Which was Churchill's biggest wartime blunder?

The Australian Government requested that Churchill released their troops to fight the Japanese who were at that time approaching Australia. This requested was granted immediately and with out any rancour from any one.
 
Claymore said:
Lord Londonderry said:
Churchill had a deep resentment for the Australians in WW2. Why was this?

From what source do you draw this statement? I have read his series on WW2 and several biographies of the man and have never seen anything other than a possible personal dislike of the Aussie PM of the time...
In his 6 volume set on the war he wrote very much in praise of the Austrailian soldiers throughout the series.

Winston Churchill was more than willing to see Australia handed to the Japanese so he could defeat the Germans in Europe:

Although happy to take all the sailors, soldiers and airmen that Australia was prepared to place at his disposal for the defence of Britain, Churchill had no concern about Australia's fate when Japan's conquering armies menaced Australia. His assurances of British military support for Australia proved worthless, and he even resisted the return of Australian troops from the Middle East to defend their own country.

Although repeatedly assuring Australia's Prime Minister John Curtin of the British government's commitment to the defence of Singapore, the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had already written off the defence of Singapore as a lost cause when he was giving those assurances. Churchill was now only interested in saving Burma and India, and ignored pleas from Curtin for meaningful reinforcement for the defenders of Singapore. Although not admitting this to Curtin, Churchill was obsessed with defeating Germany and was prepared to abandon Australia to the Japanese. To ease Curtin's deepening concern for Australia's safety, and resist Australia withdrawing its military forces from Britain, North Africa, and the Middle East, Churchill assured Curtin that a British fleet would be dispatched to save Australia if Japan invaded in massive strength. There was no truth in the assurance. Churchill had no intention of sending a British fleet to save Australia from a Japanese invasion.

Curtin was becoming convinced during December 1941 that Churchill's assurances of military support for Australia against Japan were worthless, and he was not prepared to see Australia abandoned by the British to a Japanese invasion. On 26 December 1941, the Australian Prime Minister addressed the nation in a radio address that made it quite clear that Australia was in grave danger from the Japanese and reflected Curtin's disillusionment with Churchill's assurances that Britain would furnish powerful support if Australia was threatened with Japanese invasion. In the course of this famous speech, which was published in the Melbourne Herald newspaper on 27 December 1942, Curtin said,

"Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom."

The statement caused a sensation. Churchill was furious, and addressed an angry cable to Curtin. President Roosevelt mistakenly believed that Australia was a British colony in 1941, and felt that Curtin's speech smacked of disloyalty. When it was explained to Roosevelt later that Australia was an independent nation, the American President came to respect Curtin's strong leadership and patriotism.

On 14 March 1942, with British Malaya and the Netherlands East Indies now occupied by Japanese troops, and the Japanese on Australia's doorstep, Curtin addressed the people of the United States in a famous radio message. The Australian Prime Minister urged Americans to stand with Australia to resist Japanese aggression. Curtin accurately reminded Americans of their own danger when he used these words:

"Australia is the last bastion between the west coast of America and the Japanese. If Australia goes, the Americas are wide open."

Curtin did not need to address these words to the Commander in Chief of the United States Navy, Admiral Ernest J. King, who was already convinced of the importance of Australia to the United States and the compelling need to keep Australia an American ally and a bastion of freedom. Since his appointment in December 1941, following the Pearl Harbor disaster, Admiral King had been fighting the demand by Winston Churchill and the top United States generals that Australia be abandoned to the Japanese so that all military resources, including those of Australia, could be directed to the war against Germany.

It was not until the middle of 1942 that Curtin received concrete evidence that Churchill had been lying to him when he promised powerful British support to oppose a Japanese invasion of Australia. Curtin learned that Churchill had travelled to the United States shortly after Pearl Harbor and had persuaded the American President to give priority to the defeat of Germany. This involved treating the Japanese threat in the Pacific as a secondary priority. The American public was infuriated by the treacherous Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and could not be told about the "Germany First" strategy. Adoption of Churchill's "Germany First" strategy effectively meant that Britain and the United States were abandoning Australia, the Philippines, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies to Japanese occupation. Fortunately for Australia, Admiral King refused to accept that it should be abandoned to the Japanese.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/battaust/Austinvasion.html
 
Max Power said:
Winston Churchill was more than willing to see Australia handed to the Japanese so he could defeat the Germans in Europe:

Although happy to take all the sailors, soldiers and airmen that Australia was prepared to place at his disposal for the defence of Britain, Churchill had no concern about Australia's fate when Japan's conquering armies menaced Australia. His assurances of British military support for Australia proved worthless, and he even resisted the return of Australian troops from the Middle East to defend their own country.

I dont believe that. Britain was stretched figting the germans. Britain allied itself to american policy in the far east, perhaps the war in the far east was inevitable but Britain wasnt ready for it. As to the transfer of troops, they were Australian and could have been moved to Australia. The question is a more about the seriousness of the threat at the time to Australia amd need to transfer troops.
 
Max I think your source was written by a crack addict no offense but after the publication of the details of the Rape of Nanking NO ONE wanted to surrender anything to the Japanese. If the assertion of your quote was true he would hardly have urged the defenders of Singapore to "fight to the death" in defense of the naval outpost there.

Source: Empire; How Britain Made the Modern World - Nial Ferguson ISBN 0-141-00754-0
page 342
 
I should have put in my post that everyone including Britain underestimate the japanese. With troops scare and big demands on them, it did not equate to britain abandonning Australia, which is the last thing that they would do.

As an aside, Japan where kings of the jungle, but you wouldnt fancy there chances in a battle on mainland Australia. Japanese armour was very poor.

Big problem in Malay campagin was the lack of allied aromour and air cover. Churchill was against a surrender at Singapore. There was major demands on armour for the middle east at the same time.
 
Because we had been disarming for so long we just did not have the resources for every front. From 1939 until December 1941 there was no fighting in far East so Britain's main concern was then the middle East and it's home front so that was were the baulk of the men and equipment went. Now Churchill had not issued instructions to Generals out in far east, it was the Generals that cocked things up out there, I am not saying they could have won with what they had there disposal but they could have made a better showing of it
 
Churchill's greatest blunder? Did he even know what has happening around him? The man was drunk every day.

"Always remember that I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me".
--Winston Churchill
 
Yes Churchill used to drink and drink heavily , but was he ever drunk, well I don't think so. Was he befuddled by drink, well if you listen to his speeches, look at his paintings or read any of the countless books that he wrote, and try and convince any one that these where the works of drunk.
 
I was just joking. I wish that I was as skilled as Churchill at speaking and writing while "under the influence".

Ollie Garchy
 
Yes the Dardanelles was Churchill's idea and the General Idea was a good one

Indeed this is regarded as a potential Strategic masterpiece, so if Churchill had one great idea, perhaps in principle this was it! No doubt if it had been carried out by commanders of adequete experience and drive it could have been a success. Unfortunately, this was not the case, neither can Churchill claim all the credit or escape all the blame.

First of all the operation had been initiated at the request of the Russians to open the Straits to relieve the attacks on their troops in the Caucasus. True, Churchill realised that this would also knock Turkey out of the war.

Secondly, Churchill was warned by his admirals that the Straits Fortress guns were too high for the elevation of the British guns on the battleships when near enough to hit them accurately. He was also warned that it was far easier for the camouflaged fortress guns to aim at the ships (because of the splash) than the other way around, and the fortresses needed a direct hit to disable them, as a consequence these guns were not silenced.

Thirdly a ship had been being recently sunk by mines in the straits, so it was obvious that the guns were there partly to prevent ships from clearing the mines but no-one seemed to realise this and adequete plans were not made.

Eventually an amphibious assault was deemed necessary, but an unsuccesful shelling campaign had been launched in the same place a hundred years previously, so this was not entirely without precedent.

Now perhaps all this is academic since Churchill was not tasked with designing the Military details only the political strategy anf some historians let him off the hook, but there is a final twist to the story which is less well known.

It was not the first time the fortress guns had been attacked in WW1 (well sort of), Churchill had already ordered them to be bombarded early in the war as 'target practice' just before Britain had declared war on Turkey. This encouraged the Turks to improve defences, especially by the laying of minefields. This decision by Churchill was heavily criticised by Jellicoe and another admiral at the time, therefore much of the blame has to rest on his shoulders.
 
Last edited:
It's Bollocks that the RN guns were unable to elevate to reach to coastal forts, also they were able to out range them. On October 29 1914 Groben and Breslau two German warships transfered to Turkish control, bombarded the Russian black sea forts of Odessa, Nikolaev and sevastipol. The british had issued an ultimatum to the Turks, ordering them to to dismiss the German military and naval missions to constantinopal and remove all German personal from the two German warships Goeben and Breslau. At noon on october 31 the ultimatum expired. Two day's later Churchill as first lord of the Admiralty , having obtained the first sea lords (jack Fishers ) approval, signaled vice-Admiral Carden to bombard the outer fort at Sedd-el-Bahar. The bombardment lasted ten minutes and destroyed almost all the heavy guns, the damage was never repaired.
The bombardment was not target practice and it was in response to Turkish aggression against an ally.
Reference material. Churchill A Life by Martin Gilbert.
Cheers
ST
 
dardenells or crete

either the dardenells or crete would be do really. some of the commanders in the gallipoli campaign had fought against the zulus and didnot improve much when gallipoli was fought to the way they fought the zulus. the planning for that campagin was bloody pathetic. they did well to gain as much ground there as they did.
 
Churchill can hardly be blamed for the on ground carrying out of the Dardenells campaign. During the naval phase the ships comanders were still in a peace time mentality of not wanting to risk ships for an objective ( at times they were close to clearing the mine fields). Once it became a combined Army Navy campaign he had little to do with it.
The initial idea of taking the Dardenelles and Constantinople were his, and was one of the few far sighted ideas of the Great War.
I am not home at the moment and don't have access to my reference material but I suggest checking Martin Gilbert official biography and William Manchester, The Last Lion.
Cheers
ST
 
It was Churdhills idea and he carried the can for the poor planning, but give Churchill credit he put on a uniform and went and fought in the trenches on the Westren Front.
 
His main faults were having an overoptimistic view of the situation and a failure to listen to his commanders, this was a reoccurring theme throughout his career.

In view of his strategic vision of the Dardanelles campaign and his lack of responsibility (or should that be attention) for detail, it's a toss up between Singapore, the Greek campaign and his related obsession with the Balkans in WW2.

In Singapore, he paid for years of empty rhetoric and treasury cutbacks including when he was exchequer. This compelled him to place large numbers of untrained troops in Malaysia and defend them with Capital Ships without air support.

In Greece it was another case of overoptimism and empty support for an ally. Rather than diverting troops to Greece, he could have cleared North Africa before Germany could provide support for the Italians. Large resources from Britain and America were subsequently poured into the Mediterranean theater which should have gone into NW Europe.
 
Last edited:
I'm no great fan of the man, however, I think he did the best that he could with what was available at the time. I can't think of another leader in England who I can say would have probably done better given the circumstances.

Everyone has 20/20 vision in hindsight.
 
Back when I was in EOD School, we learned about how the Brits, starting the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Field out of necessity (owing to the fact that there were all those German Bombs laying around) were kicking butt on a German Bomb fuze. So, to help boost morale, the British Government had it published in the paper how British Bomb Techs were winning their end of the Blitz.
But, the Brits failed to take into account that the Germans were also reading the British News Papers and such, and so the Germans simply changed how the Fuze worked coming out. In the end England lost a lot of good Techs over that mishap.
I do not believe there is any way of knowing if it was up to Churchill to run that story to help lift the spirits of the British during the Blitz or not, but that's how I heard it anyway.

In my own opinion, Churchill was the right man at the right moment of human history.
 
There is no doubt that Churchill had many attributes, at least as a figurehead, but he also strongly influenced British and Allied policy sometimes down to the detail of individual actions. The question is what was his biggest wartime blunder? There are many to choose from, starting from the Norwegian Campaign, to trusting in Stalin.
 
Back
Top