For the past few weeks there has been a debate raging about Churchill & India, the role of United States in Indian Independence, and the second world war. Here are excerpts from my posts.
POST: Churchill was a very talented and dynamic individual ,although definitely a flawed one.He was an imperialist but that cannot alone be allowed to overshadow his tremendous other qualities.I have no defence for his callous disregard of the great Bengal famine but he had very many other sterling qualities and achievements to his credit .
First and foremost he did the right thing when he defied Hitler in world war 2 and united the nation behind him.He saved European civilisation from a dark age due to his timely resistance.He spoke out against Hitler when everybody INCLUDING the Labour Party was for giving the Germans a chance to rehabilitate themselves after the Versailles treaty which gave most informed people a guilt complex.
The support of King Edward should be commended as a liberal support of the right to marry irrespective of rank.At that time the Nazis had nothing to do with it .
Churchill was a daring and shrewd military strategist .He should be credited for building up the Royal Navy prior to World War I with the Queen Elizabeth class battleships which beat back the German surge and which Navy was able to blockade Germany to desperation in that war.It was correctly said that the C in C of the Royal Navy Sir Jellicoe was one man who could lose the war in an afternoon .As far as Gallipoli was concerned the initial concept ,which was Churchill's , was brilliant and everybody at that time felt the British would take Istanbul easily.Then Kitchener and the British cabinet changed the concept of the operation,made it a prolonged land battle and as Churchill was identified with the proposal he had to pay a political price.
Another of Churchill's brilliant ideas resulted in the battle tank.
In world war 2,Churchill's management of the war resulted in much less casualties than in the First World War and I admire the way the various campaigns and chiefly DDay assault was conducted .Obviously Churchill was not the only architect of those victories but undoubtedly he had a major role.
By his crafty declaration of war against the Japanese immediately after Pearl Harbour he got Hitler to declare war against the USA and made it easier for FDR to enter the war in Europe.
I found in his books a very shrewd military analyst as well.As they are very engrossing ,makes for good reading as well.
Let us therefore not indulge in what many in India are doing presently ,label a person by one event or occurrence ,and ignore his other facets.
First churchill did what any self-respecting Englishman, and in fact any human being would have done. To call it the right thing to do is superfluous.
To say that churchill "saved European civilization" is obscene. Britain would to this day be a Nazi colony if it did not get the full support of United States. Do you realise that the supreme commander of Allied forces was NOT a Briton but an American? This in spite of conniving by Field Marshal Montgomery.
Yes, one can call churchill shrewd. Many would call him cunning, fully exploiting the fact that his mother was American in begging thwe Americans to save them. As an American taxpayer I would have liked my government to send churchill the bill.
If Britain had not defied Germany in 1940 it would have become a. Colony of the Nazis that year ; if Germany had not fought Russia and had chipped away at the British Empire at the edges and weakened it and if USA had not come into the war ,it is possible that by 1944 Britain may have been weakened enough to succumb.But these are hypothetical scenarios against the certain one that in 1940 Churchill saved Britain for which he is rightly honoured.
As for the begging bowl bit let us also not forget that it was in USA's interest geopolitically to retain free and potentially friendly economies in Europe and not for Nazi Germany to dominate solely .Roosevelt realised this -he just did not intervene altruistically.
In 1940 Roosevelt did not have the political capital and support to declare war on Germany and if Britain had gone under he could have done nothing about it even though it was not in his long term interest .
You have the facts wrong. Hitler's overtures were rejected by Chamberlain, not churchill. In fact, Chamberlain observed then, "Past experience has shown that no reliance can be placed upon the promises of the present German Government." (see Wikipedia). It was upon this rejection that Hitler ordered war on France. Then Germany occupied Norway. The discontent in May 1940 over Norway forced Chamberlain out and churchill was in. The importance of the loss of Norway probably also had to do with the fact that Norway was probably the only country that then had the capability of producing heavy water. German scientists headed by Werner Heisenberg were then probably ahead of every one else in the development of nuclear weapons. (If you are interested, there is a very good movie on this, "The Heavy Water War") Heavy water is required for nuclear weapons.
Up to 1940 Britain was not fighting Germans; they were just hissing and puffing their cheeks. The scenarios you describe as hypothetical were not lost on the shrewd churchill. I wouldn't be surprised if they were just the scenarios that drove Churchill to beg FDR for help. But then the Americans were just becoming familiar with the Indian independence movement, and had received Gandhi's famous letter toi FDR asking for help.
Gandhi's letter to FDR hand delivered by Louis Fischer unequivocally concluded:
“The full acceptance of my proposal and that alone can put the Allied cause on an unassailable basis. I venture to think that the Allied declaration that the Allies are fighting to make the world safe for freedom of the individual and for democracy sounds hollow so long as India and, for that matter, Africa are exploited by Great Britain and America has the Negro problem in her own home. But in order to avoid all complications, in my proposal I have confined myself only to India. If India becomes free;, the rest must follow, if it does not happen simultaneously. In order to make my proposal foolproof I have suggested that, if the Allies think it necessary, they may keep their troops, at their own expense in India, not for keeping internal order but for preventing Japanese aggression and defending China. So far as India is concerned, we must become free even as America and Great Britain are. The Allied troops will remain in India during the war under treaty with the free Indian Government that may be formed by the people of India without any outside interference, direct or indirect.”
He went on to say:
"I have profited greatly by the writings of Thoreau and Emerson. I say this to tell you how much I am connected with your country. Of Great Britain I need say nothing beyond mentioning that in spite of my intense dislike of British rule, I have numerous personal friends in England whom I love as dearly as my own people. I had my legal education there. I have therefore nothing but good wishes for your country and Great Britain. You will therefore accept my word that my present proposal, that the British should unreservedly and without reference to the wishes of the people of India immediately with- draw their rule, is prompted by the friendliest intention. I would like to turn into goodwill the ill will which, whatever may be said to the contrary, exists in India towards Great Britain and thus enable the millions of India to play their part in the present war. My personal position is clear. I hate all war. If, therefore, I could persuade my countrymen, they would make a most effective and decisive contribution in favour of an honourable peace. But I know that all of us have not a living faith in non-violence, Under foreign rule however we can make no effective contribution of any 'kind in this war, except as helots." You can see the whole letter at https://research.archives.gov/id/7065056
POST: Churchill was a very talented and dynamic individual ,although definitely a flawed one.He was an imperialist but that cannot alone be allowed to overshadow his tremendous other qualities.I have no defence for his callous disregard of the great Bengal famine but he had very many other sterling qualities and achievements to his credit .
First and foremost he did the right thing when he defied Hitler in world war 2 and united the nation behind him.He saved European civilisation from a dark age due to his timely resistance.He spoke out against Hitler when everybody INCLUDING the Labour Party was for giving the Germans a chance to rehabilitate themselves after the Versailles treaty which gave most informed people a guilt complex.
The support of King Edward should be commended as a liberal support of the right to marry irrespective of rank.At that time the Nazis had nothing to do with it .
Churchill was a daring and shrewd military strategist .He should be credited for building up the Royal Navy prior to World War I with the Queen Elizabeth class battleships which beat back the German surge and which Navy was able to blockade Germany to desperation in that war.It was correctly said that the C in C of the Royal Navy Sir Jellicoe was one man who could lose the war in an afternoon .As far as Gallipoli was concerned the initial concept ,which was Churchill's , was brilliant and everybody at that time felt the British would take Istanbul easily.Then Kitchener and the British cabinet changed the concept of the operation,made it a prolonged land battle and as Churchill was identified with the proposal he had to pay a political price.
Another of Churchill's brilliant ideas resulted in the battle tank.
In world war 2,Churchill's management of the war resulted in much less casualties than in the First World War and I admire the way the various campaigns and chiefly DDay assault was conducted .Obviously Churchill was not the only architect of those victories but undoubtedly he had a major role.
By his crafty declaration of war against the Japanese immediately after Pearl Harbour he got Hitler to declare war against the USA and made it easier for FDR to enter the war in Europe.
I found in his books a very shrewd military analyst as well.As they are very engrossing ,makes for good reading as well.
Let us therefore not indulge in what many in India are doing presently ,label a person by one event or occurrence ,and ignore his other facets.
MY RESPONSE: You grotesquely overstate the virtues of churchill.
First churchill did what any self-respecting Englishman, and in fact any human being would have done. To call it the right thing to do is superfluous.
To say that churchill "saved European civilization" is obscene. Britain would to this day be a Nazi colony if it did not get the full support of United States. Do you realise that the supreme commander of Allied forces was NOT a Briton but an American? This in spite of conniving by Field Marshal Montgomery.
Yes, one can call churchill shrewd. Many would call him cunning, fully exploiting the fact that his mother was American in begging thwe Americans to save them. As an American taxpayer I would have liked my government to send churchill the bill.
POST: Dear Mr Ganguly will reply in more detail after reading the links you have given.
In the meanwhile please consider that Hitler had offered enticingly peace proposals through various neutral countries in May 1940 as soon as the France fall became certain which Churchill rejected but others were still considering and I am not sure but Lord Halifax was one of them.So by no means "any self-respecting Englishman" would obviously do the right thing in a situation which everybody was saying was hopeless.Self-respecting Englishmen had nevertheless appeased Hitler and promised peace for our time ; they had fought a phoney war from September 1939 to May 1940;why was not the right thing obvious then ?If Britain had not defied Germany in 1940 it would have become a. Colony of the Nazis that year ; if Germany had not fought Russia and had chipped away at the British Empire at the edges and weakened it and if USA had not come into the war ,it is possible that by 1944 Britain may have been weakened enough to succumb.But these are hypothetical scenarios against the certain one that in 1940 Churchill saved Britain for which he is rightly honoured.
As for the begging bowl bit let us also not forget that it was in USA's interest geopolitically to retain free and potentially friendly economies in Europe and not for Nazi Germany to dominate solely .Roosevelt realised this -he just did not intervene altruistically.
In 1940 Roosevelt did not have the political capital and support to declare war on Germany and if Britain had gone under he could have done nothing about it even though it was not in his long term interest .
Please further note that I always said that Churchill was not alone in the direction of the war.Due to the preponderance of American aid he had no choice but to be second fiddle .But whatever reading I have done has led me to the conclusion that he contributed a lot to the planning and execution.It was always politically decided that the commander for operation Overlord would be an American.
When the Americans ignored Churchill's pleas and did not take more areas in Germany as they very well could have in 1945 before the Russians got there the free world was the loser till 1989.
When the Americans ignored Churchill's pleas and did not take more areas in Germany as they very well could have in 1945 before the Russians got there the free world was the loser till 1989.
MY RESPONSE: I find it amazing that an empire over which sun did not set had to go down on knees before FDR. Like a cat with a large brood that hisses when encountering a larger animal, Britain (along with France) DECLARED war on Germany in 1939, knowing fully well that its enslaved colonies had no choice but to kowtow, and the fully independent dominions would follow suit. This bit of bravado (or bluff) was called out by Germany by soon extending the war over the Atlantic trade (the life blood of the merchant nation Britain).
You have the facts wrong. Hitler's overtures were rejected by Chamberlain, not churchill. In fact, Chamberlain observed then, "Past experience has shown that no reliance can be placed upon the promises of the present German Government." (see Wikipedia). It was upon this rejection that Hitler ordered war on France. Then Germany occupied Norway. The discontent in May 1940 over Norway forced Chamberlain out and churchill was in. The importance of the loss of Norway probably also had to do with the fact that Norway was probably the only country that then had the capability of producing heavy water. German scientists headed by Werner Heisenberg were then probably ahead of every one else in the development of nuclear weapons. (If you are interested, there is a very good movie on this, "The Heavy Water War") Heavy water is required for nuclear weapons.
Up to 1940 Britain was not fighting Germans; they were just hissing and puffing their cheeks. The scenarios you describe as hypothetical were not lost on the shrewd churchill. I wouldn't be surprised if they were just the scenarios that drove Churchill to beg FDR for help. But then the Americans were just becoming familiar with the Indian independence movement, and had received Gandhi's famous letter toi FDR asking for help.
Gandhi's letter to FDR hand delivered by Louis Fischer unequivocally concluded:
“The full acceptance of my proposal and that alone can put the Allied cause on an unassailable basis. I venture to think that the Allied declaration that the Allies are fighting to make the world safe for freedom of the individual and for democracy sounds hollow so long as India and, for that matter, Africa are exploited by Great Britain and America has the Negro problem in her own home. But in order to avoid all complications, in my proposal I have confined myself only to India. If India becomes free;, the rest must follow, if it does not happen simultaneously. In order to make my proposal foolproof I have suggested that, if the Allies think it necessary, they may keep their troops, at their own expense in India, not for keeping internal order but for preventing Japanese aggression and defending China. So far as India is concerned, we must become free even as America and Great Britain are. The Allied troops will remain in India during the war under treaty with the free Indian Government that may be formed by the people of India without any outside interference, direct or indirect.”
He went on to say:
"I have profited greatly by the writings of Thoreau and Emerson. I say this to tell you how much I am connected with your country. Of Great Britain I need say nothing beyond mentioning that in spite of my intense dislike of British rule, I have numerous personal friends in England whom I love as dearly as my own people. I had my legal education there. I have therefore nothing but good wishes for your country and Great Britain. You will therefore accept my word that my present proposal, that the British should unreservedly and without reference to the wishes of the people of India immediately with- draw their rule, is prompted by the friendliest intention. I would like to turn into goodwill the ill will which, whatever may be said to the contrary, exists in India towards Great Britain and thus enable the millions of India to play their part in the present war. My personal position is clear. I hate all war. If, therefore, I could persuade my countrymen, they would make a most effective and decisive contribution in favour of an honourable peace. But I know that all of us have not a living faith in non-violence, Under foreign rule however we can make no effective contribution of any 'kind in this war, except as helots." You can see the whole letter at https://research.archives.gov/id/7065056
As to hissing and puffing,
"The 3rd Infantry Division was deployed to Belgium as part of the British Expeditionary Force. Realizing that the British and the French had little intention to invade Germany, Montgomery predicted a defeat should Germany decide to invade France, and trained his troops for tactical retreat, which paid off when the men of the 3rd Infantry Division effectively fell back toward the French coast. During Operation Dynamo, the evacuation of British and French troops to the United Kingdom, he assumed command of the II Corps as Alan Brooke, the previous commanding officer, became the acting commander of the British Expeditionary Force. Upon his return to the United Kingdom in Jun 1940, he openly criticized the British Expeditionary Force leadership for the defeat, and was briefly relegated to divisional command, but was made a Companion of the Order of the Bath." (http://ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=7)
"In the next month [September 1942], Montgomery started to receive great quantities of supplies from the United States, including large numbers of tanks. In Oct 1942, Montgomery decided that he was ready to launch Operation Lightfoot. On 23 Oct, the two forces engaged at the Battle of El Alamein, and 12 days later Montgomery achieved his decisive victory, capturing 30,000 Axis prisoners."
Montgomery convinced Eisenhower about Operation Market Garden in the Netherlands which was an utter failure. In fact after that Eisenhower removed Montgomery from the front and made him in charge of British Occupation Forces. I suppose his experience in India prepared him for that position.
"The 3rd Infantry Division was deployed to Belgium as part of the British Expeditionary Force. Realizing that the British and the French had little intention to invade Germany, Montgomery predicted a defeat should Germany decide to invade France, and trained his troops for tactical retreat, which paid off when the men of the 3rd Infantry Division effectively fell back toward the French coast. During Operation Dynamo, the evacuation of British and French troops to the United Kingdom, he assumed command of the II Corps as Alan Brooke, the previous commanding officer, became the acting commander of the British Expeditionary Force. Upon his return to the United Kingdom in Jun 1940, he openly criticized the British Expeditionary Force leadership for the defeat, and was briefly relegated to divisional command, but was made a Companion of the Order of the Bath." (http://ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=7)
"In the next month [September 1942], Montgomery started to receive great quantities of supplies from the United States, including large numbers of tanks. In Oct 1942, Montgomery decided that he was ready to launch Operation Lightfoot. On 23 Oct, the two forces engaged at the Battle of El Alamein, and 12 days later Montgomery achieved his decisive victory, capturing 30,000 Axis prisoners."
Montgomery convinced Eisenhower about Operation Market Garden in the Netherlands which was an utter failure. In fact after that Eisenhower removed Montgomery from the front and made him in charge of British Occupation Forces. I suppose his experience in India prepared him for that position.
