I like Churchill more and more everytime I hear something new about him.

Well, it would have been the way you bring down Hitler. Didn't actually happen.

I read that article. His ministers were right to overrule him on the german village slaughter. The execution of hitler doesn't seem too bad. Generally the author of the article overreached really far trying to slam Churchill, who has to be one of the top few greatest people of the last century, if not simply #1 period. I don't think the author suceeded in taking anything away from Churchill at all, he just seems like an annoying pipsqueak who will rapidly be forgotten.

Hey I can play this too! They kill 3000 of our civilians, we kill 30,000 civilians in a completely unrelated country!

Oh. That's not what Churchill meant, is it.

They kill four of our contractors, we lay siege to the town of Fallujah, after not allowing adult males to leave, in violation of intl law. Now the majority of Iraqis want the US out, and a significant proportion support the insurgency.

Isn't that enough, ace?

The Prodigal Castrato Troll returns.

> and a significant proportion support the insurgency.

Yeah, a "significant proportion" of Americans support the Iraqi insurgency too. Those significant proportions can be awful squirrely.

How would the modern media react if it was leaked that Churchill deliberately allowed the bombing of Coventry by the Luftwaffe with no prior action because he didn't want the SS to realize the Enigma Code had been broken? And would the modern MSM suppress the fact that Churchill's own family members were in Coventry and not evacuated either?

A hard conflict needs hard decisions. But what else would you expect from a truly great people? While the French collaborated with Nazis to save their asses, women and children stood on the cliffs of Dover throwing rocks at Messerschmitts.

Much of western civilization, particularly Europe, should look back at Churchill and his generation of Brits and be ashamed of what it's become.

Cabinet: "You want to wipe out three German villages?"

Churchill: That's how I roll!

All sorts of conniptions for Sully tomorrow, as it turns out.

Plus Ca Change...

[note the author and the date - 1941]

I fear this news is going to give Andrew Sullivan conniptions.

You 'fear'? I hope.

Biff Biff's point is well-taken. But it also raised an interesting question - what is the current understanding of the Coventry bombing? I haven't kept up with the literature, but as I understood the original assertions (made by F.W. Winterbotham and Anthony Cave Brown), it was indeed alleged that Churchill refused to allow any warning to be issued to the citizens of Coventry in order to avoid letting slip that Enigma had been cracked. In the late Eighties, as I recall, Nigel West and (I think) David Stafford both challenged this, claiming that the evidence for this was less clear-cut than previously thought. Anyone know what the current scholarly take on this might be?

Churchill was also a strong advocate of using poison gas and anthrax against the Germans. At the beginning of the war the RAF generals objected to bombing German armament factories, on the grounds they were private property. Winston of course told them those concerns were ridiculous, bomb 'em. Churchill wanted to win, no doubt about that.

Ace, why don't you just let Allah start writing the blog, and be done with it?:D

BTW, how's that fix on the "remember personal info" bug coming along?

Ace,

I know, do not feed the troll.

But.I.Gotsta'.Know.

Troll:

Query:

In the affirmative: How does one root out and defeat non-lawful combatants located in a densely populated civilian location?

What "international law" did the US and its allies violate through their interdiction in Fallujah?

What countries are signatories to this law?

What international body adjudicates this law?

What are the enforcement mechanisms to prevent the killing of civilians by unlawful combatants?

In terms of civilian deaths in Iraq, what percentage of them are directly related to US fire?

What percentage of civilian death is due to Iraqi, Jihadi, or other foreign and non-lawful combatant fire?

What percentage of the civilian deaths in Iraq are comprised of non-lawful combatants?

Just askin'

Churchill may have been a great leader, but this isn't necessarily what made him great. Not sure what your point is either way.

Speaking of Hitler's fate. . .

I seem to recall an alternative history short story that had Hitler surviving World War II, only as a personal pet for Stalin. Stalin kept him naked suspended in a man-sized bird cage in a room somewhere, IIRC. Great image, and perfect justice, methinks.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Can't you throw me a bone and say Allah Akbar just once?

Considering that by 1942 the Nazis were bombing London on a regular basis and targeting selected other cities in England intermittingly I can certainly understand the sentiment. Hard to see why this is even news but then it is the Guardian.

Gee- eighteen posts and not ONE that includes the words, "Andy Sullivan" and "Like a gangster".

They tried to assasinate hitler several times but that was the germans themselves who tried it

Winston's character had many facets. Many are not acceptable today. Many were not acceptable in his day.

If more leaders in Britain, France, etc. had possessed his character WW2 probably would not have occurred. And Winston would be remembered only as a minor author, minor politican, pig-headed and imperialistic.

Try not to look at him as a flawless model of man. His great moment came because he, through some astonishing insight, had figured out the implications of Hitler fast, knew no appeasment would appease, that to show doubt was to fail, and you could not fight without casualties.

Lots of guys were smarter than Washington too. But the smartest made Washington their leader.

>>try not to look at hi as a flawless model of man

Well said. This is the guy who needlessly threw away the three Bacchanae-class cruisers in the Channel in 1914, authored the slaughter at Gallipoli soon after, allowed the Navy to founder without a fortified North Sea port for years(!) and allowed Lord Beresford to scupper the man's best, most intelligent, and most loyal ally in the First Big One, Louis Battenburg (who resigned to save Churchill's War Cabinet).

Churchill was far from faultless, and the occasions of his blundering were, often as not, predicted by military minds who knew the guy as a civilian blowhard playing at leader. Inspirational? sure. Hardworking? No question. Unfairly maligned as a boozer? Yes, if you believe that a few drinks a day isn't debilitating. Peerless hero of the British Isles? There are contestants for that honor that outweigh siren-suited Churchill.

Troll...

Troll????

...

Thought so.

to Dave..
I can't be as tough on Winnie as you are. But then that task might be impossible.

Winston made some real blunders. IN WWI it is pretty hard to find a leader who didn't. Almost nothing proceeded as predicted year after year. In history it should be called The Great Blunder.

Gallipoli is indeed cited as his disaster, certainly it is his in the sense that the leader takes the responsibility. But the military had the job and they did not conduct the attack as planned. The navy seemingly did not grasp that the object of battle is not to keep the fleet intact but to win. Troops did not move quickly, etc.

There was also bad luck in that the Turkish general proved damn good - hardly to be expected in WWI.

Still, even as envisioned it probably would not have worked. Or not well enough to justify the resources.

This is purely my guess about why he often threw resources into dubious ventures: He believed that inactivity favored the enemy. And moreso in WW2 than in the first.

I will allude to only two arguments for the above.

One. People gradually accept the status quo and just want to settle. This saps will in democracies but not in tyrannies.

Two. Continuous action tends to keep the enemy from pausing for new weapon tooling and deployment, but your side, having started later, is already producing better designs.

Anyway, I hazard that we both see him as disagreeable medicine, But one that that was about even more disagreeable to Mr. Hitler.

Feh!

Churchill was a piker.

Our Dark Lord Dick Cheney would have killed them all, eaten them, shit out their remains, packaged the shit and mailed the packages to all the other world leaders with a note saying : "Best check yourself".