Topic: U.S. History
Why Winston Churchill Saved the Free World Winston Churchill, one of the greatest leader in history, saved the free world from facism and paved the way for the world we live in today.by Locke
(Conservative)
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Winston Churchill, is in my opinion, the man most responsible for the Allied victory during World War 2. His brilliant leadership during his country's darkest hour proved to be the most important moment in the course of the war.
Winston Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940, after his predecessor Nevil Chamberline was forced out of office after his disastorous policies of appeasment to Hitler's aggression. Churchill became leader at the time when France was defeated and Britain was the only country left to fight the Nazi conquest of continental Europe.
As Hitler prepared Operation Sea Wolf, the invasion of Britain, and as the Battle of Britain was in full swing, the pressure to surrender to the Nazis or risk occupation was overwhelming. Churchill kept Britain in the war and led his country to victory in the Battle of Britain.
This move of not surrendering saved the world from a German superpower because it provided a base to launch an invasion of Europe. The United States would have inevitably entered the war, but there was a strong possibility that if Britain capitulated then the United State's war would have been restricted to the Pacific Ocean. Even if the United States had entered into the war against Germany, it is unlikey that victory would have been reached because of the logistical problems of suppying and maintaining a invasion force in continental Europe. There is no way that an invasion the size of Normandy could have taken place across several thousands of miles of ocean. The American effort would have been restricted to bombing raids, which would not have brought about German defeat. Hitler and his Third Reich would have ultimately been victorous.
As I have explained, Winston Churchill's determination to keep fighting allowed Hitler to be defeated and prevent the world from being ruled by dictatorship.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1 thumb so far
2008 Locke, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, May 8, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, May 8, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Locke only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Locke is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Although your analysis is a bit simple, your conclusion is correct. Churchill was the right man at the right time for Britain. He had the intellectual capacity and stragetic thinking at a pivotal time in history country's history.
I think this is the quote you were looking for (from winstonchurchill.org):
"Never Surrender"
"We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing-grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!"
—House of Commons, 4 June 1940, following the evacuation of British and French armies fromDunkirk as the German tide swept throughFrance.
Unfortunately the current leadership in this country, at this time, does not instill confidence, nor does it make a case for continued war. It cannot find the enemy. It does not make case that can justify me sending my son to war. We're not asked to sacrifice, but instead to go to the mall. Somehow, it is more important to prop up the economy of China than it is to fight an enemy, win the war and come home. Perpetual war will make us all paupers.
Sadder still, the next crop of presidential hopefuls are marginally better than the current administration. We have three Senators who, at best, will be ineffective at making changes. At worst, they will make the wrong sorts of changes.
Churchill’s history is mixed with valiant actions morphed with actions that can only be considered criminal at best. Take for instance, the fact that Churchill was fully aware that there was going to be an attack on the city of Coventry and yet, instead of warning that city he allowed it not only to be attacked, but destroyed. It was, I suppose, to be viewed by Churchill as a sacrifice for the cause. He asked that the press publicized the attack on Coventry to have the greatest impact on public opinion.
I also have an issue with Churchill’s view and treatment of Gandhi. Churchill stated, in no uncertain terms, that: “Gandhi-ism and all it stands for will, sooner or later, have to be crushed.” Of course, when you see that Gandhi stood for peace, reform, liberty, it does color Churchill in a way that is far from becoming to anyone who considers liberty as one of the highest goals of humanity.
The policies of Churchill, especially concerning various areas within the Balkans, had horrible results, especially in the Ukraine where millions of people starved to death because of the polices put in place by Churchill, FDR and Stalin. Not, lets not forget that Churchill and FDR basically handed Eastern Europe into Stalin’s hands and we had to live with the aftermath of that trade for decades.
So, let’s not laud too much on a man of such character; truth is a hard taskmaster, but it is far less torturous than lies.
"Of course, when you see that Gandhi stood for peace, reform, liberty, it does color Churchill in a way that is far from becoming to anyone who considers liberty as one of the highest goals of humanity."-Republicae
Racist Ghandi who gained noteriety for his support and work in gaining rights for Indian Expats in South Africa (a nation stolen from blacks).
What else did Ghandi have to say:
"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and in-human to impose the Jews on the Arabs." (but what about South Africa?)
"Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension. Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen."
"The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? (Why was Ghandi in South Africa again?)
"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed"- in 1940 (But he was against violence right?)
"If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province."- in 1938
"Just as a man would not cherish living in a body other than his own, so do nations not like to live under other nations, however noble and great the latter may be" (but he lived in a nation that was not his own)
"Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness." (on black South Africans) "
The Natives in our hands proved to be most unreliable and obstinate. Without constant attention, they would as soon have dropped the wounded man as not, and they seemed to bestow no care on their suffering countryman." (- on the native Africans, when Gandhi was practising law there.)
Posted By: Ivan from Oregon
Date: 2008-05-10 12:30:39
Churchil may have been the right man at the ttime, but if you ask anyone in my former "homeland", the deal he struck with Rosevelt to give Czechoslovakia to Stalin would give 14 million (at the time) dissenting voices to your opinion of him. The same goes for Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, not to mention, Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, Finland, etc., etc.
I'm as happy as anyone that Churchill saved Britain and the whole "free world." from Hitler and Naziism. However, I do have a problem with your thesis: I don't see that Hitler was after the "free world" at all. As I read it, his goal was to conquer the Heartland, which meant war with the Soviet Union.
Britain got involved, and put itself at risk, because of its entangling alliance with Poland. It entered into that alliance, on the whole, as a result of Churchill's war-mongering.
So, sure, Churchill saved Britain from Naziism, and deserves full credit for that. But that evaluation should be balanced off with the observation that it was mainly Churchill who put Britain at risk in the first place.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Locke, all rights reserved.