I've been reading Townsends book on the Battle of Britain and its quite interesting to learn about what goes on behind closed doors. As a Yank I have great respect for Churchill but he wasnt perfect.
He kept confusing the number of squadrons needed for home defense 52 to 25. Thats a huge mistake.
Also the higher ups to Dowding kept hassleing him regarding his retirement date in the middle of a life and death struggle for Britain. And finally, why was Dowding relieved of his position later on. The man was a remarkable leader and tachtician. I know he wasnt known for his social skills but neither was Patton. I wonder how British textbooks treat him now? Love to hear your own thoughts on this.

Johndw

Hehe, your obsevations are correct, and the history books love Dowding now, but the climate at the time was very political at the start of another world war and Dowding was not a political animal. He was at retirement age anyway, so whatever the story he would have gone soon after the BoB. The fact that he was not mentioned in the official history of the BoB in 1941 is a terrible snub and as you correctly state, the man was remarkable. Churchill definately had his faults but he lead the Country by the seat of his pants and was the right man for the job, his destiny as he himself said. I don't think that there was anyone else who could have lead Britain and the Commonwealth as he did, he was truly a Great Britain. However, if you want to know more about the true hero of the Battle of Britain then I suggest you read up on Keith Park. A New Zealander with incredible strategic vision, he was dismissed along with Dowding but subsequently proved his genious again in the Battle for Malta. The official history again fails to mention his contribution. Trafford Leigh-Mallory took over from Park as leader of 11 Group and had he and Bader had their way during the Battle of Britain with their "Big Wings" then we would all be significantly more tutonic than we are now!!

Agree with the comments about Dowding. Sorry, I don't wan't too get too political but my personal estimate of Churchill is very low. He was a drunken sot whose whole life was devoted to personal vanity, egotism and careerism...and worse.

In 1915, Churchill was one of the political and military engineers of the disasterous Gallipoli landings on the Dardanelles during World War I.

In 1920, as Secretaries of State for War and Air, Churchill had responsibility for quelling the rebellion of Kurds and Arabs in British-occupied soon-to-be Iraq. He advocated the use of poison gas against tribesmen. According to Churchill:" I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes ... to spread a lively terror". Sound familiar? Saddam would probably have loved him.

He was an old school upper-class imperialist (and probably racist and xenophobe) who believed Gandhi was a half-naked fakir" who "ought to be laid, bound hand and foot, at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new viceroy seated on its back." He was a strong opponent of public health care and better public education probably believing only the wealthy classes should benefit from such things.

Some people seem surprised that he was kicked out of office in 1945 after "his" victory but not me. The British contribution to victory in the Second World War was the "blood, sweat, toil and tears" of the ordinary Tommy, Sailor, Pilot and others at the brunt - not some git who made fancy speeches (or got one of his doubles to speak the words of an early spin-doctor). I also happen to think the British public of the time had more savvy in 1945 than those that voted him "Greatest Briton" on that ridiculously slanted TV poll a couple of years ago. Shame on your ignorance, Britain.

Rant over

Sorry but thats not just ignorance, we had no other leader at the time, despite his flaws, (which you are correct about) who could have driven the country to some of it's victories. So, despite his failings, he was important at the time, there is no shame in recognising that fact. His earlier career left a lot to be desired but as an ingredient in the 2nd WW he was vital if Britain was to succeed. His fancy speaches were a large part of his appeal and success for the average man and that should not be underesimated, indeed, people born of the time will tell you how imoprtant they were, and not a minority. We are not all ignorant, so I'd like to know a name of a possible contender, I doubt that there is one. Anyway, my point was that the true hero of the Battle of Britain was Keith Park.

Gentlemen,

Vanity, egotism and careerism. What a perfect epitaph for all politicians...drunk or sober.
Purely a personal view.

Townsend's book refers to Dowding's dismissal (and Park's) as an act of 'base cunning' and there are other books that elaborate on this fully justifiable comment.

Read The Most Dangerous Enemy and The Battle of Britain: An Anthem for Youth by Stephen Bungay.

While I agree with you on your assessment of Churchill as a person, he was a formidable war-time statesman (despite his utter ignorance of all things military), a trade for which decency is not a requirement. It takes a villain to bust down a villain and Churchill was just the right antibody against Hitler. Without Churchill, the decisive US involvement in the war may not have come at the right time (a speculation of course, but that is what I believe). I wouldn't personally care to share a drink with Churchill (not that he would ), but in my view he served short-term (or immediate) British interests well as a war-time leader.

Gentlemen,

Whatever Churchill's personal failings, he can hardly be accused of being ignorant of military matters. He was one of the first to recognize the potential of military aircraft and the formation of the RNAS in 1912 was largely down to him.
Earlier, after Military College at Sandhurst, he served with the Hussars at Omdurman and eventually as war correspondent in the Boer War where he was made a POW. He had written two military books by then. He commanded a Battalion on the Western Front in the Great War.
By standing against Hitler he served world interests as well as British.

Criticism on the basis of his fondness for the bottle or his comments on Gandhi can not detract from his being the greatest orator and war leader of the 20th century - in the democratic sphere.
That would be almost like attempting to reduce the tarnish on Hitler's reputation by drawing attention to the fact that he was an artist, vegetarian, and stroked his dog a lot.

Anyone can read from a script - or get an actor to do it as Churchill did on frequent occasions. He had total contempt for the working-class majority of the British population and hated having to engage with them.

As for "democracy", well..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&hl=en-GB

EDIT: I apologise for descending into an argumentative tone and will desist - it just touches a raw nerve inside me when men are put on a pedestal I don't believe deserve it (others have a right to their opinion, naturally). But I always feel ashamed when I come across statues in London to the likes of Douglas Haig and "Bomber" Harris, never mind Winnie.

OK, have you come here for any useful purpose? These threads are to discuss a game called Battle of Britain II Wings of victory. What have you to say on that subject?

The book that deals best with the "behind the scenes" clash of personalities and political manoeuverings of the many ambitious, and yes envious, AVM's in the Air Ministry is John Ray's brilliant "The Battle Of Britain, New Perspectives. Behind the Scenes of the Great Air War".

Dowding was in effect a man besieged, fighting the Luftwaffe on the one hand, and the Air Ministry on the other. Trenchard, Joubert, Salmond, Sholto-Douglas and others all actively sort to bring Dowding down and have him removed from Fighter Command. It was a very murky, bitter battle - easily on a par with anything that occurred in the corridors of the Third Reich, where in-fighting and political ambition was commonplace.

The treatment of Dowding, and Park too, ia a very shameful part of Battle Of Britain history. It was in fact only through Churchill's active support that Dowding lasted as long as he did.

Read the book. You'll be amazed at the lengths that people will go to to obtain power - even when the freedom of a country was in the balance.

That says a lot more about you than any of these men. For all their so called faults they were there doing what needed to be done at the time.

Dowding was also responsible for night defence of Britain, and whilst he'd done superbly organising Fighter Command to fight and win the daylight battle, the British defences were doing very badly at night. Some of the technical people felt Dowding didn't listen to their advice (RV Jones touches on that).

Dowding was removed a couple of days after Coventry, and with the civilian death toll running at over 6,000 a month, it's not surprising the air ministry felt they had to do something.



It's a bit unfair to edit what Churchill said that way, because the full quote is a lot less bloodthirsty.

Nice first post.

Obviously quotes are like statistics. They can be twisted to put across almost any point of view.

You could always emigrate, I'm sure there's a grateful foreigner just dying to take your place.

I could also add that at least you have the RIGHT to air your point of view,without these people being around at THAT time [hindsight is a wonderful thing]you may well not be able to.

I'll bite then



Actually those seem to be the few redeeming features of Hitler whereas I don't see you mention any in Churchill's favour. Orator, bore-ator. Democracy? I doubt he believed in the true meaning of the word. Do you know what it means?



And it says a lot about you if you think the likes of Haig and Harris were anything less than disgusting incompetents at best and war criminals at worst. Neither did what was "needed to be done at the time". Haig wasted THOUSANDS of British lives in repeated futile, useless attacks on heavy defences while he sat in luxury miles from the front oblivious to the real situation. And let's not forget the 300+ he sent to the firing squad when they were unable to to carry out his suicidal orders due to shellshock (the Germans executed only about 25 for similar "offences" according to "Shot At Dawn" by Julian Putkowski & Julian Sykes).

Harris pursued a policy of deliberate mass murder on the German civilian population which can't even be justified by claiming it shortened the war at that stage. "Baby killer" was his epithet in Germany - and you say this "needed to be done"?



Just because I eliminated some of the pompous verbosity doesn't make it any less bloodthirsty to my eyes. He still sounds like a disgrace to this country.



Perhaps you could emigrate? (oh, I see you already have! apartheid SA also used to be a popular destination for a certain kind of Brit but, hey, things change!). All a question of choice, eh?

This is the land where I was born and I'd prefer to help change it for the better

Oh we can't wait to see what you achieve, Junior.

It's war for Christ sake! While I agree that this should be used as a last resort I'm fully aware that when and if it does happen it can't be fought with one hand tied behind your back and with the other wearing kiddies gloves. War is not a gentlemans game even though propaganda has been used in the past to portray it as such. It is bloody and brutal and is fought with the tactics of the time. Do I agree Haig should have fought his war how he did? No, but that's with the benefit of hindsight. If you check I think you'll find that all the Generals fought along the same vein.

Bomber Harris? You do realise that this game that we're playing incorporates parts of the Blitz which actually carried on into the middle of 1941, so let's not go there.

Well, you changed a quote where Churchill said using mostly non-lethal weapons would be more humane than killing people with bullets and shells into Churchill advocating using weapons of mass destruction to spread terror.



Nice to see you support Haig and Harris, when some of the verbosity is edited out

We'll close this WCE thread on that note.