "I do not take that view, nor do I think the alternative is likely to present itself." In August he said: "I feel confident that Japan will like quiet for a while," and a little later he expressed his belief that the dispatch to the Far East of a "K.G.V." battleship "might indeed be a decisive deterrent."

Ibid., p.213

When it came to writing and public speaking he could whip the Fuhrer any day.

'We shall fight them on the beaches' - broadcast by radio actor Norman Shelley, aka 'The Mayor of Toytown' aka 'Larry the Lamb' portraying Churchill.