6 ms·

Like most of Churchill's disastrous hare-brained schemes, Europe's 'Soft Underbelly' turned out to be a 'Tough Old Gut' where many soldiers were killed pretty m

Like most of Churchill's disastrous hare-brained schemes, Europe's 'Soft Underbelly' turned out to be a 'Tough Old Gut' where many soldiers were killed pretty much unnecessarily. Churchill is well-looked-upon by History, mainly because Churchill wrote that History. In truth, most of his schemes turned out be extremely costly in terms of politics, men and materiel. He demanded rationing and privation from the general public, but he dined on luxuries and champagne daily. Bit of an asshole, really. He got Turkey into WW1 on the side of Germany. The Gallipoli defeat was a Churchill scheme. The Northern Africa Campaign was a Churchill scheme. Likewise the Italian Campaign.

MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
> Churchill is well-looked-upon by History, mainly because Churchill wrote that History. Few people were as disastrous for 20th century Europe as Churchill.
- serallak 3y ago
  More than Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Wilhelm II?
logical_proof 3y ago
There’s a great scene at the end of Babylon 5 season 4 when a bunch of pundits are talking about John Sheridan much like you are talking about Churchill. It all happened years after the fact and sounded so plausible and so truthful, like they absolutely knew what they were saying was gospel. Perhaps you are a foremost expert on Churchill and not just a rando on the internet.
- kjs3 3y ago
  On the other hand, using B5 (specific episode of course, as one does) as your straw man when there are mountains of easily googled real life, foremost expert created, not from moms basement critiques and analysis of Churchill's legacy is pretty much the definition of "just a rando on the internet". There's a Comic Book Guy in every intrawebs argument, and he just waddled into the room.
  - logical_proof 3y ago
    It was actually an ad hominem because I was attacking you not your argument, also you cited 'google' and then called me a Comic Book Guy. Sick Burn.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
truthinhstor 3y ago
He also started WW2 by declaring war on Germany. No British politician comes remotely close in terms of disaster; even Boris Johnson telling Ukraine to scrap their agreement with Russia and keep fighting instead seems mild in comparison.
- EdwardDiego 3y ago
  I'm sure there would have been peace in our time if only Churchill had merely appeased Hitler.
  - squarefoot 3y ago
    Just wondering which flavor of peace and at what cost. Speaking as an Italian.
    - MomoXenosaga 3y ago
      Nazis don't want peace their entire ideology hinges on perpetual struggle.
- simonblack 3y ago
  Much as I dislike Churchill, you can't pin 'starting WW2' on him.* That was Chamberlain, not that he had much choice either. * Actually WW2 had been going on since 1937 with the Japanese invasion of China.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    There is a school of thought that has WW2 as a continuation of WW1s unfinished business, with an interval before the unsolved issues were hashed out.
  - Log_out_ 3y ago
    Where did the river start always causes an argument about aquifiers, ponds and glaciers. Meanwhile weather and geography are able to sneak from the room.. The world wars were caused by a world were empires and there atrocities were normal. Japan, Italy and Germany were all late comers to an empire world were starving out a nation was considered acceptable. They became thus desperately hyperimperialist by circumstance. The circumstances that made worldwar end, were free trade, traditional empires waning and nukes. Were it otherwise, we would still be at it, every ten years a desperate mini empire emerging from rubble of "in between countries, to be then swallowed and eaten by the eldritch horrors that are traditional empires.
allturtles 3y ago
> He got Turkey into WW1 on the side of Germany. The Gallipoli defeat was a Churchill scheme. The Northern Africa Campaign was a Churchill scheme. Likewise the Italian Campaign. Some of these claims are rather debatable. I'm not sure what you even mean by "the Northern Africa Campaign was a Churchill scheme"; that campaign began when Mussolini ordered his forces to attack Egypt. In any case, weighed against all his negatives, Churchill has one thing very much in his favor: continuing to prosecute the war against Germany even after France surrendered was also a Churchill scheme.
- nicbou 3y ago
  Not only that, but North Africa (well, Operation Torch) was a far better idea than the Americans' plan to oand directly in France. It gave the fledgling American army a chance to learn many important lessons.
  - allturtles 3y ago
    Oh, I see, GP meant Torch. That makes sense. I don't see why that would be considered "disastrous" or "hare-brained" though. It was pretty successful. It seems likely that invading France in 1942 would indeed have been disastrous, though.
lostlogin 3y ago
Don't forget the Bengal Famine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

MrBuddyCasino 3y ago

> Churchill is well-looked-upon by History, mainly because Churchill wrote that History. Few people were as disastrous for 20th century Europe as Churchill.

serallak 3y ago
More than Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Wilhelm II?

logical_proof 3y ago

There’s a great scene at the end of Babylon 5 season 4 when a bunch of pundits are talking about John Sheridan much like you are talking about Churchill. It all happened years after the fact and sounded so plausible and so truthful, like they absolutely knew what they were saying was gospel. Perhaps you are a foremost expert on Churchill and not just a rando on the internet.

kjs3 3y ago
On the other hand, using B5 (specific episode of course, as one does) as your straw man when there are mountains of easily googled real life, foremost expert created, not from moms basement critiques and analysis of Churchill's legacy is pretty much the definition of "just a rando on the internet". There's a Comic Book Guy in every intrawebs argument, and he just waddled into the room.
- logical_proof 3y ago
  It was actually an ad hominem because I was attacking you not your argument, also you cited 'google' and then called me a Comic Book Guy. Sick Burn.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

truthinhstor 3y ago

He also started WW2 by declaring war on Germany. No British politician comes remotely close in terms of disaster; even Boris Johnson telling Ukraine to scrap their agreement with Russia and keep fighting instead seems mild in comparison.

EdwardDiego 3y ago
I'm sure there would have been peace in our time if only Churchill had merely appeased Hitler.
- squarefoot 3y ago
  Just wondering which flavor of peace and at what cost. Speaking as an Italian.
  - MomoXenosaga 3y ago
    Nazis don't want peace their entire ideology hinges on perpetual struggle.
simonblack 3y ago
Much as I dislike Churchill, you can't pin 'starting WW2' on him.* That was Chamberlain, not that he had much choice either. * Actually WW2 had been going on since 1937 with the Japanese invasion of China.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  There is a school of thought that has WW2 as a continuation of WW1s unfinished business, with an interval before the unsolved issues were hashed out.
- Log_out_ 3y ago
  Where did the river start always causes an argument about aquifiers, ponds and glaciers. Meanwhile weather and geography are able to sneak from the room.. The world wars were caused by a world were empires and there atrocities were normal. Japan, Italy and Germany were all late comers to an empire world were starving out a nation was considered acceptable. They became thus desperately hyperimperialist by circumstance. The circumstances that made worldwar end, were free trade, traditional empires waning and nukes. Were it otherwise, we would still be at it, every ten years a desperate mini empire emerging from rubble of "in between countries, to be then swallowed and eaten by the eldritch horrors that are traditional empires.

allturtles 3y ago

> He got Turkey into WW1 on the side of Germany. The Gallipoli defeat was a Churchill scheme. The Northern Africa Campaign was a Churchill scheme. Likewise the Italian Campaign. Some of these claims are rather debatable. I'm not sure what you even mean by "the Northern Africa Campaign was a Churchill scheme"; that campaign began when Mussolini ordered his forces to attack Egypt. In any case, weighed against all his negatives, Churchill has one thing very much in his favor: continuing to prosecute the war against Germany even after France surrendered was also a Churchill scheme.

nicbou 3y ago
Not only that, but North Africa (well, Operation Torch) was a far better idea than the Americans' plan to oand directly in France. It gave the fledgling American army a chance to learn many important lessons.
- allturtles 3y ago
  Oh, I see, GP meant Torch. That makes sense. I don't see why that would be considered "disastrous" or "hare-brained" though. It was pretty successful. It seems likely that invading France in 1942 would indeed have been disastrous, though.

lostlogin 3y ago

Don't forget the Bengal Famine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943