Churchill: Never never never…
Commenter “Sharon W” reminded me of this Churchill quote, and so I thought I’d remind you:
Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never””in nothing, great or small, large or petty””never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
I am a ‘never’ man in my never land. I will not submit. If it all comes down to dust I am ready to die and if they want to kill me they already know my children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, brothers, sister, and all my like minded friends. Never surrender. Better to die than suffer the consequences.
Never.
Well, despite being a very controversial figure, Churchill turned out to be the perfect man for Great Britain in their hour of need.
Dare we hope that there is more to Donald Trump than is evident to date?
Recently read Paul Johnson on Churchill. He was the greatest Brit ever.
Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never–in nothing, great or small, large or petty–never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
***
Giving in to coercion on the small things leads to more and more coercion on the big things — or things that look small but are actually very big.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/23/bathroom-wars-humiliate-normal-majority/
(emphasis added)
“Dr. Theodore Dalrymple made this point in a 2005 interview when he described political correctness as “communism writ small.”
“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better,” Dalrymple said, adding:
When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.
Eleven years ahead of the game, Dalrymple provided the perfect description of the ridiculous Bathroom Wars, in which the majority is commanded to open wide and swallow the utterly ludicrous idea of letting men-women barge into women’s restrooms, on the vanishingly small chance that a transgendered individual might not be able to find a suitable private stall. It’s so insane that it caught normal people by surprise; they thought it was a joke, until Bruce Springsteen canceled that concert they bought tickets to.
The real game here is to break the will of those ordinary people so they won’t resist even more social engineering.
It’s like the brilliant Star Trek: The Next Generation episode where Captain Jean-Luc Picard is tortured by an alien interrogator, who says he wants only a simple, trivial concession from his prisoner: He wants Picard to look at a bank of four lights, and say that he sees five. As Dalrymple warned, and Picard understood, that small concession would break his will and open the floodgates to many others.
Those of more advanced years might remember a similar dynamic at play in Patrick McGoohan’s The Prisoner, where the seemingly trivial concession involved a captive spy explaining why he quit his job—an answer he refused to give, no matter how many bizarre scenarios were constructed to break his will.
We’re all The Prisoner now, which is basically what McGoohan’s show was warning about, decades ago. Instead of killer beach balls, the enforcement system consists of equally faceless, thoughtless, relentless Twitter social-justice flash mobs.
The progressives’ goal is to humiliate and marginalize the majority–to make normal people feel abnormal, to be alone, to be afraid to dissent from what appears to be an overwhelming, media-magnified, Google-approved, Hollywood-polished, Obama-confirmed, irresistible consensus. As any competent military strategist can tell you, numbers count for less than morale. A demoralized majority can be subjugated by an activist minority when it refuses to fight.
That’s why every new social-engineering crusade is framed as an attack on the moral stature of dissenters. ”
***
ST & The Prisoner look like warnings to us; to the Professional Left they were “how to” manuals.
It is not coincidence that God “cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:31)
Suddenly, Gallipoli, Narvik, … and so much else pulls into view.
Advocating a War in Iraq, Offering an Apology for What Came After, does this man recntly got a “good sense”……
he had onece changed his mind now looks he is in Good Sense!
@ AesopFan:
That was excellent. Thanks.
I am reading Volume III of the masterful Manchester trilogy of the Churchill biography. Winston is a man for the ages… Not just his years in the political Wilderness, where he was a political outcast, fighting ALONE the appeasers in his government.
Great Britain was also fighting ALONE, for 2+ years against the Nazis and Fascists (September 1939-December 1941), when the rest of Europe was overrun and demoralized. He not only gave hope, tenacity and strength to his fellow Britons and then to his fellow Europeans.
If the battle for Gallipoli was successful (during WW I), then the map and the politics of the Middle East would be vastly different today. The repercussions of that bungled operation (by timid British Admirals) are still being felt. Churchill was far-sghted in his strategy for Gallipoli and the Dardanelles; the execution of that battle is unforgivable.
Loretta:
Thanks for the corrective, Blert seems to be an Anglophobe.
Thanks Loretta. There is no doubt that in the minds of critics, for whatever reason, Gallipoli will always be a stain on Churchill’s record. Most have no idea whether deserved or not. Still, one has to wonder why blert would feel that he needed to cite that now. What’s the point? To repeat myself, flawed though he may have been, Churchill was the perfect man for GB in its time of dire need.
Off topic. Yesterday Trump gave new evidence that he will not play Churchill in our time of need. Just as I cited in another thread the hope that Trump would reveal redeeming qualities, I fire up my computer this morning, and see that he very publicly attacked the Judge in the Trump U case, by name, in a shocking display of childish pique. The man has serious issues that need to be addressed. Please someone bring forth a credible third party candidate in our time of dire need.. Even if it is a long shot, give us an alternative.
Oldflyer:
“Dare we hope that there is more to Donald Trump than is evident to date?”
Before Churchill was Churchill, he was evidently Churchill.
Trump, on the other hand, perpetuates a demonstrably false narrative of the Iraq intervention, the defining foreign affair since the Cold War, despite that President Bush’s decision for OIF was evidently correct on the law and the facts.
Oldflyer:
“Please someone bring forth a credible third party candidate in our time of dire need.. Even if it is a long shot, give us an alternative.”
That’s where a current American Churchill is needed.
I know little of the details of Churchill’s CV, but he must have had a good sense of humor.
The only story that stuck with me was of him being at a party with the stuffy nobility one night, when a particularly pompous duchess or something thought to devastate him by saying “Sir, if I was your wife I’d put poison in your tea.”
His response: “Madam, if I was your husband, I’d drink it.”
Eric K,
FYI, the NY Times Arango article you linked on Kanan Makiya is based on a false foundational premise: “the false assertion that Mr. Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to the United States”.
Actually, Saddam’s WMD was not an “assertion”, let alone a “false assertion”. Saddam’s WMD was basic established fact for the Gulf War ceasefire disarmament process.
See “A HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF IRAQ’S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES” in UNMOVIC report, “Unresolved Disarmament Issues Iraq’s Proscribed Weapons Programmes 6 March 2003″, which was the principal trigger for OIF. Excerpt:
Also see the IAEA Iraq Nuclear Verification Office (INVO): Iraq Nuclear File: Key Findings. Excerpt:
On the basic established fact of Saddam’s WMD for the Gulf War ceasefire disarmament process, the burden of proof was on Saddam to prove Iraq was compliant and disarmed with “full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations” according to the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441).
Instead of Saddam complying and disarming as mandated in his “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441), the UNSCR 1441 inspections concluded:
In other words, Saddam in his “final opportunity to comply” failed to satisfy even the 1st step – a total verified declaration of Iraq’s entire WMD-related program – of the 1st step – prescribed WMD disarmament – required for the mandated “full and immediate compliance” with the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441).
Then the Iraq Survey Group corroborated UNMOVIC’s confirmation of Iraq’s material breach of UNSCR 687 and confirmed that Saddam was in fact rearming in violation of UNSCR 687:
At the same time, Saddam’s “threat to the United States” was also basic established fact:
“Iraqi actions pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States” (Clinton, 28JUL00) & “Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security” (UNSCR 1441).
The Iraqi Perspectives Project report, “Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents” (2007) confirmed Saddam’s threat to US national security:
Loretta in Indiana:
You may have noticed that one of the Manchester Churchill biographies appears in the photo at the top of my blog.
Eric
With all what you said, who was more dangerous of those Axis of Evil?
N Korea just on you footstep?
Or
Iran telling you will close your oil blood vassal in Persian Gulf.
Whatever what you said in the end WMD not found till now?
Erik K:
Selective amnesia and supporting Trump conspiracies? Tell us that steel doesn’t melt too.
The primary rationale for the invasion of Iraq was never about WMD. The invasion of Iraq, along with the invasion of Afghanistan was meant to send an unequivocal message; that America would no longer tolerate rogue nations supporting terrorist organizations. It also was intended to send that same message to the ‘enabling’ nations, who primarily in the UN, protect the rogue nations from real consequence.
Churchill was not embraced until the NAZI threat could no longer be denied. We are not at that stage yet and, if we have no Churchill, perhaps that’s the price the West must pay for having failed to learn it’s lesson. Rescue does not always arrive in time. The greater the denial, the greater the consequence. The greater the evil, the greater the sacrifice required to overcome it.
Eric K,
Actually, under the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire, Saddam’s failure to comply with his Gulf War ceasefire obligations meant the Iraqi danger that manifested with the Gulf War, including Saddam’s terrorism, WMD, and humanitarian violations, remained unresolved.
Saddam was given constant opportunity for 12 years to prove his regime was no longer dangerous by simply proving compliance with the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) for the Gulf War ceasefire that Saddam had agreed to abide by to suspend the Gulf War short of regime change in 1991.
There was never a burden of proof on the US and UN to ‘find’ Iraq’s WMD in the Gulf War ceasefire disarmament process.
Saddam’s guilt of proscribed armament was established fact, and on the fact basis, the burden of proof was always on Saddam to prove Iraq disarmed as mandated by UNSCR 687, which always required a total verified declaration that accounted for Iraq’s entire WMD program, then the yielding of all proscribed items to the UN inspectors for destruction under international supervision, and then renouncing all WMD-related activity.
UNMOVIC confirmed Saddam failed to take even the 1st necessary step, a verified total declaration that accounted for Iraq’s entire WMD program.
Keep in mind that Iraq was mandated to provide a total verified declaration of its entire WMD program within 15 days of the adoption of UNSCR 687 on April 3, 1991, let alone UNMOVIC reporting “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” to the UN Security Council on March 7, 2003 to trigger OIF.
Perhaps you weren’t away of the Iraq Survey Group’s findings until now, but actually, in its September 2004 report, ISG corroborated UNMOVIC’s confirmation of Iraq’s material breach of UNSCRs 687 and 1441 – “ISG judges that Iraq failed to comply with UNSCRs” – and found Iraq rife with UNSCR 687-proscribed items and activity.
Geoffrey Britain,
“The primary rationale for the invasion of Iraq was never about WMD.”
Yes and no.
The law and policy of the decision for OIF, including the 2002 AUMF and UNSCR 1441, are clear that the primary rationale was Iraq’s material breach of the Gulf War ceasefire.
That being said, within the context of Iraq’s material breach of the Gulf War ceasefire, Iraq’s material breach of the UNSCR 687 (WMD) disarmament mandates was the principal trigger for OIF.
From the outset of the Gulf War ceasefire in 1991, the priority for enforcement among Iraq’s obligations, which included renouncing terrorism in compliance with UNSCR 687, was disarmament in compliance with UNSCR 687 and humanitarian reform in compliance with UNSCR 688.
Saddam was never out of breach of the UNSCR 687 (WMD) disarmament mandates. But for OIF, Saddam’s guilt on WMD was decided by the UN Security Council with UNSCR 1441, confirmed by UNMOVIC with its 06MAR03 report of “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” at the decision point for OIF, and corroborated post hoc by the Iraq Survey Group.
The “rationale” for OIF is plainly stated in the thick law, policy, precedent, and fact record of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement that built up to OIF with Saddam’s “intransigence” (Clinton) over 12 years and 3 administrations.
Oops. Fix:
Perhaps you weren’t
awayaware of the Iraq Survey Group’s findings until now, but actually, in its September 2004 report, ISG corroborated UNMOVIC’s confirmation of Iraq’s material breach of UNSCRs 687 and 1441 — “ISG judges that Iraq failed to comply with UNSCRs” — and found Iraq rife with UNSCR 687-proscribed items and activity.FYI, for anyone who wishes to learn or you believe would benefit from learning the law and policy, fact basis – the why – of OIF, the basic essentials are catalogued and linked here. Excerpt (text sans links):
Eric,
I have no argument with the legal justification for the invasion of Iraq. But that legal justification was not what led to the Bush administration’s decision to invade. It was 9/11 that led to that decision.
The legal justification did exist and both sides in Congress believed that Sadam would pursue nukes as soon as the sanctions lifted and it was judged highly likely that Saddam at least had the components to quickly resurrect WMD programs. But justification is not motivation.
Neoconservatives within the administration persuaded Bush that invading Iraq would convince the rogue and enabling nations that the ‘rules’ had changed, that the sleeping giant had awoken. They also insisted that democracy could be successfully grafted into Iraq, given its apparent secular society ( a profound miscalculation) reasoning that it would create a ripple effect, a genuine Arab spring.
That was the rationale that motivated and persuaded Bush to invade.
Gaddafi got the message, Iran’s ideological fanaticism resisted that message and the Left convinced the mullahs that Bush lacked the political support to follow through on his implied threat.
MY TAKE:
Bush invaded Iraq to slap Saddam Hussein down — and to keep the UN Security Council relevant.
Saddam was WELL ON HIS WAY towards making the ENTIRE UN peace apparatus a nullity.
When this happened to the League of Nations — look what immediately followed.
Putin’s bitterness and paranoia WRT America is precisely that the UN collective still bars his way.
His grand strategy is to rebuild his atomic shield — and then absorb one nation after another — via slow motion warfare — the ‘blitz’ inverted.
I’m a big fan of Churchill — but not on the basis of his military ‘thinking.’
His military opinion on just about EVERYTHING was proved time and time again to be totally wrong.
Yet, he stayed stuck on stupid.
His vanity was such that he ejected Hugh Dowding AFTER Dowding saved Britain during the Battle of Britain.
They were at logger-heads all the way through the campaign — with Churchill always in the wrong.
Britain would never have been in such a tight scrape — except that Churchill over-rode Dowding’s stance that Spitfire squadrons CAN’T be thrown away in the Battle of France.
( They were simply mobbed by Bf-109s.)
Those, critical, reserve, squadrons were destroyed — almost completely — within days of their commitment. Their ground equipment never made it back to England.
As for Narvik – – Churchill pulled that stunt off behind the back of his Prime Minister. !!!!
Yet, that fiasco resulted in the fall of Chamberlain — not Winnie.
Gallipoli: ALL his admirals tried to talk the big thinker out of it — from the first. They knew that the RN was designed to fight deep blue sea battles — and was not set up in any way for amphibious operations.
Worse, many of the RN officers had actually transited that straight — and KNEW that their big guns could not possibly elevate to support the landing force.
You see the same effect in any given Norwegian fjord.
The Dardanelles exist because there is a staggering fault zone directly underneath. The nearby shores are ones of nearly vertical rise, in most places.
The Turks found it idiot easy to use the Spartan ‘hot gates’ defense no matter which way the Australian troops advanced.
Even bringing water to the front was a nightmare. It had to be talked up from below — a task that sent many a boy to his grave — easy prey for any sniper.
The key take-away with Churchill is that he would stay stuck on stupid as the casualties mounted to obscene levels — giving his admirals the, now famous, ‘0bama treatment.’
Churchill bitterly denounced Ike’s insistence on Dragoon — changing the operation’s name to reflect the fact that he’d been ‘dragooned into it.’
It proved to be a cake walk — and led to the re-boot of the French Army.
{ French 1st Army under Seventh Army Group, Devers }
Churchill had crack-pot schemes without limit — that Ike and Lord Alanbrooke had to talk him out of.
“Field Marshal Alan Francis Brooke, 1st Viscount Alanbrooke, KG, GCB, OM, GCVO, DSO & Bar (23 July 1883 — 17 June 1963) was a senior officer of the British Army.”
Brooke received his honors primarily because he saved countless British lives — talking Winnie out of one crazed scheme after another… most now buried in the archives.
Winnie wanted to invade RHODES — you know — the island next to Turkey. Ike FLIPPED OUT.
Winnie wanted to invade Yugoslavia, return to Greece, and was THE big player behind the Anzio fiasco.
When the military vote came in — 1945 — it was a blow-out. The stats were so bad that they were deemed a state secret for years. ( demoralization of the British Army )
Only now it’s admitted that Churchill was voted down 6:1 and worse across the ranks of the British Army.
When he went to Potsdam, Winnie thought that the overseas votes floating in would all roll his way. He lost his office due to the British Army vote. !!!!
blert, I am not sure what you are talking about; although my knowledge is admittedly superficial. I do know that Churchill took office as PM on 10 May. The evacuation of Dunkirk started on 24 May, and the role of the RAF in controlling the air over the beaches was critical to its success.
Do you mean to say that Churchill squandered the Spitfire assets in those two weeks? Do you suggest that every asset available should not have been used to facilitate that evacuation? Failure would have likely doomed the UK.
In truth the Spitfire assets were not depleted to the point that you suggest. The greatest deficiency for the RAF was always trained fighter pilots. Ramped up aircraft production replaced losses; but fighter pilots could not be replaced so quickly. Also, while the Spitfire is the sexy one, the Hurricane was the work horse, and adequate against the bomber attacks. Always was.
Blert:
Regarding Churchill and WWII, a lot more was going on than your selected horribles attributed to Churchill.
The U boat battle in the North Atlantic, bombing of Germany, the debacle in France, Italy’s entry into Africa, and Greece. And then of course Germany attacking USSR. Churchill had to convince FDR to provide support and continue to do so before and after Pearl Harbor. You haven’t mentioned Churchill’s role in delaying the invasion of France? Why not, it was the right decision.
He was a fighter and never gave up.
blert,
The UN peace ‘apparatus’ has never been anything other than a nullity.
The ONLY relevance that the UN Security Council has ever had is in the big 5 member’s ability to veto resolutions.
IMO, you are profoundly mistaken in your assertion that Bush’s primary motivation in the invasion of Iraq was to slap Saddam down. I’m surprised to see you buy into one of the Left’s talking points.
Obama giving away that Churchill bust when he arrived in office was one of the first concrete signals of his worldview and intentions. A VERY BAD SIGN! And outrageous as well… since it was not his to give away (I can’t remember if he hid it in a closet or gave it away but…)
Oldflyer Says:
May 29th, 2016 at 9:46 pm
EVERY one of the Spitfires sent to France// Europe after Winnie was PM — went there over the objections of Hugh Dowding.
Dowding flatly told Churchill that France was LOST.
She was lost before Churchill was even PM.
To send the MOST critical fighter — the ONLY one able to go toe to toe with the Bf-109 — to France was FOLLY.
During the Battle of Britain — time after time — Winnie’s ‘appreciations’ of the situation proved wholly wrong.
Dowding goes down in history as THE epic hero of Britain.
The man was just about NEVER wrong.
Churchill could barely stand the man.
He was waiting for that magic moment when Winnie would be right and Hugh would be wrong. It never came.
That Dowding — the SUPREME hero of Britain — was slighted by Churchill — is DAMNING.
BTW, Winnie couldn’t WAIT to get Dowding off of center stage.
Such is the vanity of man.
Sorry, history doesn’t play any other way.
&&&&&&&&
Churchill also did a crackerjack job of ‘dissing’ Commonwealth generals of outstanding distinction.
%%%%%
Churchill’s WORST single decision — on military affairs — was PERSONAL.
He wanted the (2nd) Battle of Alamein for POLITICAL purposes.
Here’s where it gets STRANGE. The German and Italian forces in North Africa were FINISHED when Torch succeded.
TORCH was a British idea — from the first to the last — literally dragooned down FDR’s throat.
It was actually one of the MOST significant strategic moves of the ENTIRE war.
This is a blog. If I had 2,000 PAGES I could not cover all of the strategic ramifications that Torch triggered.
Everything about TORCH is astounding.
Stalin bitterly complained that the British (& Americans) were not carrying their ‘weight.’ { What ever than meant in his perverted mind. }
Yet, TORCH caused Hitler to vector his entire airborne corps towards the West,… pulling an air fleet out of the East. Unit after unit that was being rebuilt for the Eastern Front was cut loose for Africa.
{ Due to shipping losses, it took three production tanks (in Germany) to establish one field tank in Tunisia. !!!! }
The above stat is even worse for infantry. The reason that the DAK was an elite formation: MOST of the guys had to be shipped back home — in less than three months!!!
ONLY the most hardy German boys could survive the African conditions.
In sum: North Africa — DAK — cost the German war machine anywhere from three to ten times as many inputs as a soldier on the Eastern Front.
Yep.
Just two German panzer divisions were absorbing the out puts of so many factories that the same effort — shipped to the east — would’ve sustained ten panzer divisions.
That Saharan sand ate gear up like crazy.
%%%%%%
Which brings us back to el Alamein.
AFTER TORCH, virtually no German — nor Itallian — troops ever escaped capture. They all went into ‘the bag.’
At the end, the Allies were astounded to discover that the African debacle cost Germany MORE than Stalingrad.
{ This calculus took Y E A R S to dope out. }
1) The Allies captured more Germans and Italians in Tunisia than the Red Army ever did in Stalingrad.
2) It took four to eight times as much War Product inputs to sustain a German in North Africa than the Eastern Front.
BOTH battle fronts destroyed entire Luftwaffe air fleets.
While one hears NO END of army commentary — the ultimate reality was that German military power came from the Luftwaffe.
Its ‘edge’ was utterly destroyed between December 1942 and April 1943. — Weirdly — the flip point for the U-boat fleet, too.
%%%
The indictment:
Churchill’s generals CORRECTLY figured that Torch would destroy Hitler in Africa… would open up the Med to Cairo and points east…
Other than Monty — all of his top African commanders figured that the SMART play was to play ‘possum.’
Which was a HUGE part of why Churchill kicked them to the curb.
It burned Winnie that victory after victory — would ensue the second the Americans entered the fray.
What a burn.
Chamberlain is overly disrespected — Churchill is overly praised — and I admire both.
Chamberlain is blamed for the decisions that ONLY Paris could make. ( Munich )
In all this time, few have woken up: ONLY the French Army could march on Hitler — in 1938.
Chamberlain’s opinion counted for NOTHING.
Churchill’s for even less.
liberty wolf Says:
May 30th, 2016 at 3:32 am
Obama giving away that Churchill bust when he arrived in office was one of the first concrete signals of his worldview and intentions. A VERY BAD SIGN! And outrageous as well… since it was not his to give away (I can’t remember if he hid it in a closet or gave it away but…)
^^
The straight facts:
It was on loan from the ‘Crown’ — never an American asset.
Barry threw it back in the Queen’s face.
You can’t top it for insults.
It was sent to Washington — DIRECTLY — in the echo of 9-11.
Get it ?
Geoffrey Britain Says:
May 30th, 2016 at 12:24 am
blert,
The UN peace ‘apparatus’ has never been anything other than a nullity.
The ONLY relevance that the UN Security Council has ever had is in the big 5 member’s ability to veto resolutions.
IMO, you are profoundly mistaken in your assertion that Bush’s primary motivation in the invasion of Iraq was to slap Saddam down. I’m surprised to see you buy into one of the Left’s talking points.
&&&&&&&
I’m surprised at a man of your cognitive abilities:
The whole point was to SUSTAIN the UNSC.
And to do that Saddam HAD to be slapped down.
The issues travelled together.
A UNSC that CAN’T ‘SPANK’ — is the League of Nations, revisited.
OM Says:
May 29th, 2016 at 9:51 pm
Blert:
Regarding Churchill and WWII, a lot more was going on than your selected horribles attributed to Churchill.
The U boat battle in the North Atlantic, bombing of Germany, the debacle in France, Italy’s entry into Africa, and Greece. And then of course Germany attacking USSR. Churchill had to convince FDR to provide support and continue to do so before and after Pearl Harbor.You haven’t mentioned Churchill’s role in delaying the invasion of France? Why not, it was the right decision.
AGAIN — on military affairs — Winnie was WRONG.
He ‘won’ his point — through the gritted teeth of Marshall, Ike and FDR.
Winnie dragged his feet ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
The AMERICAN plan was to invade in May 1943.
At that time, the Sherman tank would’ve OUTCLASSED every German tank.
At that time, Germany had NO West Wall, No Atlantic Wall, and was in WAY over its head in Russia.
ALL of the German formations in France, Mary of 1943 — wee RUN DOWN — ruined — formations that had to be completely rebuilt.
Some took more than TEN months to recover.
Yes, they were THAT shattered.
In sum, the American – British invasion force of 1943 — inept as it might have well been — would’ve have superiorities ACROSS THE BOARD.
The production miracle of Albert Speer would’ve just been beginning… but TOO LATE.
Volume production of German heavy tanks didn’t get rolling until AFTER July 1943.
Panther proto-types were a fiasco at Kursk…
But that battle would’ve been 70 days TOO LATE.
The famous German heavy tanks of WWII scarcely existed — until 1944.
Yes, their production was THAT low.
Churchill’s baleful hand shows up — again — in Operation Market-Garden.
The Bridge Too Far schtick is WAY off.
1) The SOLE an only motivating impulse behind Market-Garden: the V2 rocket assault upon London.
You can watch the whole film — read the whole book — and this salient reality is MISSING.
2) The sole reason why Monty was so satisfied with the results of this epic military fiasco: the launch sites for the V2 had been driven back — OUT OF RANGE OF LONDON — get it ?
After Market-Garden — the primary target for V-2s became Amtwerp… a reality that has totally faded from memory.
While, technically, a V-2 could still have been fired from Holland to London — such firings were now so close to the front lines — to make the range — that firings fell off DRAMATICALLY.
The occasional V-2 was still shot off — but the main anti-London offensive was quashed by Market-Garden.
As for the soldiers at the front — none had a CLUE as to the main motivation.
In a similar vein, ALL V-1 ramp sites were over-run.
V-1 attacks against London fell off drastically. The Luftwaffe had to haul V-1s to altitude with HE-111s and then release them over the North Sea.
But. But. Nazi Germany no longer had the gasoline to fire up its tiny HE-111 fleet.
Would you believe — that by the end — fully built front-line fighters never took to the skies — awaiting fuel from the first ?
OM Says:
May 29th, 2016 at 9:51 pm
Blert:
Regarding Churchill and WWII, a lot more was going on than your selected horribles attributed to Churchill.
The U boat battle in the North Atlantic, bombing of Germany, the debacle in France, Italy’s entry into Africa, and Greece. And then of course Germany attacking USSR. Churchill had to convince FDR to provide support and continue to do so before and after Pearl Harbor.
&&&&&&&
This was locked in American grand strategy – – LONG before Winnie opened his yap.
ALL of FDR’s top military brass agreed that Nazi Germany was THE peer competitor — and HAD to be priority number one, two, three, four, and five.
After Nazi Germany was defeated — America could deal with Japan.
This notion NEVER waivered.
THE guy to espouse this view — straight off — IKE.
Yep.
You know him.
Marshall put it to Ike to set America’s global priorities — in the daze immediately after Pearl Harbor.
That work sheet became America’s priorities for the remainder of the war.
It took Ike less than a single afternoon to dope out the flow of events.
Amazingly, Ike ( America’s von Manstein ) came to be the Supreme Commander of Allied (expeditionary) Forces In Europe.
( The Red Army was allied — but not an expeditionary force. )
The totality was known as “The United Nations” — a term that dates at least as far back as 1944.
Yes, yes, the ORIGINAL meaning of the term — anti-Axis forces, globally.
I knew you’d want to know.
Churchill’s wartime commitment was what was needed.
He was however an impossible peace time politician. His spell as PM ended in ignomy, voted out by veterans.
Not that he was popular before the war either.
“No surrender” can mean no compromises. Which in some circumstances gives you an Obama — unable to work with the other side for your country’s best interest, so insistent as he is on “winning”.
Blert:
Long posts, many historians don’t agree with your interpretations and bias. But again, Whatever.
Churchill DID do many things correctly — wisely.
Invariably they were at the strategic level — politics.
1) He unified the UK and US WRT Echelon — an effort that is STILL world decisive down to the present day.
It’s really impossible to overstate the significance of Echelon.
2) He ate crow and instantly supported the USSR and its Red Army — when that was politically TOXIC in Britain — especially in Conservative circles.
3) He galvanized the West against the true nightmare that Hitlerism was… and held to Western values even against Stalin.
He did so even when his oratory made him an outcast.
4) He, as First Sea Lord, had the RN totally wound up — ready for action — on a total war-time footing — prior to September 1st, 1939.
5) He, against all prior strategic logic – made the leap of trust to give away to America a SLEW of Britain’s strategic-technological crown jewels.
This single decision made victory inevitable.
Because the matters at issue were of the HIGHEST security classification, even to this day, most historical writers miss the epic nature of that strategic decision.
It, the decision, was one of the most epic in the history of man.
The details are so technocratic that it makes for lousy history telling.
MUCH of the details STILL can’t be discussed, as the flow of conversation would immediately ‘reflux’ right back upon the present.
Churchill CAN’T be separated from his oratory upon the Cold War.
Winnie galvanized the West — and set the stage for NATO.
For some reason, Winston’s towering impact upon WWIII keeps getting slighted. It shouldn’t.
Churchill should NEVER have been his own Defence Minister.
He should”ve stayed as Prime Minister — and let his admirals and generals do their thing.
The BIGGER the picture, the more right Churchill was.
His understanding of military-technical affairs — absolutely terrible… even though he appreciated the tech boys… tremendously.
( Check out his infatuation with the ice-berg aircraft carrier. )
BTW, Churchill did an A #1 of ‘dissing’ the hero of the Atlantic, too.
I’d list all of Churchill’s military fantasies — but would run out of electrons.
Ike — and Tedder — practically worshipped the ground Brooke trod — for one reason only –Brooke killed 9 out of 10 of Winnie’s ‘brainstorms.’
Most have been — politely — buried from history.
{ His Rhodes invasion scheme was merely one out of dozens of Churchill’s idiotic military fantasies. }
Check the map: Rhodes was an invasion to NO WHERE.
Blert:
Don’t assume others don’t know history, in the broad brush, big picture, or that they don’t already know about failures in wartime by the men in charge. I don’t remember everything I’ve read, but I do remember the big things for a long time. At least here you acknowledge a few “brainstorms,” and correct leadership.
I’ve had the understanding that supporting USSR against Germany was not politically costly at the time in Great Brittan for Churchill.
blert @12:24,
Sorry, I can’t buy that explanation. Simply because the only difference between the UN and the League of Nations is that the US joined the UN. The UN is the League of Nations… ‘rebranded’. The UN has never had the power to enforce it’s resolutions. Israel has defied many UN resolutions and the US has never felt the need to slap down Israel to ‘save’ the UNSC
And when the UN has acted, it has only been in situations where none of the big 5 objected. Given the opposing national interests, those circumstances are very rare. Every nation knows that the UN is, militarily, a toothless tiger. The UN members keep the UN going because it provides political leverage in reining in the major powers. The major powers value their veto power over each other.
Chester Draws:
You write:
Yes and no. While it is true that he was voted out at war’s end (see this), he became PM once again six years later, from 1951-1955. In the intervening years he had been the leader of the opposition and very active as such. His second term as PM ended in 1955 when he resigned for health reasons. He had had several strokes and was unwell, and was about 80 years old at the time. See this.
Well that all ok, what I can say the reginol ststed are not happy or agreed to US Neoconservatives project in Iraq.
Most gulf monarchy with other states like Jordan Egypt also Syria, Iran, turkey, Israel were all against that project the rush to make the mess in Iraq while US trying to set the pillar for the project of successful democracy be y grafted into apparent secular society Iraq and then the reasoning that it would create a ripple effect? That was those regional power played nasty work to make Iraq HELL for US.
Eric
The state that created by UN resolutions also breaking more than 99 UN resolutions from the date of its creation so where are from that?
Eric K:
“The state that created by UN resolutions also breaking more than 99 UN resolutions from the date of its creation so where are from that?”
Clarify if possible. What state are you referring to. I could guess but it’s your thought/comment.
Geoffrey Britain:
“But that legal justification was not what led to the Bush administration’s decision to invade.”
Actually, by choice, the legal justification was the only route to invade Iraq.
The law and policy of OIF are clear that the President was authorized to enforce Iraq’s compliance with the Gulf War ceasefire. If Saddam had responded to UNSCR 1441 with the requisite compliance that had been mandated by the UNSCR 660-series resolutions since 1990-1991, there would have been no US-led invasion of Iraq.
Geoffrey Britain:
“It was 9/11 that led to that decision.”
You’re correct that 9/11 was a relevant factor in the decision to confront Saddam with a “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441).
However, you’re incorrect to view the 9/11 factor outside of the operative context of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement.
In fact, obtaining Iraq’s compliance with the disarmament and terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687 were already principal objective of the Gulf War ceasefire before 9/11.
Saddam’s longstanding, world-leading application of terrorism as an instrument of Iraqi state power, at home and abroad, had kept abreast with and overlapped the rise of al Qaeda in contravention of UNSCR 687. In reaction, Saddam’s distinctive combined terrorism-and-WMD threat, which included ties to Islamic terrorism, was marked by President Clinton as a primary national security threat of a type that warranted preemption.
Geoffrey Britain:
“But justification is not motivation.”
See the answers to “What were President Bush’s alternatives with Iraq?” & “Why did Bush leave the ‘containment’ (status quo)?”.
In this case, the motivation is incorporated in the justification.
The 2002 AUMF-enforced, UNSCR 1441 “final opportunity to comply” carried forward the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement. Don’t forget that the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire were purpose-designed to resolve the manifold Iraqi danger that manifested with the Gulf War.
By the time of the 9/11 attacks, the President was already facing an either/or choice with the Saddam problem.
By 2000-2001, Saddam had evidently broken the post-Operation Desert Fox ‘containment’. The growing flow of proscribed items and activity was clear evidence that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program.
It’s possible that without the 9/11 attacks, Bush would have dropped the Gulf war ceasefire enforcement and tacitly allowed noncompliant Saddam to break free like an Obama red line. But with or without 9/11, the President’s choice would have been the same by 2001-2002: either tacitly allow an unreconstructed, evidently rearming, terrorist, ambitious Saddam to break free of the decade-plus US-led Gulf War ceasefire enforcement, or enforce a “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441).
You’re correct in that if there was an inclination by President Bush to tacitly allow noncompliant Saddam to break free of the Gulf War ceasefire like an Obama red line, then 9/11 foreclosed that option.
[Note: There was a 3rd option. With his determination that “Iraq has abused its final chance” with Operation Desert Fox, President Clinton set up an ad hoc path to invade Iraq directly from the ‘containment’ using the intelligence as casus belli. But President Bush opted to restore the compliance-based enforcement procedure to offer Saddam a 2nd “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441), instead.]
Geoffrey Britain:
“Neoconservatives within the administration persuaded Bush that invading Iraq would convince the rogue and enabling nations that the ‘rules’ had changed”
Again, you’ve cited a relevant factor, but you’ve taken it out of the operative context.
As President Clinton articulated on 17FEB98, the US-led Gulf War ceasefire enforcement was a fitness test for American leadership:
Invading Iraq wasn’t the fitness test for American leadership.
Whether American leadership could achieve Iraq’s mandated compliance – including and especially the disarmament and terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687 and humanitarian mandates of UNSCR 688 – was the defining fitness test for American leadership of the post-Cold War (including 9/11) era.
Regime change was the last resort to bring Iraq into its mandated compliance. Bush (and HW Bush and Clinton) preferred that Saddam would comply of his own volition. But once Saddam called our bluff in his “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441), the only path left for American leadership to achieve Iraq’s mandated compliance was the OIF regime change.
Geoffrey Britain:
“They also insisted that democracy could be successfully grafted into Iraq”
Again, you’ve cited a relevant factor, but you’ve taken it out of the operative context.
See the answers to “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom about WMD or democracy?” & “Was the invasion of Iraq perceived to be a nation-building effort?”.
The policy pre-dated the Bush administration. It’s actually rooted in the HW Bush administration, especially with its invasive multifaceted enforcement of UNSCR 688, and carried forward by the Clinton administration with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 et al.
One, generally speaking, until Obama changed course, in case of regime change, post-war peace operations were SOP for American leadership.
Two, particularly speaking, once Saddam failed to comply in his “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441), the peace operations with Iraq comprised the US-led, UN-mandated process to bring Iraq into compliance with the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire . The OIF regime change was only the 1st step of the US-led, UN-mandated compliance process pursuant to UNSCRs 688, 1483, 1511, etc.; also per the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and other standing related US law and policy.
Geoffrey Britain:
“That was the rationale that motivated and persuaded Bush to invade.”
You’re not wrong. You’re just missing the operative context for the relevant factors you’ve cited.
blert:
“Bush invaded Iraq to slap Saddam Hussein down”
If by “slap Saddam Hussein down”, you mean President Bush ordered OIF to “see Iraq fully comply with all of its obligations under Security Council resolutions” (Clinton, 02AUG99) with “compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions” (UNSCR 1441) in response to Saddam’s failure to comply and disarm as mandated in his “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441), then you’re correct.
blert:
“– and to keep the UN Security Council relevant.
Saddam was WELL ON HIS WAY towards making the ENTIRE UN peace apparatus a nullity.”
Correct. Recovering (or revitalizing) the UN as an effective international enforcement agent is a theme in Presidents Clinton and Bush’s statements on the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement.
In the first place, the mission to bring Iraq into compliance with the Gulf War ceasefire mandates was designed under HW Bush as a definably UN, course-setting, standard-bearing mission, albeit practically, it was led by the American leader of the free world.
blert:
“The whole point was to SUSTAIN the UNSC.”
That wasn’t the “whole” point of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement, but it was a relevant factor.
See the answer to “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom legal?” and this overview of the international (UNSC) dispute over the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement.
OM:
“Clarify if possible.”
Eric K should also clarify the particular character of those “99 UN resolutions” in terms of scope, obligations, and enforcement in comparison with the UNSCR 660-series resolutions. Context matters. The UN mandates for Iraq were the most critical, most severely enforced that the UN can muster.
Eric K — the UN was specifically structured so that no action could be taken without the agreement of the Big 5. It doesn’t matter how many UNSC resolutions are passed, if all the big powers don’t agree, nothing happens. A Security Council resolution without that agreement is meaningless.
Geoffrey Britain — we’ve been over this before, but maybe you forgot: before 9/11, before George W. Bush, before the neocons, overthrowing Saddam Hussein was made the official policy of the United States, enacted into law in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, passed almost unanimously by Congress and signed into law by the President, one Bill Clinton.
blert — anyone who thinks Churchill was an awful war leader probably thinks Montgomery was a good general.
Richard Saunders,
And, there are different types of UN resolutions.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 isn’t actually seminal. PL 105-338 merely codified with legislative imprimatur the executive policy and practice begun under President HW Bush and carried forward under President Clinton. HW Bush and Clinton both viewed regime change as the solution for the Saddam problem if Iraq did not comply as mandated.
See, for example, Secretary of State Albright’s 26MAR97 presentation of the US policy on Iraq updated for President Clinton’s 2nd term.
The preference for HW Bush, Clinton, and Bush from UNSCR 660 through Saddam’s “final opportunity to comply” with UNSCR 1441 was for Saddam to comply of his own volition. But it was apparent before HW Bush left office that Saddam would not comply.
President HW Bush’s Iraqi regime change policy and practice had covertly taken shape by May 1991 at the latest. In fact, it had overtly begun in April 1991 with the invasive multifaceted enforcement of UNSCR 688.
Regime change and peace operations as the solution for the Saddam problem evolved from covert and implicit under HW Bush to overt and explicit under Clinton. Both presidents actively supported Iraqi opposition inside and outside of Iraq.
Regime change via US-led invasion if Saddam did not comply in his “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441) was an update by Bush. But it wasn’t a leap. Regime change and peace operations were already standing policy if Saddam did not comply as mandated, while the penultimate military enforcement step had been passed with Operation Desert Fox in December 1998. Saddam had absorbed the ODF bombing and reacted by becoming more aggressive with his breach of ceasefire. After ODF, the only escalation step that remained for the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement was regime change via ground invasion followed by the PL 105-338 section 7 peace operations.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
May 30th, 2016 at 1:51 pm
blert @12:24,
UN resolutions against Israel are of farce.
They are never couched as UN Security Council Resolutions.
America or Britain always vetoes such frivolities.
OM Says:
May 30th, 2016 at 11:12 am
Blert:
Don’t assume others don’t know history, in the broad brush, big picture, or that they don’t already know about failures in wartime by the men in charge. I don’t remember everything I’ve read, but I do remember the big things for a long time. At least here you acknowledge a few “brainstorms,” and correct leadership.
I’ve had the understanding that supporting USSR against Germany was not politically costly at the time in Great Brittan for Churchill.
%%%%%
Jumping to aid Stalin had MANY backbenchers gagging at the time.
1) The aid that Stalin wanted consisted of war goods that Britain needed for herself.
2) The aid transited German patrolled seas — and figured to run down Britain’s life line — its merchant marine.– when Britain was still very much on the ropes.
3) In party politics it was a staggering flip flop — as Stalin had been Hitler’s most important ally — and the source of all their troubles. Stalin triggered WWII in Europe — not Hitler.
Until Stalin threw in with Adolf, Hitler was boxed in economically.
Rubber
Oil
Met Coal
Nickel
Aluminum
Tungsten
Stalin destroyed the Western defense scheme // strategic international plan — by breaking Britain and France’s economic blockage of various critical war essentials.
Hitler was prevented from building up strategic reserves in rubber, oil, met coal and tungsten.
This diplomatic betrayal by Stalin was EPIC.
Most informed readers are still in the dark about the intense diplomacy prior to August 23, 1939 — between Russia, England and Poland inre a pact to go after Hitler — hammer and tongs.
Chamberlain was scheming up an alliance that would’ve co-joined Poland, Britain, France and the USSR in an anti-Hitler alliance.
It blew up// imploded because the Poles dared not trust Stalin with his demands for passage ( of the Red Army ) straight through Poland.
In his loopy brain, Stalin proposed that a massive swath of Poland be placed under RUSSIAN martial law — with all of the administrative conditions to match.
In so many words, Poland was to cede to Stalin total control of Poland across a front of, say 100 miles and more.
Stalin didn’t want to fight WITH the Poles – but as a sovereign military machine that need only take orders from Stalin — even while deployed within Poland.
Warsaw correctly figured that such a scheme would be the end of Poland.
blert:
“They are never couched as UN Security Council Resolutions.”
Among UNSCRs, you also need to sort which are Chapter VII resolutions and, among those, their enforcement authority and procedure.
UN authorization doesn’t supersede US sovereign authority. So it’s worth noting that for the enforcement of Iraq’s compliance with the UNSCR 660-series resolutions, including the Gulf War ceasefire, the US law and policy were explicitly purposed, beginning with HW Bush’s initial reaction to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 and the 1991 AUMF (PL 102-1) in January 1991, to enforce the UN mandates for Iraq pursuant to UNSCR 678.
Clarification: The 1991 AUMF was explicitly purposed to enforce the UN mandates for Iraq pursuant to UNSCR 678, which was adopted in November 1990. The initial HW Bush reaction to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 concurred with UNSCR 660.
OldFlyer: “Dare we hope that there is more to Donald Trump than is evident to date?”
He’s almost 70. As someone upthread stated, Churchill was Churchill before the events of WWII (for whatever that’s worth, based on the lively conversation that’s been had). He was an possessed of great personal courage, and there are stories in his biography of him demonstrating this as a very young man.
Trump is Trump. He’s not going to magically transform into some erudite, wise and courageous leader just by becoming President.
I’d love to hear from anyone who has any evidence to the contrary.
I think if someone has decided to vote for Trump, for whatever pragmatic reason whatsoever, that is something I can respect. But I worry about those who will vote in hope that he’s not who he is. I believe they are going to be really, really disappointed.
Bill
“Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
We won’t be fooled again….” The Who
Trumpsters who will be disappointed.
OM: I don’t think there are more than one or two people on this list who are positive Trumpsters. The rest of us are “Hold your nose and hope for the best-ers.”
As Kurt Schlichter wrote in his TownHall column yesterday, “With Hillary, I have exactly 0% chance of her implementing conservative policies. With Trump, I have a >0% chance of having him implement conservative policies. Advantage Trump.”
Eric: I wasn’t saying what was seminal in the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein, I was saying what wasn’t — it wasn’t Dubya, it wasn’t neocons, it wasn’t Sharansky’s book, it wasn’t Saddam’s plan to assassinate George HW. It was the LAW!
Richard Saunders,
It was the Gulf War ceasefire.
“I’ve been thinking about justifications for war. And the larger philosophical question of justification in general. No doubt it is a feature of my personality that the problem of justification seems more central to me that the various (& very real) political issues surrounding the recent war. I don’t think poetry is any one thing, but one thing that poetry is, is an investigation of motive. If there is a universal quality of poetry, it is that poetry makes its rhetorical motives available to the reader; by doing so, poetry can also sometimes illuminate the public use of language. Poetry in this view is exemplary, not in the high-cultural sense of approved usage, but in the critical sense of language as self-interrogation. (Self? The personal self, yes; but also the “self” of language.) Aside: One of the failures of much recent poetics & criticism is lack of attention to the public qualities of poetic language. I want to advance the argument that part of the value of poetic language is its power to refract public discourse in such a way that its motives are revealed. There are other things poetry can do, but a poet’s interest in the problem of justification is going to hone in on this particular use of poetic language. “