http://www.thedailybeast.com/did-brits-kill-new-york-city-cops-to-get-us-into-wwii
Or just another conspiracy theory
Or just another conspiracy theory
Galipolli was a brilliant concept, using Battleships that were escapees from the scrapyard. Operators dropped the ball.but Churchill was a gambler and the lives of others mean't very little to him, Galipolli shows us that.
.
Galipolli was a brilliant concept, using Battleships that were escapees from the scrapyard. Operators dropped the ball.
Portholes on submarines to let the water out also sounds like a great idea until you try and implement them.
I have yet to find any idea where you dumped an army on a beach surrounded by hills and cliffs hundreds of miles from your supply bases and with rudimentary resupply and logistics capability that was a resounding success.
The landing was a fall back & not part of the original plan. Using Reservists was the fault of who ever is in charge of manning ships.I have yet to find any idea where you dumped an army on a beach surrounded by hills and cliffs hundreds of miles from your supply bases and with rudimentary resupply and logistics capability that was a resounding success.
What you are describing above is not a plan for success as the Allies must have known they had no way to communicate with aircraft and that they were using poorly trained, inexperienced reservists to carry out crucial tasks .
.
According to the book " A bridge too far" the final exam @ the Dutch Military College is an attack on Arnhem. Anyone who tries it the way the Allies did automatically fails the exam! We apparently didn't even bother to ask the Dutch how to invade their own country.I still believe the concept of the Galipolli campaign was a good idea, I don't think the blame could be laid totally at the feet of Churchill.
The same could be said of the Arnhem drop, if it had succeeded it could have shortened the war. Montgomerys reputation took a hell of a battering after its failure.
The Falklands springs to mind, although it was close to becoming a debacle.
Who else can you lay the blame on?I still believe the concept of the Galipolli campaign was a good idea, I don't think the blame could be laid totally at the feet of Churchill.
So it should have, they ignored intelligence, the Dutch themselves and the collective knowledge of 5 years of war and charged into a situation that essentially cost them a division.The same could be said of the Arnhem drop, if it had succeeded it could have shortened the war. Montgomery's reputation took a hell of a battering after its failure.
Galipolli was a brilliant concept, using Battleships that were escapees from the scrapyard. Operators dropped the ball.
Don't know about the quote, but he knew the pre-Dreadnoughts were obsolete & pretty much useless in a naval battle, but could pull off his plan. As far as not caring about the lives of the crews, you could have a fleet wiped out in any endeavor during war, but especially when you look at in context of the massive casualties that the Army was suffering (useless "Over the top" attacks, for instance) his plan could have saved a lot of later misery, besides the Galipolli standoff , but things like Kut, for instance..One of the quotes I recall (but have never been able to verify) was basically Churchill was being spoken to about the loss of ships in the straights and his reply was essentially "What does it matter we can always build more ships".
He essentially didn't give a rats arse about the men on those ships.
Who else can you lay the blame on?
The two senior British leaders (Secretary of State for war and the head of the Navy) said the plan was unfeasible, none of the Generals involved were enthusiastic and Churchill had to go around those who would normally make the decision to get it through.
See I am not a Monty fan either, I tend to see him as an overblow, pompous prick whos reputation was built on the destruction of other peoples careers and by claiming their successes as his own (for example Auchinleck, in my opinion, should have been given the victory at Alamein as it was his plan), where left to his own devices he was a failure (Caen, Sicily, Arnhem).
One of the quotes I recall (but have never been able to verify) was basically Churchill was being spoken to about the loss of ships in the straights and his reply was essentially "What does it matter we can always build more ships".
He essentially didn't give a rats arse about the men on those ships.
You know as well as I do. that in any campaign there are going to be horrendous losses of men and equipment. As George pointed out the ridiculous "Over the top" tactics that claimed so many lives that did not have to be lost. My Grandfather was on the Somme, he didn't talk much about it, except to say "Far too many men gave their lives needlessly." Douglas Haig was told to change his tactics as Britain was running out of men. By 1919 the only males in many villages and towns were the elderly or the very young. Then there were the PALS Battalions, such as railway companies of heavy industry provided man power, many were wiped out.
However, Churchill was the right man at the time during WW2
The problem with the comment is not that his actions got people killed but rather the callous nature of the comment, I am sure that if Norman Schwarzkopf had said "we are going to lose a couple of hundred tanks and crews but who cares we can build more tanks" in a news conference he would have been unemployed the next day.
It is not that people do not understand there will be casualties it is that when you try and make the casualties less important than the equipment and then downplay that to nothing that cant be replaced its shows the person in a vastly different light.
Churchill in my opinion did not care about the lifes of those under him which is shown in that comment and his desire to accept any plan that achieved his goals despite its ludicrous nature and cost.
The question remains though, did the British blow up its own display.
I have strong doubts that the Germans did it as there was really nothing it for them, for the British it could have dragged the USA into it (although I think unlikely without concrete evidence of German involvement) but it was a very risky strategy.
One thing to consider here is that Churchill only became PM on the 10th of May could he have organised anything like this within the space of 3 weeks?
I seriously doubt that Chamberlain would have been behind it.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.