Why did Churchill lead Britain into war with Nazism and Fascism?

[RedGuard]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ml#commentsDiv
https://mises.org/library/real-churchill

Ive been pretty interested lately in delving much deeper into the biggest war of human existence. I guess starting to play Hearts of Iron IV has relighted my interest in the topic

Reading the aforementioned articles, Im really starting to wonder why Churchill was adamant at stopping the nazi empire after the fall of France and the escape of his troops from Dunkirk. His own ideology seems to have aligned quite well with Hitlers, even going so far as to praise Mussolini? He seems to have been quite a political opportunist, allying himself with the Nazi ideology when it was popular but then doing a 180 and making a great stand against it when he was PM.

It seems like Britain might have saved their Empire if they had played ball with Hitler, though of course this would have come at great shame to the rest of the world. Churchill however seems to be quite contrary to the myth that surrounds him, the same way I have read that FDR's tyrannical side was overlooked during WW2 thanks to his death.

point being it seems like he knew that GB had everything to lose by defying Hitler and not much to gain from it other than making a heroic stand for "democracy" at least the Anglo-American version of it. British exceptionalism seems to factor into it as well.

Im wondering if someone can refute these articles, or can perhaps add to my understanding of them. Because Churchill seems to be an unabashed racist British imperialist first and foremost. Not much different than the BUF leader, Oswald Mosley, but perhaps a better politician.

[Cyclops]

Churchill was a self serving tool: he changed his party several times, adopted very awkward and even disastrous policies in office (he was blamed for the failure at Gallipoli, but imho the army undermined a rather risky but potentially war-winning gamble there). As Chancellor in the 1920's he was a failure and a damaging one at that, with anachronistic polices about the gold standard and heavy handed oppression of strikers.

By the 1930's he was widely disliked and mistrusted. He banged on about Hitler but he also banged on about how India should be kept at all costs (a political impossibility as it turned out) and stood by the wildly inappropriate Edward VIII. Basically he was a member of the awkward squad, saying nasty difficult and sometimes very stupid things. It turned out he was right about Hitler, but its hard to credit him with amazing insight, I think he placed political bets and this one payed big time.

Appeasement had been about letting Hitler get away with his crimes because he was going to oppose the Communists, and hopefully invade the Soviets (who were the main worry for most). When Hitler formed a pact with Stalin it was clear Britain had to act against him. The price of Chamberlain's policy failure was his resignation and the dirty job of running an unpopular war (and after the fall of France it began to look like a losing one) fell to Churchill.

Churchill's insane drunken energy and ranting was perfect for the job. I think the British felt they had done as much as they could to prevent war in Europe (they were more worried about the Soviets and the Japanese) and when it started they joined in with a clear conscience. There's a lot of propaganda about how beloved Churchill was but this is bosh. He was disliked by most: the working class for his Tory arrogance and the upper class for his dishonest self promotion. He gained a lot of respect for his hard work and even his occasional blunders were forgiven, but he was voted out of office before the war ended.

His prestige meant he could serve again as PM, but he was never a figure of universal acclaim and it has taken generations of propaganda to make him look like something other than the pile of dogshit shaped like a man that he really was.

[RedGuard]

His only common trait seems to be a deep hatred of communism. "Three or four years ago I was myself a loud alarmist. . . . In spite of the risks which wait on prophecy, I declare my belief that a major war is not imminent, and I still believe that there is a good chance of no major war taking place in our lifetime. . . . I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazism, I would choose Communism." Ironically he invited communism into the heart of europe in the end. "poor old Chamberlain was wrong about Hitler, but I am not wrong about Stalin."

He seems to have had no scruples at all when it comes to taking power and would play to any crowd if meant getting what he wanted. Someone I read called him a a demagogue. The independent article I read said that George W Bush had a bust of him, but Obama had it sent back to Britain because Churchill had his grandfather tortured in Kenya for resisting British rule.

He seems to have whole heartedly wanted to destroy German national socialism while holding a ww1 imperialist vendetta against them, hoping to reestablish the supremacy of the British Empire in the process.

Still what gets me is you would have thought signing some kind of agreement with Hitler was possible at the time just after Dunkirk (even if it would be broken later inevitably by Hitler) knowing full well that Hitler intended to invade the Soviet Union. This would have given the British Empire plenty of time to prepare for the inevitable assault. The two ideologies would have destroyed each other while the British would win by default.

[bigdaddy1204]

There is probably something to this, especially when you consider the Fall of Singapore in February 1942 (the biggest defeat in British military history) and the fall of Hong Kong in December 1941. Both these battles were crushing defeats for the British Empire. In the fall of Singapore alone, the British lost 80,000 men captured. The British defeats at the hands of the Japanese took place at a time when the major part of the British military resources were focused firmly on Europe. There are several examples of British ships being destroyed. There weren't even enough ships to defend Australia properly - a fact that was noticed in Australia, and helped to drive Australia to depend on the USA, rather than Britain, for its defence.

If Britain had exited the war in Europe by accepting that peace offer after the fall of France, it seems much less likely that the British Empire would have been fatally undermined by the defeats in Singapore and Hong Kong. This is important, because it was the defeat at Singapore in particular which utterly shattered the Empire's image and proved to all the world that the colonial powers could be defeated by an Asian people (the Japanese). It's ironic, when you think about it - Churchill's aim was the preservation of the empire. Yet his decision to prolong the war in Europe was arguably the fatal blow to that empire.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Hard to say exactly but the actual reason was because he realized that opposing German expansionism would make him popular and bring him to the forefront of politics. He also made claims that Nazism was a threat to the British Empire's territorial integrity or sovereignty and later that the Germans were a threat to Western society/civilization as a whole.

Ideologically he seemed to be more in line with Fascism and Nazism as Churchill was rather reactionary. Combined with his reactionary views and the good business sense of a snake oil salesmen he rapidly jumped in to oppose Hitler around the time of the Sudetenland incident, maybe even sooner when it became clear that the Germans would not sit around quietly and very much wanted to push the issue of their territorial integrity. It was for these reasons that he put almost all of his attention on the Germans but largely ignored the Italians. People act as if Churchill was some kind of prophet or somehow managed to figure out the obvious but he was nothing of the sort. Rather everyone else was just being willfully apathetic because they didn't want to repeat the carnage of the Great War. People really didn't rally behind him until the British were starting to get their asses beat. In hindsight Churchill's energy in the dire predicament was what made him legendary not so much Churchill's ability as a leader. When the facts remain that he was largely ignored first when Chamberlain was still in control of the situation and then later when the economic disaster of the war made everyone flock to Clement Atlee. Though unlike Chamberlain the cases of Churchill and Atlee were sort of right place right time.

[Condottiere 40K]

You have to remember, he was half American and well aware of it; combined with being a Churchill, the world was his oyster and everything came too easily for him, which would explain his early mishaps. Also, he felt a need to measure up to his heritage.

Strategically, he was correct in most of his decisions and viewpoints, but micro-management had a tendency to misfire.

Part of the problem with the Far East was that if the British hadn't been forced to choose between getting the Americans onboard with an arms reduction treaty, and their alliance with the Japanese, the chances were high neither Singapore nor Hong Kong would ever have been at risk, and the Japanese would have have occupied enough of China, that Hong Kong might have been a permanent possession.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Churchill was born with a golden spoon and was practically raised by his political connections. He could have screwed up just about anything and gotten away with it. His errors after WW1 were forgotten, two decades and all. His errors in WW2 were covered up because no one wanted to question him and because he had that sort of power. Aside from the determination to keep fighting he had little to offer in a war time capacity, though I would say that is the most important factor so long as the means to continue fighting are there. In a peace time capacity he had nothing to offer at all. He could go and say "Hitler is the danger" resolve that crisis and then say "Stalin is the danger" but the second time around people would treat him like the boy who cried wolf. Hilariously both declarations of threat came after a declaration of amicable relations. Churchill in the 20's and 30's was singing a different tune entirely about the Fascists and Nazis. Then in the 1940's he gladly embraced Stalin as his ally and was perfectly willing to give half of Europe to the Reds, as the conferences at Tehran and Yalta showed us. Is it any wonder that no one believed the laddy?

[Darkhorse]

There is probably something to this, especially when you consider the Fall of Singapore in February 1942 (the biggest defeat in British military history) and the fall of Hong Kong in December 1941. Both these battles were crushing defeats for the British Empire. In the fall of Singapore alone, the British lost 80,000 men captured. The British defeats at the hands of the Japanese took place at a time when the major part of the British military resources were focused firmly on Europe. There are several examples of British ships being destroyed. There weren't even enough ships to defend Australia properly - a fact that was noticed in Australia, and helped to drive Australia to depend on the USA, rather than Britain, for its defence.

If Britain had exited the war in Europe by accepting that peace offer after the fall of France, it seems much less likely that the British Empire would have been fatally undermined by the defeats in Singapore and Hong Kong. This is important, because it was the defeat at Singapore in particular which utterly shattered the Empire's image and proved to all the world that the colonial powers could be defeated by an Asian people (the Japanese). It's ironic, when you think about it - Churchill's aim was the preservation of the empire. Yet his decision to prolong the war in Europe was arguably the fatal blow to that empire.

Unlikely, Hong Kong and particularly Singapore suffered from over a decade of strategic mismanagement and defence investment. The British understood that the loss of Singapore was possible, and had done since at least as far back as 1936 when General Richard O'Connor smashed General Arthur Percival and took Singapore in war games in London.

Percival wasn't bad, he was a superb a staff officer but not a field commander and ill-suited to lead the defence of perhaps the most important British holding after Gibraltar. With a more capable field commander, and the deployment, in this scenario, freed up British assets such as ships, divisions, and most importantly RAF squadrons, Singapore could have endured a siege of sorts but I'm not convinced there was the infrastructure to sustain a dramatically larger garrison for a protected length of time.

[humble]

Then in the 1940's he gladly embraced Stalin as his ally and was perfectly willing to give half of Europe to the Reds, as the conferences at Tehran and Yalta showed us. Is it any wonder that no one believed the laddy?

The Alliance with Stalin was a decisive factor in the defeat of Hitler.
Stalin was not 'given' Eastern Europe he took it no one was in a position to remove him.
Churchill was elected again in 1951.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The Alliance with Stalin was a decisive factor in the defeat of Hitler.
Stalin was not 'given' Eastern Europe he took it no one was in a position to remove him.
Churchill was elected again in 1951.

Yet we have the document where Churchill wrote his division of Europe, 90% Soviet influence in Poland! Outrageous!

[humble]

Yet we have the document where Churchill wrote his division of Europe, 90% Soviet influence in Poland! Outrageous!

Churchill did not 'wrote' nor planned any division. He accepted reality. No one was in a position to remove the Soviets. I fully agree with his decision and I am sure I speak for the entire population of the UK when I say I would not fight a new war to remove the Soviets. I believe the gift of half of Germany was adequate compensation for the Poles.
I know this will have no impact on those who hate Churchill/ duplicitous Brits so you can all get back to reinforcing your conspiracy theory view of WW2.

[Cyclops]

Churchill did not 'wrote' nor planned any division. He accepted reality. No one was in a position to remove the Soviets. I fully agree with his decision and I am sure I speak for the entire population of the UK when I say I would not fight a new war to remove the Soviets. I believe the gift of half of Germany was adequate compensation for the Poles.
I know this will have no impact on those who hate Churchill/ duplicitous Brits so you can all get back to reinforcing your conspiracy theory view of WW2.

Well I am definitely in the Churchill Haters Club tm but there's no denying your point: Winston wanted to oppose Soviet domination in Eastern Europe (even running a paper exercise of operation Unthinkable for example) and was simply unable to do because of (perceived) Soviet strength and (real and well intentioned) US unwillingness. The dying Roosevelt thought he could reach a gentleman's agreement with Stalin and reassure him with unconditional support, which I think was a flaw in the US president's thinking. Stalin was no gentleman, and neither was Churchill so he probably had a clearer view of Stalin's motives and intentions. the deal they did was cynical and an act of realpolitick, but not Churchill selling anyone down the river.

The topic of Unthinkable has been discussed in these forums before, I think a stalemate with poor long term consequences for all (but especially occupied Europe and western Russia which would be irradiated) would have been the result of a post WWII showdown with the reds.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Churchill did not 'wrote' nor planned any division. He accepted reality. No one was in a position to remove the Soviets. I fully agree with his decision and I am sure I speak for the entire population of the UK when I say I would not fight a new war to remove the Soviets. I believe the gift of half of Germany was adequate compensation for the Poles.
I know this will have no impact on those who hate Churchill/ duplicitous Brits so you can all get back to reinforcing your conspiracy theory view of WW2.

Really? Cause that is Churchill's writing right there. This is from the 4th Moscow Conference in October 1944.


In reality Stalin had demanded an offensive in the west before beginning Operation Bagration in June 1944. Which coincided with the Normandy landings.
Of course Churchill wanted to oppose the Soviets but Operation Unthinkable seemed to the majority of people to be just that. Given his support of Stalin it really is no surprise that everyone looked at it with suspicion, or more correctly that he was a total nutter. Unlike FDR however, Churchill was not swept off his feet by the Soviets he saw their partnership as being more practical. He told FDR not to trust Stalin and FDR pushed him aside. I'm not sure what conspiracy theory you are referring to though.

[Darkhorse]

In fairness, the percentages agreement means very little. It is hardly legally binding, and without the American POV it was never going to be ratified.

[humble]

In fairness, the percentages agreement means very little. It is hardly legally binding, and without the American POV it was never going to be ratified.

It needed Soviet approval. The key was to get Stalin to stay out of areas he agreed to and by and large that is what he did.

[Dick Cheney.]

Churchill was not swept off his feet by the Soviets he saw their partnership as being more practical.

Professor please...

Iron Curtain:


1 year before the Truman Doctrine BTW.

[Zebtucker]

https://youtu.be/8qAdJTHQysI
The same reason as always.

[humble]

https://youtu.be/8qAdJTHQysI
The same reason as always.

Court proven liars are not the best of sources.

[Darkhorse]

I was going to say, Irving is a strange choice.

[hellheaven1987]

His own ideology seems to have aligned quite well with Hitlers, even going so far as to praise Mussolini?

To say Churchill has similar ideology as Fascist is like saying Spanish Carlist is same as Spanish Phalangist (which both despise eachother). The truth is, Churchill is more like people such as Hindenburg, a true old Conservative of 19th Century, which largely about the Old Order (that nobility thing), instead the alt-right populist Fascism.