大象传媒

Message 1 - Walking in the footsteps of Churchill

Posted on: 06 October 2005 by Peter - WW2 Site Helper

Dear joyoussingapore

I read your attack on Churchill with growing bewilderment. Bewilderment primarily because you seem to be badly informed about the very person you are criticising. Searching constructive criticism is always a salutary antidote to over-inflated reputations and blind praise, but it has to rest on secure grounds. I do realise, of course, that there will be no way of changing your clearly entrenched views of Winston Churchill, so my observations are primarily directed to others who may be misled by your assertions. (I apologise for retaining your spelling slips as I have simply copied and pasted your text).

"(1) The SURRENDER to the Boers in South Africa after ordering his Battalion 'March towards the sound of gunfire'"

The quotation you give "March towards the sound of gunfire" was made by Napoleon to his Marshals, not by Churchill; incidentally, it invariably proved to be very sound military advice during the Napoleonic Wars. Aside from that, may I point out the Churchill was never in charge of a battalion in the Boer War. In that conflict he was the Morning Post's war correspondent; he was in South Africa as a journalist not as a soldier. Perhaps you are confusing his service at Omdurman, in the Sudan, a decade earlier as a young Second Lieutenant in the 4th Hussars. But even there his rank was far too junior to 'order' his battalion about.

"(2) The SURRENDER on the beaches at Gallipolis in Turkey with heavy loss of life when he was First Lord of the Admiralty"

This has me puzzled, since there was no surrender at Gallipoli. Instead it was a long and bitter campaign which fizzled out in failure. The concept was a daring attempt to break the deadlock on the Western Front, in the hope of a swift victory, by relieving the pressure on Russia. The landing itself was virtually unopposed. Not least in preventing a Turkish defeat was the presence, by chance, of Mustafa Kemal, later known as Kemal Ataturk - one of the most brilliant soldiers Turkey as ever produced. By contrast, on the Allied side, there was 'incompetent and confused leadership' (not my words, the words of the eminent historian, Sir Martin Gilbert).

You also seem to be unaware that the idea of an attack on the Dardanelles came from Lord Kitchener, and that Kitchener's suggestion of a military as well as a naval assault was supported by Maurice Hankey. The plan itself was drawn up by General Sir Ian Hamilton. You also seem to be unaware of the part that Kitchener played in all this and the role of the War Council. Prime Minister Asquith was adamant at the War Council that the Dardanelles operation should go forward. At the vital meeting of 26 January 1915, Asquith asked the members what importance they attached to the Dardanelles operation. Kitchener, who spoke first, said he considered the naval attack "to be vitally important". Balfour, as a former Prime Minister, was also invited to give his views, he told the Council that "It was difficult to imagine a more helpful operation".

The War Council on 16 February agreed that the Australian and New Zealand troops then in Egypt, on their way to France, should be sent instead to Lemnos, for service at Gallipoli and Churchill was instructed to arrange their transport. Churchill wanted at least 50,000 men sent, but Kitchener insisted that the 30,000 ANZACS would be more than enough. He stuck firmly to that poor assessment, despite Lloyd George, Asquith, and Grey each arguing with Kitchener that the 29th Division should also be sent. After the fiasco, Fischer, as First Sea Lord, the only one who had initially opposed the idea, resigned, and Churchill was forced from the Admiralty. Lord Kitchener's reputation remained unscathed because he had meanwhile drowned; the incompetence of General Hamilton was brushed over. However, there was no surrender, the troops were withdrawn between December 1915 and January 1916.

"(3) The SURRENDER on the beaches at Dunkirk in France from our hastily ill-equipped conscripped civilian Army for Churchill's chance to political power after years in the wilderness and his speech to the Nation 'We will fight on the beaches We will fight in the hills We will never surrender"

There was no surrender at Dunkirk whatsoever, the bulk of the BEF was brought home. You refer to the ill-equipped army, clearly you are unaware that Churchill, almost a lone voice, had been warning about this unpreparedness for years. Incidentally, the speech you quote was made on 4 June 1940, after Dunkirk.

"(4) The SURRENDER on the beaches at Singapore of 5000 of our Troups well-equipped to 2000 Japanese Troups ill-equipped and exhausted after their long treck down through Malaya continually attacked by the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders in the best traditions of our Highland Regiments Bayonets and Bagpipes When the exhausted Japanese Troups finally arrived in Singapore it took them 3 days to accept the Surrender they thought a trap".

This is, at best, a simplistic account of what happened. Even so, I am at a loss to understand where Churchill comes into this.

"(5) The SURRENDER on the beaches 'D'Day that could have happened if the Americans had not overruled Churchill's orders on what beaches to land on"

Here you are speculating on what never happened. One might as well argue that IF Germany had won the First World War there would have been no Second World War and, probably, no Hitler. That aside, I am not aware that "the Americans ... overruled Churchill's orders on what beaches to land on" and would like to hear more. Who exactly overruled him? President Roosevelt?

"(6) The Prime Minister Winston Churchill had been rejected as a new entrant Midshipman at Dartmouth Naval Colledge as to not having command of all his facilities a medical bed ailment and a speech impediment Rejected by the Brittish Army for the same reasons he was finally accepted in a Cavalry Regiment that was about to be disbanded".

This is absolute nonsense and I am afraid that you have been completely misled by your sources. Churchill did not apply to join the Navy and he could have joined the army like any other young man. What he did do, was to enter the army by taking the stiff Sandhurst Examination. He first sat this at the age of 17, but failed. Of the 693 candidates he came 390th; in English history he was 18th out of more than 400 who took the paper. Louis Moriaty, his army class tutor at Harrow, minuted "I think your marks & place very creditable for a first try". He tried again the day before his 18th birthday, and just failed again but gaining 900 points higher and coming 8th in the chemistry paper. He passed this stiff examination at his third attempt at the age of 18, coming 4th on the cavalry list. Failing the stiff Sandhurst entrance exam is not quite the same thing as being 'Rejected by the British Army'.

"(7) From this came his speech from the safety of the House of Commons to the Nation and the world at large 'The Royal Navy is ruled by rum sodomy and the lash. This was an outrage to the Officer's Men and Seaman boys of the Royal Navy of which there has been no rebuttle today Repulse had 200 seamen boys of which the author was one particulary so as Repulse was chosen for HM Royal Cruise"

This could not be more wrong if you tried. He never made any speech to the H of C. alluding to the Royal Navy in such a way nor were the words broadcast to the nation, nor to the world. You even get the quote wrong, he is supposed to have said "The only traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy and the lash". But he never said those words or anything like it. When Churchill heard that the story was being banded about, he quipped to his assistant, Anthony Montague-Browne, that although he had not uttered these words, he wished he had.

"(8) The Official Records Office London all so records Prime Minister Churchill statement to his son Randolph flinging his razor angerly into his shaving bowl said 'I will drag America into the war by having the Japanese attack us by sending the crippled battleship HMS Prince of Wales after her battle with the Bismarck and the battle Cruiser HMS Repulse to the Gulf of Saigon to tempt the old Japanese Fleet out and attack us so bringing America into the War The date 10th of December 1941 America was already at War in the date 7th of December 1941"

First may I say that it is complete news to me that the Public Records Office keeps records of private conversations; Britain has never been a police-state. But even so, why would America enter the war if the Japanese attacked a British ship? It took the attack on Pearl Harbour to bring them in.

Sources:
"Churchill - A Biography" by Roy Jenkins
"Churchill - A Life" by Martin Gilbert.
Churchill's Wartime Speeches" Volume 2.

For quotes wrongly attributed to Churchill: ^{About links}

Regards,

Peter