egafd.com

Anthony Beevor reviewed Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions that Changed the World, 1940-41 by Ian Kershaw in the Guardian recently.
The book looks at strategic decisions taken during that period by Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin et al.
The final paragraph of his review hits the nail on the head.
"Fateful Choices is an immensely wise book. It also provides important lessons. A despot's entourage of nervous sycophants is clearly the worst environment for good decision-making. The leaders of democracies are in less danger, but unless they have good intelligence and unless their subordinates are prepared to present facts that contradict their chief's mindset, they too can make terrible blunders, as recent events have shown. The worst folly of decision-makers is to believe their own propaganda."

Mart

I read that Churchill as Admiralty chief had the Lusitania sunk as to encourage the Americans to join WW1
Its well known that he 'sacrificed' Coventry in 1941.......he had it from intelligence that the strike was imminent as they had cracked the code, but instead of counter-reacting or evacuatting the city, he would have been found out that the Allies had cracked the German secret code, and Germany would have simply set another coding system in place.
As German pulverised the city, they were unaware that any future strikes were 'known' to the Allies

Ace,

I think you have been swallowing a few urban myths.

The Lusitania was definitely sunk by a German U-boat. However, it now appears clear that, contrary to neutrality regulations, it was secretly carrying munitions from the USA to the UK. However, the U-boat commander could not have known this when he torpedoed the ship. Obviously, the Admiralty kept that quiet, because they didn't want to give the Germans an excuse for having attacked the ship.

The myth about Churchill scarificing Coventry is another canard. In 1940-41 the German enigma cyphers could not be read on a regular basis. There is no evidence that I am aware of that Bletchley Park could have told Churchill "Coventry is going to be attacked tonight." Even if they had, what could Churchill have done? Evactuated the whole population of a major industrial city? Where could they have gone? In reality, the air raid precautions for Coventry were as good as anywhere else, and the citizens there were in no more danger than those of any other city. Although Coventry was badly hit during the raid, "only" about 500 people were killed, bad enough, but nothing like the losses we inflicted on Hamburg or Dresden. Churchill made some bad calls during the war, but it's a bit much to try and pin things like this on him.

If the Lusitania was sacrificed to bring the US into the war, it didn't work. The ship was sunk in 1915, and the Americans didn't join the war until 1917. The Lusitania might have been cited as the reason for them joining the conflict; in reality, it was a piece of British black ops: a telegram supposedly from the German foreign minister Zimmermann inviting Mexico to attack the US border.

There is some evidence that Britain was aware of the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbour and said nothing to the US. As I think I've said before, Pearl Harbour was almost a rerun of the Port Arthur operation which started the Russo-Japanese war (1904-05), catching the Russian Far East fleet unawares in port and destroying the lot.

>Obviously, the Admiralty kept that quiet, because they didn't want to give the Germans an excuse for having attacked the ship.

Chuchill, who was head of the admiltary when the Lusitania was sunk, DID try to deflect blame from himself and the admiltary by trying to discredit the captain of the Lusitania.

They asked people to lie at the inquest and to say that they saw more than one torpedo. The boat had sank very quickly, mainly because of the munitions on board. Only one torpedo was used, but people were asked to say they saw 3 or 4 at the inquest.

The admiltary also lied about messages that had been sent to the Captain, and used other methods to discredit him.

Press intrusion was so bad the Captain's wife left him and went to Australia with their 2 children and he never saw them again.

He found it hard to get another job as Captain, and when a ship he was in charge of (carrying troops) was also sunk he had to retire.

He lived quietly with his new wife, but when Churchill published his war memoirs he critisized the Captain in the book and the press hounded the Captain again.

Nice man Chuchill, Britans greatest person ?

More here

Not generally known but Winnie wanted to use poison gas on German cities during WWII. He met a LOT of resistance, & called the staff a 'bunch of old ladies' or something similar.
Even Hitler didn't use gas AFAIK, & I've always wondered if that was due to his experience being gassed at the close of WWI.

"The recent BBC drama documentary made it very clear that WSC did indeed hope the sinking would help to convince the USA to join."

I've no problem with that, he was simply seeking to turn the fact of the sinking to Britain's advantage. But the idea that he actually plotted to have the Lusitania sunk is fatuous.

Come on Wazzer get with the Babe****** bollocks like the rest of us.