Which was Churchill's biggest wartime blunder?

[BritinBritain]

Winston Churchill was a great man. People of my generation can never forget what we owe him. He was largely responsible for the development of the tank in World War I, along with Col. Estienne in France. Unfortunately, he did not keep up with military developments between the wars and did not, at first, understand what was going on in France in l940. But to answer your question directly, I believe his greatest blunder was sending HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse to the far east, thinking it would discourage the Japanese from starting a war!

I tend to agree with you about the Prince of Wales and Repulse.

The Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm attack on the Italian fleet at Toranto by ancient bi-plane Swordfish torpedo attack aircraft, proved that the mighty battle ship is all too easy to destroy by air power, even slow moving 90 knots+/- aircraft. The Japanese studied the Toranto attack carefully during their planning to attack Pearl Harbour.

Unlike the British powers that be, Germany fully understood and developed the integration of armour with other arms such as aircraft and infantry on the battle field. A HUGE mistake on the part of the British.

 

[LeEnfield]

The German tactics where based on those developed by Britain, except during the the wars and the depression not that amount of money was spent on the forces and their equipment. Due to this Britain and their Allies were always playing catch up on much of the battlefield equipment.

 

[BritinBritain]

The German tactics where based on those developed by Britain, except during the the wars and the depression not that amount of money was spent on the forces and their equipment. Due to this Britain and their Allies were always playing catch up on much of the battlefield equipment.

I agree. There was a book written (The title and the author escapes me) by an officer in the British Army regarding tactics and armour. His book was basically ignored by the British, but not by the Germans, they studied it closely. Very closely.

 

[MontyB]

I agree. There was a book written (The title and the author escapes me) by an officer in the British Army regarding tactics and armour. His book was basically ignored by the British, but not by the Germans, they studied it closely. Very closely.

I am guessing you are talking about the work of B.H. Liddel Hart and J.F.C Fuller, I am not sure that you attribute German tactics solely to the British though as many nations post WW1 were seeing these tactics advocated even Charles de Gaulle was a strong advocate of combined arms and the usage of massed armour and aircraft.

I have no doubt that Fuller and Liddel Hart influenced Guderians thinking but I am inclined to believe that it just reinforced what many tacticians were already realising.

 

[BritinBritain]

I am guessing you are talking about the work of B.H. Liddel Hart and J.F.C Fuller, I am not sure that you attribute German tactics solely to the British though as many nations post WW1 were seeing these tactics advocated even Charles de Gaulle was a strong advocate of combined arms and the usage of massed armour and aircraft.

I have no doubt that Fuller and Liddel Hart influenced Guderians thinking but I am inclined to believe that it just reinforced what many tacticians were already realising.

Thanks Monty, they are indeed whom I was thinking of.

Liddell Hart began publishing his theories during the 1920s in the popular press. Ironically, he saw theories similar to or even developed from his own adopted by Germany and used against the United Kingdom and its allies during World War II with the practice of Blitzkrieg.


While J. F. C. Fuller, his ideas on mechanised warfare continued to be influential in the lead up to World War II, ironically more with the Germans, notably Heinz Guderian, than with his countrymen.


On 20 April 1939 Fuller was an honoured guest at Adolf Hitler's 50th birthday parade and watched as "for three hours a completely mechanised and motorised army roared past the Führer." Afterwards Hitler asked, "I hope you were pleased with your children?" Fuller replied, "Your Excellency, they have grown up so quickly that I no longer recognise them."

 

[errol]

The Greece campaign was also another Churchill disaster.

 

[LeEnfield]

Churchill had a good eye for the big plan, but unfortunately we did not have resources to carry out his ideas.
Most of the projects he proposed were very sound and a couple of times came close to pulling it off. Crete for instance the Commonwealth Troops killed so many German paratroopers that Hitler never used then as parachute troops again. Had the Generals in charge not pulled out of the main airfields to regroup, then the Germans would not have been able to land their J52 there with reinforcements which then allowed them to over run the Island. The Generals had been told that this airfield was the key to German success from information from Ultra yet they still left the Airfield to regroup.
The Cabinet and many of the General Staff also wanted to pull out from Malta and it was Churchill that said no to that one, was he right or was he wrong. Most of Churchill's ideas were spot on, what let him down many time was poor planning, and good leadership from the Generals

 

[Firefoxy]

I believe Churchill biggest blunder was the Grease compaine.It went so wrong.
Churchill could of help Australia with the Singapore deffence.

 

[BritinBritain]

I believe Churchill biggest blunder was the Grease compaine.It went so wrong.
Churchill could of help Australia with the Singapore deffence.

I really don't think Singapore could have held out for much longer then they did, even with massive reinforcements.

As far as I can remember, Singapore's fresh water came across the causeway to Mac Ritchie Reservoir near Bukit Timah, simple to cut off.

Although the Japanese were low on Ammunition, Singapore could have been held under siege until more supplies were brought up with fresh troops and equipment..

The RAF only had obsolete and outdated aircraft which were destroyed by the more modern Japanese fighters, therefore, there were no effective means to defend against air attack.

HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse had already been sunk.

British and Commonwealth troops were under supplied with heavy equipment including artillery.

Once mainland Malaya was lost, so was Singapore.

So really, who was to blame? It wasn't Churchill. Was it War Office Military planners? Various British Governments cutting back on defence spending?

Even after the surrender of Singapore, the 14th Army in the Far East was always known as the "Forgotten Army"

 

[FourthMan]

Hmm Greece and singapore, he was so determined to defeat hitler it clouded his judgement.

 

[LeEnfield]

I would not say that Churchill's judgement was clouded, it was that we were fighting on to many fronts to little equipment, and I must admit some poor military leadership

 

[Del Boy]

Well - this is Churchill's legacy now, it seems.

History teacher - 'What was Churchill famous for?'

Kid at the back shouts ' He was the last white man to be called Winston!'.:lol:

 

[MontyB]

Churchill had a good eye for the big plan, but unfortunately we did not have resources to carry out his ideas.
Most of the projects he proposed were very sound and a couple of times came close to pulling it off. Crete for instance the Commonwealth Troops killed so many German paratroopers that Hitler never used then as parachute troops again. Had the Generals in charge not pulled out of the main airfields to regroup, then the Germans would not have been able to land their J52 there with reinforcements which then allowed them to over run the Island. The Generals had been told that this airfield was the key to German success from information from Ultra yet they still left the Airfield to regroup.
The Cabinet and many of the General Staff also wanted to pull out from Malta and it was Churchill that said no to that one, was he right or was he wrong. Most of Churchill's ideas were spot on, what let him down many time was poor planning, and good leadership from the Generals

I realise this will probably upset a few people but in my opinion Churchill really didn't care about whole lot beyond himself.

I have always had trouble with Churchill's reputation from the time I first started reading about him but I think the one comment of his that really typified this man was one he made around the Dardanelles campaign (WW1) and the use of battleships close to shore, his comment was that it didn't matter how many old battleships were lost because they could always build more.

My opinion of Churchill is that there is little doubt he was the right man to lead Britain during WW2 but that he really didn't care how many people had to die to meet his goals, to a degree the ends justified the means.

 

[Del Boy]

My opinion of Churchill is that there is little doubt he was the right man to lead Britain during WW2 but that he really didn't care how many people had to die to meet his goals, to a degree the ends justified the means.

'His goals' were the salvation of his country from unsurpassed evil ; the question of losses can be aimed at any war effort you care to mention, surely; his goal was to win the war.

'A man who saves a nation is guilty of nothing' - Napoleon.

It all seems a little Lilliputian to me, but I suppose everybody must get stoned.

 

[MontyB]

It was mentioned in the "Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2" thread that Montgomery was prone to sacrificing Commonwealth troops to save British ones, I don't believe this for an instant as Montgomery would not have the level of support he has from Commonwealth veterans if he was.

However I am not sure I can say the same thing about Churchill given his performance in the Dardanelles and his insistence that Australian troops stay in the middle east instead of returning to defend Australia from the Japanese threat, I would also be inclined to hear what some of the Canadian members feel about him.

 

[BritinBritain]

It was mentioned in the "Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2" thread that Montgomery was prone to sacrificing Commonwealth troops to save British ones, I don't believe this for an instant as Montgomery would not have the level of support he has from Commonwealth veterans if he was.

One of my uncles was in the 8th Army, he had nothing but praise for Monty, he cared about the lives of his men, Brits and Commonwealth. When Churchill became impatient Monty stood his ground and refused to commit his forces until a sufficient numerical superiority over Rommel was achieved.

However I am not sure I can say the same thing about Churchill given his performance in the Dardanelles and his insistence that Australian troops stay in the middle east instead of returning to defend Australia from the Japanese threat, I would also be inclined to hear what some of the Canadian members feel about him.

The Dardanelles was a good idea, badly executed by various Senior British commanders in the field.

Regarding his refusal to allow Aussies to return to defend against the Japanese. Did the Japanese have the resources to invade such a vast landscape such as Australia? What Allied forces were there in Australia at the time, could they have beaten off any attempt of an invasion? In all honesty if the Japanese had landed, the Aussies would have kicked the crap out of them. Although I think this one would be better answered by the Aussies.

Personally, I believe Churchill was the right man at the right time.

 

[MontyB]

The Dardanelles was a good idea, badly executed by various Senior British commanders in the field.

The Galipoli campaign was ludicrous plan from day one, while its objectives were admirable it was never realistically possible due to the inadequacies of logistics at the time.

It isn't hard to see that it never really had a chance when close to 1/3rd of the supply train was shipping water and it only allowed hospital space for 500 casualties (The Allies took 5000 casualties on the first day).

 

[LeEnfield]

Our family lost four uncles in North Africa so I don't think that it all the fighting fell to the Commonwealth Countries, and no I am not saying that they did not do their fair share they did it was a real good Commonwealth show some thing that we should all take pride in rather than sniping at each other on who did the most.

 

[BritinBritain]

Our family lost four uncles in North Africa so I don't think that it all the fighting fell to the Commonwealth Countries, and no I am not saying that they did not do their fair share they did it was a real good Commonwealth show some thing that we should all take pride in rather than sniping at each other on who did the most.

Damn right.

Although I don't believe anyone is saying "we did more then you." Its more of a discussion of “Did Churchill blunder with the Dardanelles .” Personally I don't think he did, it was basically a good idea which would have had dire consequences for Turkey if it had come off.

 

[MontyB]

Damn right.

Although I don't believe anyone is saying "we did more then you." Its more of a discussion of “Did Churchill blunder with the Dardanelles .” Personally I don't think he did, it was basically a good idea which would have had dire consequences for Turkey if it had come off.

Actually it isn't about whether Churchill blundered the Daranelles it is about his attitude and indifference to the conditions and actions he created throughout his career, for example he didn't care how many Royal Navy (not Commonwealth) ships were sunk prior to the landings on the Galipoli peninsula because "they could always build more" right through the Boer War he did little more than push his own cause at the expense of others, the deployment of the Prince of Wales and Repulse to the Asian theatre, St Nazaire raid.

Now if you would like to discuss the failings of the Galipoli campaign I would be interested but perhaps in another thread.