Churchill - War Criminal?

[Idaho]

On the Iraq thread I talked about the conflict between conservative world view and the movement to revise previously imposed views of historical figures.

BBC - Churchill War Criminal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2494747.stm)

Essentially the debate splits two ways - you can either discuss the practical outome of the bombing - whether it changed the outcome, or have a discussion about history written by the winners (it being a German proffessor who has proposed the ideas - although he did not suggest the term war criminal).

[Catiline]

It'd be interesting to see Mo Mowlam present the case for Churchill as the greatest Britain, even if that whole affair is a facile nonsense...

technically Churchill initiated the 'terror bombings' as his grandson seems to like reffering to them as. The German bombing of civilian areas was a navigational error, they thought they were attacking Richmond docks. Churchill launched a bombing raid on Berlin in retaliation the next night, tit for tat Hitler started the blitz. An eye for an eye and the world will soon be blind.

IIRC Churchill was quite prepared to use gas in the event of a German invasion in 1940.

What is now euphemistically called collateral damage is ofcourse inevitable in war. Should we try to avoid it? Undoubtedly from a moral point of view. But while wars are fought for moral reasons (or one would at least like to think they are) morals rarely win wars.If the only way to destroy German infrastructure had the consequence of killing civilians that's unfortunate but inevitable. So far it seems that the intention wasn't directly to attack civilians. regardless of magnitude the intent is very different from Serbian troops rounding up Muslims in a Stadium and shooting them.

As an aside I wonder what now would be the reaction of Europe and the US to Muslim rebels against the Yugoslav regime if we transplant events 10 years from 1991/2 to 2001/2

[Idaho]

Interesting last point... it's a good question.

Dragging my own thread OT too rapidly - how much do you think Mo Mowlam's Churchill thing is an early play at the next Labour leadership? She is probably the most popular Labour politician and is relatively untainted with connection to Blair, despite being very New Labour.

[Inferno]

Without a crystal ball to tell us how things would have turned out if various people had acted differently, it is difficult to make the argument that I want to put into this debate. However, I will try.

Before America entered the war, it was (to all extents and puposes) Britain + Russia verses Germany. (Obviously there were other countries involved and helping as well, but I am only stating the main combatants...please don't bite my head off for it&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

The balance of power was firmly with Germany. It is widely believed that if Hitler had fought one front at a time (rather than fighting the eastern and western front simultaneously) then Germany would have been hot favourites to win the war (better equipped, better trained, better strategists than either of their opponents.)

Germany started the civillian bombing (accidentally or not.) Would (or even should) the people of Britain have stood there and taken this without demanding revenge? Of course not, revenge is a natural human emotion. Would the USA have gone after the Taliban in 2001 if not for 9/11? Probably not.

Chuchill did what he had to do to appease the British public. Not only that, but by bombing civillians he let the people in Germany (who were being fed a pack of lies about the war situation) know that things were not quite as they were told.

A human life lost in conflict is a tragedy, I firmly believe that. But I would postulate (and I cannot prove this) that if it hadn't been done, most of Europe could very well be speaking German by now.

This is not to say the Churchill is getting my vote (I'm going for Elizabeth 1st) but it is to say that he was fine Britain and a good leader, IMHO.

(Edit - Typo that made a sentence not make sense.)

[Mithrandir]

Moved to history/Monastery.

[Wavesword]

Some comments on Churchill's use of Chemical Weapons
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c06-s02.html
A short history from same sources of Chemical Weapons use, rather sparse really tho'
http://www.al-bushra.org/temp/grossman.htm
I have some notes a couple of thousand miles away on Churchill's plans to douse Germany in poison gas and his anxiety that psalm singing spineless pacifists wouldn't get in the way.

However... There is a very difficult question to face when one is destroying Stalin & Churchill, who were for all their faults very instrumental in defeating the Nazis by virtue of sheer stubborness. This is more important in Stalin's case of course, since his crimes and contribution were so much greater. Were ruthless men like these the only kinds who could have defeated Hitler? If yes, was the price worthwhile, and how often will it be paid? No real answer seems possible, I haven't come up with one after much thinking and WW2 reading.

[Catiline]

You htink Mo Mowlam is going for the leadership? Rather her than Gordon Brown or any of the other nonentities, but i think sugggesting that she's going on TV to propose Churchill as greatest Briton is stretching the point a bit far.

That poll is shocking. I seriously fail to see how Princess Di can be in there, even in the top hundred, let alone top 3. Some spoilt rich bitch who died early ensuring iconic status (in the short term at least. John Lennon is another case. The guy wrote songs. Big deal, in the scheme of things that's not greatness. Is Paul Mcartney there, he wrote all that beautiful Rupert the Bear music, but then he didn't get shot.

There are problems with Churchill but he's in a totally different league regardless of what you think of his politics.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

I have read previous suggestions about Mr. Churchill being a war criminal...

As far as some of the bombings go, this is definately a warcrime.. the creation of the first firestorm bombing (Hamburg) was an accident. Yet allied scientists quickly found out why the firestorm occured, and told the military how to create it. The firestorm bombings on the ballbearings-factory in Braunschweig (?) and on Dresden were warcrimes, just as the firestorm bombing on Tokyo. The bombings on Tokyo and Dresden supposedly killed more people then either of the nuclear blasts above Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or according to some reports even these two combined).... The Allied high command supposedly decided to destroy from early 1945 on every major German city, whether the city had strategic importance (factories and so on) or not, and go for the city centers. This as a retaliation for Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry etc. Dresden and Münster are examples of the latter.. Also, on quite a few occasions the arrival of the second or third wave of bombers was deliberately timed in such a manner as to hit as many firefighters, rescueworkers etc. as possible...

But somewhere a couple of years ago I read an article about Winston Churchill being involved in another warcrime, the sinking of the Lusitania in 1917 (as Winston Churchill was Secretary of the Navy at the time). There have always been rumours that this ship, and other passenger vessels, had been used to transport weapons from the US to the UK, which is a warcrime. Also, there have always been rumours that the Germans announced their attempt to sink the ship before it left New York on its last voyage. This article/discussion was triggered by the fact that the Lusitania was found by civilian divers in a location that was far away from the supposed site of the attack, and that (supposedly) right after the discovery became public, the area around the wreck was declared military territory, and off limits for civilians. Yet divers reported seeing gunbarrel-like tubes. Also the location of the wreck was in an area that was known to be infested with German subs at the time, and also various other neutral ships had been send around this area at the time by the British admiralty (some even claim the course of the ship was actually diverted by the British admiralty into the dangerzone). So the theory, according to some is that the British wanted the ship to be sunk, to draw the US into the war, because they would not be able to win it, and were on the verge of bankruptcy, while Russia was collapsing (which freed up additional German troops). If the British admiralty was involved, odds are Winston Churchill at leat knew about it.

[PFJ_bejazuz]

I heard a mad 'thing' about churchill on the World Service. About his implication in the death of the acting Polish head of state in Gibraltar. Apparently dude had discovered the mass slaughter of Polish officers by Russians & wanted to make it public. Churchill really didn't want the Allies to have a major division in their ranks & so bumped dude off ... allegedly.

[Inferno]

Well, looks like the majority of British people don't think Churchill's a war criminal...he won by a sizeable majority.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/2509465.stm

[DojoRat]

What I found truly criminal about strategic bombing in WWII was its ineffectiveness. Considering all the lives taken on both sides it had no major impact on morale or production IMO. German production rose throughout the war (until mid '44 I think)despite the bombing and the need to move underground. Much of the improvement came from Speer's management and the late switch to a total war economy but it still shows the lack of effectiveness of the air campaign.

Unfortunately, the US air force still clings to this doctrine in its high altitude, 'precision bombing'.
It has it effective uses but it's not the panecea they keep telling us it is.

[Idaho]

Oh he was a dodgy old drunk and no mistake:

Churchill, the Truth (http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,801438,00.html)