Churchill started the Blitz

[praubal]

Anytime we look at history, the process is of necessity "revisionist." That is because we have an incomplete knowledge of the events we are analyzing, must weigh the motives and statements of historical characters for validity, and must incorporate newly discovered material.

There is a difference between "revisionist" history in terms of ignoring/distorting facts to suit a new agenda and "revising" a previously held narrative.

In this case, I agree with praubal that Churchill took advantage of the accidental bombing of London to begin hitting civilian targets in Berlin.

However, I do not see any evidence to ascribe a nefarious motivation to this action and according to the tone of praubal's posts, I believe that he does.

Churchill was beyond doubt a gifted politician. He recognized the need to maintain the "moral high ground" while striking at the heart of Nazi Germany. Please bear in mind that at this time, Churchill was actively courting US assistance and active participation in the war against Nazi Germany. American isolationism bristled at the thought of fighting to defend Britain's colonial empire, but softened at the notion of battling injustice, military aggression, and wanton destruction. Recall the propaganda value of the "Poor Little Belgium" campaign during The Great War. Thus, the more Churchill could make GB appear (real or imagined) to be desperately fighting as the underdog and victimized champion to save Western Civilization against Nazi barbarism, the better.

The German bombing of London--accidental though it was--provided him with the opportunity to goad the Nazi leadership into abandoning its growingly successful strikes against RAF targets in favor of a tit-for-tat terror bombing campaign.

Though greatly increasing the suffering of the civilian population of GB (and by proxy Germany), this move provide the RAF with the breathing space it needed to recover. Thus, arguably, Churchill's political/strategic decision can be seen as a chess move that sacrificed a bishop in order to stay in the game and eventually attain checkmate against the opponent.

Was the German bombing of London a mistake? Yes, both technically and strategically. Did Churchill jump at the opportunity to take advantage of this event for his own (and GBs) interests? Yes.

This does not make Churchill the villain. Quite the contrary, a military or political leader serving during a time of war who is not willing to make sacrifices in the cause of victory or take FULL advantage of errors/mistakes/misjudgments on the part of the enemy (whether intentional or accidental) does not deserve the position of trust that he holds.

Though many people suffered, as is the nature of war, Churchill made the wise and correct decision in striking Berlin under these circumstances. Speculative history is dangerously uncertain ground; however, it is quite possible that had he not taken these actions, the history of Europe and world would be much different and NOT AT ALL for the better.

He did take advantage Zachary ...but on this occasion with devaststing consequences.
He esculated within one night the whole horror of what cane next.
Hitler held back....not bombing London for days despite heavy and constant Allied raids.

[Totenhead]

Not at all....its all on the record.
Upon hearing a big raid on London he drove out to his friend Lord Trees,

(I dont think he was a coward but he did decieve..nothing wrong in saving ones neck but to twist tbe story)

country estate..at Ditchley..a dispatch rider caught up with his Daimler to tell him it was actually a raid on Coventry...upon hearing this he ordered hid driver to return to London.

He told his people he wanted to be with them 'during this heavy raid" in the full knowledge that the attack was destined for Coventry.

You are clearly out of your depth here and missing the point
Churchill was well aware that the raid was destined for Coventry

[praubal]

You are clearly out of your depth here and missing the point
Churchill was well aware that the raid was destined for Coventry

Oh is thst so? well then why did he drive to Ditchley upon hearing it was a raid on London?
Then do a U turn literally...and head back to London when the dispatch rider caught up with him on Park Lane?

[Totenhead]

Oh is thst so? well then why did he drive to Ditchley upon hearing it was a raid on London?
Then do a U turn literally...and head back to London when the dispatch rider caught up with him on Park Lane?

I will leave that for you to ponder
You are the person with all the inside Intel it seems

[ZacharyB]

I agree that Churchill took advantage of the situation. I agree that the consequences were devastating; though I would argue both necessary and correct.

As for Hitler "holding back," I believe that his (and Goring's) initial vacillation can be attributed more to the political/military schizophrenia that infected the Nazi dictatorship rather than any humanitarian largess.

May I infer from your statements that you believe Hitler endured the initial British raids on Berlin in the hopes that the British would eventually feel vindicated and return to playing fair (i.e. bombing only military targets), in essence, he was being the "bigger person?"

If that is your position, I must disagree in the strongest possible terms.

As for your classification of the British (not Allied quite yet I'd point out) raids as "heavy and constant," I'd refer you to: The Fall of Berlin by David Fisher and Anthony Reed. Their use of primary source material is top notch in demonstrating that initial British raids on Berlin were neither heavy nor constant.

I believe that the first raid involved fewer than 90 aircraft that actually reached Berlin. Subsequent raids during this time period all involved comparable numbers of aircraft dispersing their bombs around the city. Considering that in 1940 greater Berlin was a sprawling city of nearly 350 square miles, these early British bombing raids were quite light and inflicted only minimal physical damage. The real and most profound result--as Churchill intended--was the psychological shock to the Nazi leadership.

Z

[praubal]

I have put the facts before you, you can argue amongst yourselves. Thats all from me... I cannot debate with osteriches. especially dead kopf.
Thaanks to Steve and Zachiary for having an open mind on the subject.

[Totenhead]

I have put the facts before you, you can argue amongst yourselves. Thats all from me... I cannot debate with osteriches. especially dead kopf.
Thaanks to Steve and Zachiary for having an open mind on the subject.

The facts

[Totenhead]

How about another debate ?

Did Hitler really have one testicle ??.........

[ZacharyB]

The facts

Just the facts sir!

In all seriousness though, I do believe that this is a legitimate topic for historical debate/discussion. The terror bombing of cities, the targeting of civilians, (dare I even bring up the A-Bomb), and so forth continue to engage and divide historians. So, I am always willing to hear someone else's interpretation of the facts, even when I disagree.

Z

[Totenhead]

Just the facts sir!

In all seriousness though, I do believe that this is a legitimate topic for historical debate/discussion. The terror bombing of cities, the targeting of civilians, (dare I even bring up the A-Bomb), and so forth continue to engage and divide historians. So, I am always willing to hear someone else's interpretation of the facts, even when I disagree.

Z

I agree, but this fool does not know the facts, or chooses to distort the facts to provoke a reaction with this pointless thread

[Totenhead]

Not at all....its all on the record.
Upon hearing a big raid on London he drove out to his friend Lord Trees,

(I dont think he was a coward but he did decieve..nothing wrong in saving ones neck but to twist tbe story)

country estate..at Ditchley..a dispatch rider caught up with his Daimler to tell him it was actually a raid on Coventry...upon hearing this he ordered hid driver to return to London.

He told his people he wanted to be with them 'during this heavy raid" in the full knowledge that the attack was destined for Coventry.

Did you read this within German propaganda ?
This is the opposite of what actually happened.

[ZacharyB]

I agree, but this fool does not know the facts, or chooses to distort the facts to provoke a reaction with this pointless thread

This thread's title does seem to be an intentional effort to produce a knee-jerk reaction.

Z

[compressore]

to the point

I agree, but this fool does not know the facts, or chooses to distort the facts to provoke a reaction with this pointless thread

And its not the first time he does so...

[Totenhead]

Anytime we look at history, the process is of necessity "revisionist." That is because we have an incomplete knowledge of the events we are analyzing, must weigh the motives and statements of historical characters for validity, and must incorporate newly discovered material.

There is a difference between "revisionist" history in terms of ignoring/distorting facts to suit a new agenda and "revising" a previously held narrative.

In this case, I agree with praubal that Churchill took advantage of the accidental bombing of London to begin hitting civilian targets in Berlin.

However, I do not see any evidence to ascribe a nefarious motivation to this action and according to the tone of praubal's posts, I believe that he does.

Churchill was beyond doubt a gifted politician. He recognized the need to maintain the "moral high ground" while striking at the heart of Nazi Germany. Please bear in mind that at this time, Churchill was actively courting US assistance and active participation in the war against Nazi Germany. American isolationism bristled at the thought of fighting to defend Britain's colonial empire, but softened at the notion of battling injustice, military aggression, and wanton destruction. Recall the propaganda value of the "Poor Little Belgium" campaign during The Great War. Thus, the more Churchill could make GB appear (real or imagined) to be desperately fighting as the underdog and victimized champion to save Western Civilization against Nazi barbarism, the better.

The German bombing of London--accidental though it was--provided him with the opportunity to goad the Nazi leadership into abandoning its growingly successful strikes against RAF targets in favor of a tit-for-tat terror bombing campaign.

Though greatly increasing the suffering of the civilian population of GB (and by proxy Germany), this move provide the RAF with the breathing space it needed to recover. Thus, arguably, Churchill's political/strategic decision can be seen as a chess move that sacrificed a bishop in order to stay in the game and eventually attain checkmate against the opponent.

Was the German bombing of London a mistake? Yes, both technically and strategically. Did Churchill jump at the opportunity to take advantage of this event for his own (and GBs) interests? Yes.

This does not make Churchill the villain. Quite the contrary, a military or political leader serving during a time of war who is not willing to make sacrifices in the cause of victory or take FULL advantage of errors/mistakes/misjudgments on the part of the enemy (whether intentional or accidental) does not deserve the position of trust that he holds.

Though many people suffered, as is the nature of war, Churchill made the wise and correct decision in striking Berlin under these circumstances. Speculative history is dangerously uncertain ground; however, it is quite possible that had he not taken these actions, the history of Europe and world would be much different and NOT AT ALL for the better.

From what I have read, Roosevelt was very concerned and seriously doubted we ( GB ) could hold out against the Nazi's. He seriously expected we would capitulate with Hitler. He even set in motion negotiations involving the Canadians regarding turning over our Navy to ports in Canada to prevent the largest Navy in the world falling into Hitlers hands I believe.

He had to prove to Roosevelt and the US that we had the fight within us, we were the only country in Europe giving it back to the Germans, this tiny Island of ours against the might of Hitlers Germany.

One only has to look at events at Mers-el-Kebir

[Totenhead]

The truth sadly is that Churchill was so anxious for conflict....the peace movement was having a real impact...protests outside number 10 that he could hear himself...that this one solitary single harmless incident led into a bombing carnage un paralled in history

His provocation was deliberate and he got the outcome he was so desperatly seeking.

He famously dodged almost every bombing on London with the help of RAF intel. I think this tells us a lot about the man.

Also complete and utter nonsense