Chamberlain or Churchill

[Tim the Tank Nut]

Well, that's an argument I just can't top. Since Churchill traded banter with Slim regarding his Obdurman experiences then clearly he was a substandard wartime leader.

 

It seems to me that the timeline post here lists Winston Churchill's efforts to be fairly consistent. It says a lot about how Churchill thought of the Nazis. In particulaer Churchill's frustration regarding Chamberlain's desire to reach an "agreement" with Hitler.

 

In most militaries leadership is a key trait. For better or worse Chuchill had motivational leadership skills that Chamberlain did not and never would have.

 

I have tried to figure out Brooke and can only come to the conclusion that he wrote only to improve himself compared to others. His constant, scathing criticisms only go so far. After all, if he was a military genius why did it take so long to win the war. Brooke was NOT a team player. I think Montgomery carried Brooke a lot more than the other way around.

[Ken Estes]

Well, don't get sore, just because nobody swallows your start line:

 

Originally posted by Tim the Tank Nut:

In the FFZ where angels fear to tread a poster related an interesting theory which I am surely misunderstanding.  That being that Chamberlain was the better man than Churchill.

<snip>

Chamberlain on the other hand was a spineless POS. 

 

Since that went nowhere, why can't we at least have some fun?

[Scott Cunningham]

Chamberlain was the Jimmy Carter of Britain. As a man he was a noble and virtuous person, but as a politician and a national leader, he was a catastrophe.

 

Few would compare Reagan with Carter as a politician, but both were good men on an individual level.

[RETAC21]

In any case it wouldn't have mattered wether the allies had gone to war vs. Germany in 1938, overawed as they were by the Wehrmacht. Check 1939. Nothing done on Germany's passive front for 7 months.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

Alright, you got me on that one fair and square. I have put way to much FFZ in my Gen Mil this time around.

[Lev]

Originally posted by Tim the Tank Nut:

 

It seems to me that the timeline post here lists Winston Churchill's efforts to be fairly consistent.

He was very consistent, he always proposed (or supported) a seaborne invasion as a quick fix for the overall strategic situation.

 

In most militaries leadership is a key trait.  For better or worse Chuchill had motivational leadership skills that Chamberlain did not and never would have.

 

I don't think anyone would argue with that.

[Mk 1]

Originally posted by JohnB:

I've really heard it now, are you seriously suggesting the British should have imitated the Axis approach to logistics?

 

I would have to agree with JohnB that suggesting an imitation of the Axis approach to logistics is pretty amazing...

 

I have just finished reading "Flyboys" (by Bradley). I picked this book up at the airport on my way to Japan, as I am always interested in the stories of individuals in wartime, and it seemed on first look to have a good summary history of Japan's emergence as an industrial power.

 

And then I read the book... it was ... "illuminating" to me.

 

I am very familiar with the whole topic of attrocities in Europe and the Soviet Union. I've read dozens of books, seen movies and documentaries, visited various locations in Western Europe, spoken with Holocaust survivors, engaged in debates, etc. etc.

 

But I guess I have never really understood nor appreciated the level of attrocities in the Pacific war.

 

I'd be interested in any other opinions of the veracity of some of the claims made in this particular book. It follows the stories of 8 airmen shot down and captured at Chichi Jima (where George Bush the elder would have been the 9th, but for his good fortune to be rescued offshore by a US sub). All 8 were eventually killed, and at the post-war war crimes trials it was revealed that cannibalism was involved. The author wrote the book after being contacted by a witness of those trials, who in that role was sworn to secrecy, but who, after the records of the trials had been made public, thought that the story of those flyboys should be told.

 

The book tries very hard to give a "both-sides" view of how the environment developed in which such gruesome events could have transpired. In doing so, the book tosses about some "facts" that surprised me.

 

For example:

 

-Japanese swords killed more civilians during WWII than American A-bombs. By a factor of maybe 10-to-1.

 

-About 250,000 Chinese civilians died in the Imperial Army's reaction to the Doolittle raids. Most were beheaded.

 

-Japanese Imperial Army units were often issued a "ration" of POWs for bayonet training of new recruits. It was viewed as a valuable part of toughening up troops to have them bayonet a live subject. Generally, a chalk circle was drawn on the chest around the area of the heart. This was a "no-stab" zone, so that the subject would not be killed too quickly, and so more recruits could be trained on fewer POWs.

 

-It was pretty much SOP for Imperial Army units in China to kill all inhabitants of villages in which they planned to sleep. No survivers were permitted, as that would mean someone knew WHERE the Japanese soldiers were sleeping, and so put them at risk. Villages that the soldiers marched through would be left unmolested (except the women, see below), but wherever they stopped for the night everyone had to be killed before sack time.

 

-It was also SOP to kill all women that were raped. Simple expedience. Japanese who participated in post-war interviews described it in very practical terms. They expected more angry relatives, thus more insurgents, if the women survived to tell the story. So SOP was to kill them.

 

-As civilian populations became denuded of interesting women, the Army began providing "comfort women" as a resource. This story is perhaps well known. Generally, 13 to 16 year-old Korean girls were taken for this role. They were imprisonned in Army brothels near the front lines, and "serviced" an average of 50 to 70 soldiers PER DAY. After their usefullness was used up they were generally killed, usually after several months due to visible signs of pregnancy. This was seen as a very satisfactory approach, as it kept the soldiers from wandering about looking for women, kept VD under control, AND provided for more sword-practice for the officers.

 

-At one point during the war, a popular newspaper in Japan (I confess that I have read it often ) ran a "regular" feature on two young Imperial Army lieutenants who were having a contest to see who could behead 100 people first! After one of them got to that "lofty" result within a few weeks, the paper said that in good spirits they agreed to continue their competition indefinetly.

 

-The Imperial Army regularly sent troops to distant areas with no thought to logistics beyond supplying ammo. All else was stated as "local provisioning". In New Guinea, where the land barely supported a very thin native population, this resulted in extremes. Post-war studies document how several units kept POWs and civilian prisoners as "feed stock". Units developed the skill of carving off meat in stages, so the subject would not die for two or three days, as meat (and corpses) tended to spoil quickly in the tropics. Post war there were several survivors, particularly of commonwealth (Indian) units, who attested to this. Japanese soldiers even developed names for the native populations (black cows) to reflect their value as food sources. Rape was not common of native women, as they were seen as too useful as a source of food.

 

-Eating the internal organs, particularly the heart or liver, of enemy POWs was considered very "macho" by some members of the Imperial Army's officer corps. Army surgeons attested post-war to being called by CO's to remove these organs from executed POWs.

 

 

So yeah, I would suggest that emulating the Japanese approach to a log-light tail would not be exactly appropriate.

 

-Mark

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by JohnB:

I've really heard it now, are you seriously suggesting the British should have imitated the Axis approach to logistics?

 

 

No, I'm suggesting the CW forces could have displayed the gumption of the Axis. Aussies on Timor fell back before an inferior number of Japanese, retreated for a while, then surrendered when they were "too exhausted" to retreat further. The Japanese chasing them weren't exhausted enough to quit.

 

Except for two or three CW leaders in Malaya, the Japanese routinely turned out CW forces less than the strength of the attacking Japanese, and improvised a supply line that got them to Singapore. I have pictures of Japanese Engineers who didn't get their bridge done in time standing bent over in water with boards across their backs making a human bridge that the infantry double-timed over. Show me a British (or American FTM) Engineer unit with that dedication.

 

Monty's pursuit after Alamein lost the Germans because "rains made the ground muddy." The Axis managed to retreat through the mud. Mud only affects the pursuers, not the pursued?

 

Need more examples?

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by JohnB:

If anything Brooke didn't do enough to rein Churchills fertile mind - the Dieppe disaster, the Aegean adventure and the Arakan abortion come to mind.

 

He could have reined in "Churchill's fertile mind" by producing results instead of excuses. That he (from his own words) spent the war "reining in" Churchill indicates to me that he didn't have anything to offer in the way of ideas except "it can't be done."

 

I presume your opinion of pusillanimity on the part of Brooke is related to the 43/44 invasion controversy, again.

 

1) I didn't say (this time) anything about Brooke's "pusillanmity."

 

2) Yes, that's part of it.

 

3) Among many other things.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Mk 1:

I would have to agree with JohnB that suggesting an imitation of the Axis approach to logistics is pretty amazing...

 

Please note that I did NOT suggest the British copy the Axis approach to logistics.

 

What I SAID (or at least what I MEANT) was that even with their poor approach to logistics the Axis accomplished more than the CW forces did with a much longer logistics tail.

 

BTW, the length of the CW (and US) tail I have no problem with. It is the BLOAT in the tail of people sitting on the thumbs that I (and WSC and a whole BUNCH of other people) deplore.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

From MHQ Winter 2002, Vol 14 Number 2

Article: Churchill's Lonely Campaign by Williamson Murray

 

"In 1934 Churchill wrote in the Daily Mail:' I marvel at the complacency of ministers in the face of the frightful esperiences through which we have all so newly passed. I look with wonder upon the thoughtless crowds disporting themselves in the summer sunshine and upon this unheeding House of Commons, which seems to have no higher function than to cheer a Minister; {and all the while across the North Sea}, a terrible process is astir. Germany is arming'."

 

"Churchill's writing and his recognition that we must see the world as it is, not as we wish it to be."

 

After the Czech crises was resolved in Germany's favor: "And do not suppose this is the end. This is the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first fortaste of a bitter cup..."

 

"What was particularly disastrous for Britain's prospects in the coming war was that Chamberlain had done vitually nothing to accelerate British military preparations between September, 1938 and March 1939... his government refused to address any of the substantial weaknesses that had appeared during the mobilization occasioned by the Czech crisis."

 

"Chamberlain...warned the cabinet...that he 'could not accept the services request for increased defense spending as being a purely military matter'."

 

 

Of course, we may simply dismiss Mr Murray as some sort of historical hack but that seems unrealistic. Mr Murray is a respected author and historian with a good track record. His many books include A WAR TO BE WON: FIGHTING THE SECOND WORLD WAR. The fact is Mr Murray's analysis (and my own) are dead on. Churchill was the right man for the job and Neville Chamberlain was not. His vision of the future of Nazi Germany was clear from the onset. Neville Chamberlain's personal goodness and his desire to prevent war are not the issue here. War was coming to England, choose it or not.

Ken's personal politics preclude him from giving Churchill his due simply because he is a "darling of the right". This, coupled with the notions that Hitler was a great man (see earlier post) and the idea that Germany on France's west coast was not a threat to England (see earlier post) lead me to the unescapable conclusion that this is a "Belarius Syndrome".

[Tim the Tank Nut]

On the logistics issue, Sargent's point is correct. The Allies certainly could have used what they had more effectively. The rub is that totalitarian governments tend to get a little more out of their soldiers than democracies. Particularly democracies where the military is stifled by weak-kneed politicains in the years leading up to war. The Allies' material abundance did not preclude them from fighting the Axis to the end. It just made them seem a little wasteful.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

Another quote from the article that shows the value of the man:

"To a young Brigadier General from the Middle East HQ who asked him if he could speak freely, he replied 'Of course. We are not here to pay each other compliments'."

 

And a few lines from the article again:

"Churchill himself accurately remarked that the strategic decision making system under his predecessors had represented the maximum of study and the minimum of action. It was all very well to say that everything had been thought of. The crux of the matter was-had anything been done?"

 

See that IS leadership. Do something, as opposed to discussing it indefinitely. Left up to many politicains we would still be discussing the viability of invading Normandy and responding to the threats by current day regimes as well. Oh for Chuchill and Patton in today's world (and a touch of Stalin for those who would idolize him from their cells).

[Grant Whitley]

Originally posted by Tim the Tank Nut:

The rub is that totalitarian governments tend to get a little more out of their soldiers than democracies.

 

I wouldn't say that's true generally. Far from being a run of the mill dictatorship, Germany was in the throes of an immensely popular revolution. By contrast, the US was at an ideological nadir in the 30s.

 

Particularly democracies where the military is stifled by weak-kneed politicains in the years leading up to war.  The Allies' material abundance did not preclude them from fighting the Axis to the end.  It just made them seem a little wasteful.[/i]

 

In the case of the US, wasn't it the populace, rather than the politicans, who caused that? FDR was all for doing as much as he could from the get go- it was the public who didn't come around until much later. You've also got to consider that both the US and Britain had a long tradition of not maintaining large standing military forces. To do so was seen as antithetical to democracy, an attitude that's shamefully gone out of style.

[Ken Estes]

Originally posted by Tim the Tank Nut:

From MHQ Winter 2002, Vol 14 Number 2

Article: Churchill's Lonely Campaign by Williamson Murray

  The fact is Mr Murray's analysis (and my own) are dead on.  Churchill was the right man for the job and Neville Chamberlain was not.  His vision of the future of Nazi Germany was clear from the onset.  Neville Chamberlain's personal goodness and his desire to prevent war are not the issue here.  War was coming to England, choose it or not.

Ken's personal politics preclude him from giving Churchill his due simply because he is a "darling of the right".  This, coupled with the notions that Hitler was a great man (see earlier post) and the idea that Germany on France's west coast was not a threat to England (see earlier post) lead me to the unescapable conclusion that this is a "Belarius Syndrome".

 

 

Tim, Kinda loosing it aren't you? at 12:26 "Log: Alright, you got me on that one fair and square. I have put way to much FFZ in my Gen Mil this time around." Yet by 21:34 you are at it again?

 

You are the one who invoked Churchill in a political fashion telling one of your FFZ colleagues that he would have voted for Chaimberlain in 1938 vice Churchill, since he was for diplomacy and not action, with reference to the present US problems. This is why I related what other sources have commented upon, that Churchill is the [unintended] darling of the NeoCons. Of course, we all know that you do not vote for PM in the Brit system, but for MPs. Anyway you are not qualified to rate me as unfit to write on Churchill because my "personal politics" preclude me. My 1984 PhD. in Modern European History makes me equally qualified as Wick Murray to comment on Churchill. Murray is not a Churchill scholar [neither am I] and he writes an iconography in MHQ using no primary source material, I would wager. MHQ is the upper tier of the three Cowles Publications in their pop history offerings [Mil Hist, SWW in declining order], and he is writing for a pop audience.

 

But I digress, you chose 1938 for your instance, and I was offering a healthy historical skepticism, based on years of study of the period, that it was unfair to claim Churchill was somehow the man of the hour in 1938, when circumstances dictated the govt actions.

 

You can offer all the lists of select Churchill speeches you want[your so-called 'timeline'], and I am telling you that the man is not so hailed as omniscient in his homeland by Brit historians, and his well-cooked 6 volume Hist of the war is considered highly self-serving. That's all.

 

Don't you dare to lump me with Belisarius, I never knew the man. Get a grip. This is not FFZ, as you observed above. Ken

[swerve]

"Far from being a run of the mill dictatorship, Germany was in the throes of an immensely popular revolution. "

 

Define "immensely popular". The Nazis peak vote was 37%. With that, they started showing how they'd behave if they actually controlled the country, & in Germanys last free election their vote declined to 33%. The final election (with Hitler as Chancellor) was a farce, with several parties banned from taking part, the apparatus of the state turned over to getting out the vote for the Nazis, immense voter intimidation & as much fraud as they could manage. With all that, they got 44%. In a free election they'd have been trounced. Hitler launched a constitutional coup on the back of a large minority vote. If the democratic parties had realised how dangerous he was & stopped fighting each other, he wouldn't have stood a chance.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Tim the Tank Nut:

"What was particularly disastrous for Britain's prospects in the coming war was that Chamberlain had done vitually nothing to accelerate British military preparations between September, 1938 and March 1939... his government refused to address any of the substantial weaknesses that had appeared during the mobilization occasioned by the Czech crisis."

 

Not quite. The Government DID inform the Army in Feb 1939 that it would be required to cough up a British Expeditionary Force for Continental warfare - after 20 years of assuring "There will never be another BEF."

 

Of course they didn't give the Army any more MONEY, just increased responsibilities....

[Ken Estes]

Originally posted by Mk 1:

I am very familiar with the whole topic of attrocities in Europe and the Soviet Union.  I've read dozens of books, seen movies and documentaries, visited various locations in Western Europe, spoken with Holocaust survivors, engaged in debates, etc. etc.

 

But I guess I have never really understood nor appreciated the level of attrocities in the Pacific war.

 

-Mark

 

NOT FOR THE QUEASY:

 

In 1999, I was in Manchuria visiting a daughter studying Chinese at Changchung, site of Emperor Pu Yi's palace [the "Last Chinese Emperor] and the adjacent "Museum of the National resistance in NE China." Like you, I thought I had a strong stomach for atrocities, having read docs of the Wehrmacht, SS etc. But the Chinese have a 'never forget' doctrine well demonstrated in their museums: wall sized mural photos [to the 15' ceiling] of piles of infants, a brilliant stop-action sequence of a beheading/execution, showing the moment of lift-off, etc. I never thought of how the sword stroke can vary and take a good portion of one or more shoulders as well....Grim.

 

Also adjacent is the Museum of Special Unit 738 [number?], the one that did CW, BW and conventional weapons testing/other 'experiments' on live prisoners, mostly Chinese but a few westerners also. One official diary was open to the page showing "XX logs [JA term for Chinese prisoners] expended in YY experiment...."

 

[Edited by Ken Estes (28 Oct 2004).]

[JohnB]

Originally posted by Sargent:

He could have reined in "Churchill's fertile mind" by producing results instead of excuses. That he (from his own words) spent the war "reining in" Churchill indicates to me that he didn't have anything to offer in the way of ideas except "it can't be done."

Producing results - How, where and what exactly? I gave three examples of British/CW operations which all failed because of inadequate resources and preparation how many more would you like to see? One of Churchill's favourite ideas through the war was for a landing in Norway - do you think that would have been a success or worth trying anyway? With 400,000 German troops in the country and at the limit of Spitfire range that would have been Churchills biggest disaster yet.

 

Alan Brooke's ideas were to clear Africa, invade Italy and make the Med an Allied lake before the invasion of France.

 

 

1) I didn't say (this time) anything about Brooke's "pusillanmity."

2) Yes, that's part of it.

3) Among many other things.

 

And how much experience did Brooke's US counterpart, George Marshall have of war? A brief stint as a staff officer at 1st US Division in 1918.

Remember the first time US forces fought the Germans on a large scale, they got their arses soundly kicked only being saved by Rommel's bungling.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

Ken, my frustration with your posting style just keeps me coming back. For a trained historian with impeccable credentials you make unsupportable statements. The quickest two I can come up with are the great Hitler and Germany was just on the coast, no big deal. Even after I called you on both of those you breezily jetted along to other, less controversial topics. Since you discredit MHQ as pop history that confirms another of my reasons that your posting style is frustrating. You are an elitist historian. That means if it isn't primary it doesn' count and history you don't agree with is "inaccurate" or "revisionist". In fact we just had a thread a while back that covered the value of continuing research and the "big picture" information that comes with it. Quoting an MHQ article does not discredit me or my position. In fact, your assertion that I am "losing it" seems to come after your positions in this thread have been eroded pretty completely. While I regret the tone of the discussion to a degree I also won't run from a good honest argument.

 

To reiterate my position so it will be clear to you:

Winston Churchill was a better man than Neville Chamberlain. Churchill's service to his nation assisted in the survival of Britain during WW2. Chamberlain held the same position before Churchill and left Britain "naked in the dark". Churchill's determination and tenacity became the spark which kept Britain in the war. His unwillingness to compromise with Adolf Hitler's Germany almost certainly was THE reason Germany's Nazis were destroyed by war as opposed to being "contained" by a political settlement. Chamberlain supported diplomacy with no threat of war to back it up. Churchill supported any means necessary including war to deal with the threat. Winston Churchill's tenacity was the key. That same type of tenacity is what is required to end the Islamic terror threat.

 

Footnote:

This is note a backtrack of my position. This is as clear as I can make it. It is what I think, therefore an opinion. I believe the weight of fact sides completely with my opinion. Certainly, history does (pop or otherwise). The fact that I have to add a footnote to insure your understanding of what I am saying and prevent my words from being twisted is unfortunate. Perhaps you could post in a short paragraph your assertion that Churchill was NOT a substantial factor in the outcome of the war, or clarify how history was wrong in its condemnation of Chamberlain as a leader.

[JohnB]

Originally posted by Sargent:

Monty's pursuit after Alamein lost the Germans because "rains made the ground muddy." The Axis managed to retreat through the mud. Mud only affects the pursuers, not the pursued?

 

Need more examples?

 

Mud only affected those driving through the desert. The Axis reteated along a metalled road

[BillB]

Originally posted by Ken Estes:

  NOT FOR THE QUEASY:SNIPAlso adjacent is the Museum of Special Unit 738 [number?], the one that did CW, BW and conventional weapons testing/other 'experiments' on live prisoners, mostly Chinese but a few westerners also. One official diary was open to the page showing "XX logs [JA term for Chinese prisoners] expended in YY experiment...."

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Ken Estes (28 Oct 2004).]

 

Ken, the correct designation is Unit 731. There may be more up to date stuff out now, but two journalists put out a very good book on Unit 731 back in 1989. IIRC it was a spin off from a Brtiish TV documentary.

 

Mk 1, if you want a really disturbing view on Japanese atrocities during WW2 take a look at a Japanese documentary called "Devil Soldiers" that came out a few years back. It is very long, c.4 hours IIRC, but consists mainly of testimony from the perpertators of atrocities backed up with contemporary footage. What makes it especially chilling is these people are talking quite candidly about mind boggling cruelty for which they have never been brought to book. One that particularly sticks in mind was a high ranking medical consultant of some kind chatting away in his office about how his unit in Manchuria routinely trained new combat surgeons by having them dissect living Chinese prisoners. Apparently this gave them a better idea of what the human body's internal organs looked like in a functioning, undamaged state...

 

all the best

 

BillB

[JohnB]

Originally posted by Sargent:

Please note that I did NOT suggest the British copy the Axis approach to logistics.

 

What I SAID (or at least what I MEANT) was that even with their poor approach to logistics the Axis accomplished more than the CW forces did with a much longer logistics tail.

 

BTW, the length of the CW (and US) tail I have no problem with. It is the BLOAT in the tail of people sitting on the thumbs that I (and WSC and a whole BUNCH of other people) deplore.

 

In 1944 the proportion of the BLA regarded as fighting troops was 56%. In 1918 the proportion of the BEF regarded as fighting troops was 63%.

 

The Axis accomplished more? The Eighth Army got from Alamein to Austria via Tripoli, Tunis and Rome. 21st AG got from Normandy to the Baltic.

 

In the Far East, the British put the locals on the ration strength - the Japanese regarded them as the rations.

[Ox]

Originally posted by BillB:

Ken, the correct designation is Unit 731. There may be more up to date stuff out now, but two journalists put out a very good book on Unit 731 back in 1989. IIRC it was a spin off from a Brtiish TV documentary.

 

 

 

It was by Paxman and the other bloke who wrote A hihger Form of Killing but the book's and the coauthor's name escape me just now.

 

I saw an interesting programme on one of the satellite tely channes about German soldiers who were caught by the Japanese inWW1. They were treated very much as guests in Japan and a number settled in Japan after the war. this was due to a edict by the emporer in 1870 something telling Imperial forces to treat enemies with respect. I missed about half the programme looking at why the change post war

 

[Edited by Ox (28 Oct 2004).]

[Ox]

Originally posted by JohnB:

Mud only affected those driving through the desert. The Axis reteated along a metalled road

 

 

Dumb question but why didn't the CW forces advance along it?