Military Review

Winston Churchill. Career start and WWI

102

Introduction



Winston Churchill was voted "The Greatest British of All Time" in a nationwide British television poll in 2002, and even many years after his death, not a day goes by in Britain without some television or radio program, magazine or newspaper praising him. outstanding qualities of a statesman, orator, great military strategist. He is one of the most famous figures in the British stories.

The purpose of this article is to throw away the veil of myths and legends that many historians and obsequious fans have spread around him, and take a look at the real Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill.

Ambitions


John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and ancestor of Winston, was a man driven by ambition and self-interest. In the War of the Spanish Succession, he was made commander-in-chief of the British forces and captain-general of the allied armies.

A charismatic figure with great diplomatic ability, he was also a "born" general, whose ability was recognized even in his youth, when he commanded a British regiment, which was then under the command of the French. Later, his aggressive military talent brought him victories at Blenheim, Ramillis, Oudenaard and Malplach; it also earned him the duchy and the grand palace of Blenheim, which has remained the home of Marlborough ever since. When he died in 1722, almost all of his descendants were dominated by his shadow.

Winston Churchill was not ready to live in the shadow of anyone, not even in the shadow of his famous ancestor, whom he admired and wanted to imitate. Born at Blenheim Palace in 1874, the son of Lord Randolph Churchill and American Jenny Jerome, Churchill was the personification of personal ambition. He had a fierce, insatiable desire to become world famous as a journalist, writer, politician and, above all, a military leader. He was eager to prove to the whole world that he is also a great military genius, another Marlboro. But when it came to the art of war, the facts showed that he was nothing more than an arrogant self-righteous dilettante.

There were no signs of genius in his early years. He did poorly at Harrow and was only able to enter Sandhurst on his third try, but even then he needed special training to help him pass the exam in 1893. After Sandhurst, his mother used the help of her many influential friends and lovers to secure his enrollment in the 4th Hussars, and then was able to persuade him to leave wherever he pleased in order to realize his ambitions as a writer and journalist.

During his four-year tenure as a junior cavalry officer, he traveled to Cuba, joined the Malakand field forces on the northwestern border of India, the Sudanese army, and participated in the cavalry attack at Omdurman. At the beginning of his military career, he was more of a poseur than a soldier, writing more than fighting.

He then decided to try his hand at being a war correspondent in South Africa, which proved to be a good boost to his career. Accompanied by his personal valet and 70 bottles of fine wine, he arrived in Cape Town in November, only to be captured by the Boers a month later. He soon escaped from the poorly guarded POW camp in Pretoria and arrived in Durham on December 23rd, where he was greeted as a hero. It was at a time when the British forces, considered "invincible", suffered several demoralizing defeats at the hands of the Boers, so it was a small morale for the British. The press has written extensively about his escape: he made headlines throughout the English-speaking world. Now, at last, he had the glory he longed for.

The Boer War exposed appalling living conditions, widespread poverty and the poor health of an impoverished working class, from which the British government tried to recruit new recruits into the army. This was a cause for concern for the entire British establishment, but not because of any philanthropic concern for the welfare of the proletariat.

It occurred to the ruling class that man would work more efficiently in a factory and more effectively fight on the battlefield if he ate well enough. Therefore, it was necessary to make concessions to the workers if the authorities wanted to protect and expand the British Empire.

Thus, in the postwar years, Churchill (who had by then decided to go into politics and joined the Tory party) and Lloyd George (with whom Churchill had a certain political friendship) supported welfare reforms solely out of pragmatism, not benevolence.

Meanwhile, Churchill's first stay with the Tories was short-lived: in 1904 he left the party.

After the 1906 general election, Churchill was rewarded for leaving the Tories with a job as Undersecretary for Colonial Affairs, which was a relatively new position.

Churchill's political narrow-mindedness is evidenced by the fact that in 1908-1909 he tried to reduce military spending, and also opposed Reginald McKenna, the first Lord of the Admiralty, who advocated an increase in naval fleet... Churchill contemptuously stated that there was a military threat from Germany. But when he himself became the first Lord of the Admiralty in 1911, he immediately changed his position; now that the navy was in his charge, he decided that it still needed to be expanded.

As Lloyd George put it,

As usual, he views the office he currently runs as the center of the universe.

Churchill's reputation as a great orator is also exaggerated. He was undoubtedly a master of the English language, and his pompous, melodramatic writing style was effective in the House of Commons and well suited to radio.

Anevrin Bevan, who was a much more prominent speaker, said of him:

The mediocrity of his thinking is hidden by the greatness of his language.

In 1910-1911, Churchill, who by this time became the Minister of the Interior, showed his true attitude towards the ordinary working people of Britain.

On November 8, he sent troops to the Rhondda Valley to suppress the miners' strike. He planned to set up a military cordon around the Welsh valleys in order to force the miners to submit or starve to death. It is unlikely that this was the act of a "great statesman". This highlighted the crude class interests for which Churchill stood and showed the extent to which he would go to suppress the unrest of the working class.

"Oh, this delightful war!"


Winston Churchill had, so to speak, especially warm feelings for the war.

He even once said:

I think I must be cursed because I love this war. I know this is crushing and destroying the lives of thousands of people every moment - and yet I can't help myself - I enjoy every second of it.

Of course, he did not love the war for its own sake - he loved it "for his own sake."

The path through the blood-soaked, corpse-strewn battlefields in Europe was his road to personal glory, a chance to become another Marlboro and indelibly inscribe his name in the pages of world history.

It meant nothing to him that millions of people would die on the dirty, bloody battlefields before even reaching adolescence; it didn’t matter that across the continent of Europe, the land would be filled with grieving widows and orphaned children whose hearts would forever be weighed down by grief as a result of the merciless massacre.

What did all this matter when compared to the even greater glorification of Winston Churchill's name?

It was the perverse and repulsive thinking of a man, driven by an all-consuming selfishness. His selfishness stemmed from an unshakable belief that he was born above all others and had a divine right to rule over the "rabble" that made up the majority of society.

In early October, Prime Minister Herbert Asquith received an astonishing telegram from Churchill asking him to leave his post and take command of an army sent to help Belgium. How generous of him - this former lieutenant, who managed to enter Sandhurst only on the third attempt, was going to issue orders to generals, colonels and other officers with years of experience behind him. Well, at least in those dark times, it gave his fellow ministers something to laugh at.

Churchill's problem was that the correct British naval strategy was obvious but boring: keeping the German fleet locked up in their ports, blocking Germany and preventing her from trading abroad. An important task, but hardly one that would bring him the fame and recognition he so longed for.

If he didn't have an army to play with, he would just have to do something impressive with the fleet.

He did so, but not quite as planned.

Dardanelles


Frederick the Great once said that if you must draw your sword to defend the state, you must see that the enemy is struck by both thunder and lightning. In other words, combined surgeries are essential for success. Every general knew this fundamental truth. But the rules of war did not apply to our "master of modern warfare": he was too impatient to demonstrate his military genius. He insisted on a campaign in the Dardanelles, which was highly impractical in the first place, but in which both the army and the navy had to participate (the air force was only in its infancy at the time).

Churchill did not wait for sufficient forces to appear; he gave the go-ahead for a disastrous naval attack on March 18, 1915. As a result, three ships of the Royal Navy were sunk, and four more were disabled.

This unsuccessful operation also alerted Turkish forces to the danger of further attacks, so on 25 April, when the second attack was launched, this time involving 400 troops, they were ready. As a result, the losses of the allies amounted to 000 people.

Thus, the navy and the British army suffered irreparable losses. And all because the egoist wanted to create for himself a reputation as a genius in the art of war.

His apologists will tell you that this was not Churchill's fault.

So who was to blame for this? Who was so determined to carry out this unfinished plan of attack?

Who foolishly decided to start a campaign without troops? Who was the main commander?

Churchill!

But it wasn't his fault?

I can't believe it.

The combination of this and the Dardanelles fiasco meant that Churchill, who angered the Tories when he left them in 1904, had to be fired from his post as First Lord of the Admiralty. He tried desperately to hold on to his post: he fought, he pleaded, but in the end he was fired. He was even more humiliated when he received the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

To top his humiliation, Asquith expelled him from his newly formed, streamlined Military Committee: this was his final insult. He gave his resignation speech in the House of Commons on November 15, 1915, and on the 18th he crossed over to France and entered military service. The commander of the British Expeditionary Force, Sir John French, gave him an amazing promise that he would soon be given command of an infantry brigade: thus, a former lieutenant of the 4th Hussars was to become a brigadier general thanks to the patronage of another former cavalry officer.

This would probably be the fastest promotion in military history since the time when the aristocracy could buy positions for themselves. However, the War Office refused to allow such an idiotic promotion (Churchill actually wanted to be the commander-in-chief in East Africa). Instead, much to his disgust, he was "only" given command of an infantry battalion that was sent to Belgium on 16 January. It's good that this battalion took part in a relatively small number of hostilities.

Life in the trenches was somewhat less comfortable than life on benches. His heroic deed when he volunteered for military service was just for show. He knew that even with his connections, he would not become a field marshal, so in May 1916 he was allowed to leave the army on the condition that he promised not to try to return again.

Back in London and eager to walk through the corridors of power again, he intrigued Lloyd George and others to force Asquith to resign. Of course, this was "for the good of the country," not to mention the good of Churchill himself, for, undoubtedly, as soon as his former colleague Lloyd George takes over as prime minister, he himself will be given a high post.

However, when Lloyd George succeeded Asquith as prime minister in December, he refused to oppose other members of his coalition government without including Churchill in the cabinet.

But Lloyd George acknowledged that Churchill had been a staunch ally in the early years of their political partnership, and in July 1917 he felt in a position strong enough to offer him the post of Minister of Munitions. Churchill agreed, despite the fact that he was not going to be included in the War Cabinet.
Author:
Photos used:
https://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/
102 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 15 September 2021 04: 08
    +5
    I remember Churchill more as an ardent anti-Soviet and staunch enemy of our country ... however, almost the entire British elite was and is such now.
    And what about Churchill's genius ... he is a good genius who has mediocrely killed hundreds of thousands of people and warships.
    But the biography of this man's life is very fascinating despite his bad deeds.
    I look forward to continuing. I thank the author for the article.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 15 September 2021 04: 14
      +4
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      I remember Churchill more as an ardent anti-Soviet and staunch enemy of our country ...

      good

      https://aif.ru/society/history/nachnetsya_panika_v_kremle_kak_cherchill_prizyval_bombit_moskvu
    2. Luminman
      Luminman 15 September 2021 05: 21
      0
      And about Churchill's genius ...

      I read somewhere that Churchill got into this war only because he owed a very large sum to one rich English Jew
    3. Doctor
      Doctor 15 September 2021 08: 25
      +3
      I remember Churchill more as an ardent anti-Soviet and staunch enemy of our country ... however, almost the entire British elite was and is such now.
      And what about Churchill's genius ... he is a good genius who has mediocrely killed hundreds of thousands of people and warships.
      But the biography of this man's life is very fascinating despite his bad deeds.
      I look forward to continuing. I thank the author for the article.

      Churchill could have simply agreed to an alliance with Hitler. And then you and I would live in another country. If you were born at all. wink
      1. citizen
        citizen 15 September 2021 08: 48
        0
        Quote: Arzt
        Churchill could have simply agreed to an alliance with Hitler.

        Could not. Hitler's victory meant the end of the British Empire.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 15 September 2021 09: 06
          +1
          Could not. Hitler's victory meant the end of the British Empire.

          Nevertheless, Chamberlain was in favor.
          Churchill, for all his anti-communism, represented the pro-Russian party in their parliament.
          1. citizen
            citizen 15 September 2021 10: 37
            -1
            As far as I remember, it was Chamberlain who declared war on Hitler. Somehow his actions do not fit with the idea of ​​an alliance with Germany.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 15 September 2021 12: 08
              +2
              As far as I remember, it was Chamberlain who declared war on Hitler. Somehow his actions do not fit with the idea of ​​an alliance with Germany.

              He was bound by a treaty with Poland.
              But Munich could not sign.
              1. citizen
                citizen 15 September 2021 16: 13
                -1
                The contract was also concluded with him. When was Chamberlain in favor of an alliance with Hitler? What was it?
                Quote: Arzt
                But Munich could not sign.

                They didn't want radishes to fight. And Churchill correctly said about this. This is not a union.
                1. Ashes of Claes
                  Ashes of Claes 15 September 2021 19: 25
                  +1
                  Quote: burger
                  The contract was also concluded with him. When was Chamberlain in favor of an alliance with Hitler? What was it?

                  Well, actually, Chamberlain's famous phrase "I brought peace for the present generation", I suppose, refers not to the Agreement, but to the Declaration signed by him and Hitler at a personal meeting on September 30th. In fact, it was a declaration of non-aggression. And Chamberlain was the initiator of its adoption. This despite the fact that at a meeting with Halifax a year before, the Fuhrer called himself a fanatical opponent of all conferences, the futility of which is beyond doubt from the very beginning))
                  1. citizen
                    citizen 15 September 2021 21: 00
                    -3
                    What does all this have to do with Britain's supposed alliance with Hitler?
              2. Ashes of Claes
                Ashes of Claes 15 September 2021 19: 09
                +2
                Quote: Arzt
                But Munich could not sign.

                Who? Chamberlain? How is it "not to sign"?
                1. Doctor
                  Doctor 15 September 2021 19: 18
                  +3
                  Who? Chamberlain? How is it "not to sign"?

                  Purely theoretically.
                  In real life, Chamberlain was a supporter of an alliance, or at least neutrality with Germany. What I'm talking about.
                  And then there was no Lend-Lease and everything that Hitler had in the west against England could have ended up near Moscow in 1941.

                  So we were lucky with Churchill. wink
                  1. Ashes of Claes
                    Ashes of Claes 15 September 2021 19: 29
                    -2
                    Quote: Arzt
                    In real life, Chamberlain was a supporter of an alliance, or at least neutrality with Germany.

                    And why not sign an agreement in Munich and a joint declaration? I see no logic.
        2. Ashes of Claes
          Ashes of Claes 15 September 2021 09: 25
          +2
          Quote: burger
          Could not. Hitler's victory meant the end of the British Empire.

          Zugzwang. Allied victory meant the same.
          1. citizen
            citizen 15 September 2021 10: 41
            -1
            The end of the British Empire, as a colonial one, was a foregone conclusion and without any war. The war only hastened this process.
            Quote: Ashes of Klaas
            Zugzwang. Allied victory meant the same.

            So you have to choose the lesser of evils. And the victory of the allies is clearly the lesser "evil".
            1. Martin
              Martin 15 September 2021 16: 04
              -1
              Quote: burger
              The end of the British Empire, as a colonial one, was a foregone conclusion and without any war.

              Therefore, they needed a war. To try and hold on to power over the colonies. But everything did not go according to their script.
              1. citizen
                citizen 15 September 2021 16: 22
                0
                And how was the war supposed to help maintain power over the colonies? Not according to what scenario?
                1. Martin
                  Martin 16 September 2021 17: 12
                  0
                  A world war is being started with the aim of redistributing the world.
                  The development of capitalism is impossible without expansion. For the metropolis to flourish and develop, it is necessary to seize new resources and new sales markets. At one time there was room for advancement: the era of geographical discoveries provided new lands (aborigines - garbage, everyone under the knife, or in the "labor reserves"). But then it turned out that the Earth is finite, because it is round. And at some point, it was divided between several metropolises. Everything, then only redistribution, grab a piece from another. As a result of the world war, such a redistribution takes place. And each of the instigators of such a war hopes that the redistribution will take place in his favor. By the way, the Anglo-Saxons received the maximum of preferences from WWII. Only others, overseas. And the insular ones miscalculated.
                  1. Liam
                    Liam 16 September 2021 17: 21
                    +1
                    Quote: Martyn
                    The development of capitalism is impossible without expansion

                    Then it must be assumed that for 80 years already capitalism has been decaying and withering away. Without world wars. All capitalists are getting poorer and their lives are getting worse and worse.
                    1. Martin
                      Martin 16 September 2021 17: 44
                      -1
                      Quote: Liam
                      Then it must be assumed that for 80 years already almost capitalism decays and decays.

                      You will not believe… good
                      Well, firstly, not 80, but much less. Having received a bunch of preferences after WWII, the main all-planetary capitalist, the UWB, has successfully used these preferences for many years in a row. The peak of prosperity fell on the 70s of the twentieth century. It was then that the Soviet Union, which had just emerged from the post-war devastation and reconstruction, looks with such envy at "capitalist prosperity." Which (prosperity) will turn into an enduring myth, which many still believe in. This belief was successfully supported by the impossibility of the majority of Soviet people to leave the "curtain" and see with their own eyes. And me, too. Like many Soviet people, I believed in this “prosperity”. To destroy this faith, it was enough only 1 (one!) Time to go to the “blessed West”, live and work there for several weeks. And that's all. Faith collapsed immediately, as soon as you see life with your own eyes, and not according to the tales of storytellers.
                      By the end of the 80s, this "prosperity" was already very, very sour. But the faith remained and was also supported by the West itself. They know how to splurge on the 180th level. In the early 90s, capitalism successfully received a temporary respite as a result of the victory over the socialist camp in the Cold War. Pay attention: again the war, albeit cold, but worldwide. Unprecedented sales markets and sources of free resources have opened. But not for long. Starting from the 2000s, the shop began to cover itself, and by the 2020s it was covered very much. And now Western capital is very sour.
                      Do you think there are just all these splits in the elections, BLM, continuous crises, obscenities in the military field, the national debt is growing exponentially? Everything has an economic background.
                  2. citizen
                    citizen 17 September 2021 14: 30
                    0
                    About the colonies. In my understanding, resources are needed to hold colonies. When a war breaks out, a colonial power cannot allocate the same amount of resources as in peacetime. As a result, a struggle for independence rose up in the colonies. As a result, the power loses colonies even after winning the war.
                    Quote: Martyn
                    The development of capitalism is impossible without expansion.

                    How does Finland live with Canada?
                    Quote: Martyn
                    And at some point, it was divided between several metropolises. Everything, then only redistribution, grab a piece from another. As a result of the world war, such a redistribution occurs

                    How then did the defeated Japan and Germany achieve such successes?
                    Quote: Martyn
                    And each of the instigators of such a war hopes that the redistribution will take place in his favor.

                    In my understanding, England in both world wars tried not to lose what was available, but not to get a new one. And in both of this she failed. And the experience of England shows that victory does not necessarily bring economic preferences.
                    1. Martin
                      Martin 17 September 2021 19: 24
                      0
                      Quote: burger
                      When a war breaks out, a colonial power cannot allocate the same amount of resources as in peacetime.

                      Well it is clear. War is a struggle between economies. The colonial power has more chances (it would seem), because over it "the sun never sets." But that doesn't always work. The struggle for independence does not always bring the desired result. A colony that has gained de facto independence remains dependent economically, which is often not better than ever.
                      Quote: burger
                      How does Finland live with Canada?
                      Canada is, consider, the United States. And in Finland, with its population, as in St. Petersburg. She would have to master her territory.
                      Quote: burger
                      How then did the defeated Japan and Germany achieve such successes?

                      Well, every Soviet schoolchild knows this. Those who won the WWII for US money poured a lot of money into Germany and Japan, trying to turn them into their economic colonies (and the military, by the way). That's all the "economic miracle". Have you ever heard of the Marshall Plan? Just don't read about him on Wikipedia, she won't write the truth.
                      Quote: burger
                      And in both of this she failed.

                      Because besides England, other wolves looked after their interests. Simply, they turned out to be younger and more toothy. The United States received the main preferences in both cases. It's just that the Americans were the first to understand that the colony in which you have to stand with a stick next to every Indian has long ago outlived itself economically. It is necessary to give the colony legal "independence", to flood it with our capital, our goods, to buy the local elite, so that it can impose police order on its own. And that's all. Resources from the colony country are pumped for the benefit of the metropolis, the colony buys American goods (even if they are produced on local squares), the profit flows into the pockets of the metropolitan businessmen. There is no need to spend money on colonial troops or on the metropolitan police. And if something goes wrong, color revolutions, sanctions (very, by the way, effective for a country that is fully integrated into the American economy), and you can bomb a little natives if you become completely naughty.
                    2. Martin
                      Martin 17 September 2021 19: 31
                      0
                      Quote: burger
                      In my understanding, resources are needed to hold colonies.

                      Yes, certain resources are needed. But the resources received cover the costs. (Otherwise, the colonial system would not exist if it were unprofitable). When a war begins, resources from the colony are siphoned out even more intensively. Up to human. Ask how many British military units consisted of Indians, New Zealanders, etc.
              2. Ashes of Claes
                Ashes of Claes 15 September 2021 19: 14
                0
                Quote: Martyn
                Therefore, they needed a war. To try and hold on to power over the colonies.

                Nonsense. For this, peace in Europe was needed at any cost. Read the transcript of a conversation between Halifax and Hitler a year before Munich - there the British was particularly concerned about the colonial issue, which was linked to European affairs.
                1. Martin
                  Martin 16 September 2021 17: 16
                  +1
                  Quote: Ashes of Klaas
                  For this, peace in Europe was needed at any cost.

                  If Europe (England and France) needed peace, they would get it without difficulty. Economically, they could strangle Germany in the 30s without getting up from the couch. They did exactly the opposite, however.
                2. aybolyt678
                  aybolyt678 21 September 2021 07: 36
                  0
                  Quote: Ashes of Klaas
                  Nonsense. For this, peace in Europe was needed at any cost.

                  look at the question more broadly than a conversation between two professional liars. Germany is a developed ethnos that does not have colonies, eager to expand its borders, to play it off with France or another country on the mainland is very beneficial to the sea power, neutralizing a future competitor. Therefore, England needed a war in Europe.
  2. north 2
    north 2 15 September 2021 05: 06
    +4
    so it was not only Churchill who had warm feelings for the war. General Black from "Run" also admired how wonderful the battle in the war was ...
    And how Churchill hated Stalin and the USSR! How he hated! And it was for what. Stalin saved the largest Empire of the USSR during the Second World War, and Churchill during the Second World War lost British India and the greatness of the British Empire ended ...
    Well, how not to hate the USSR and Stalin after that ...
    1. aybolyt678
      aybolyt678 21 September 2021 07: 39
      0
      Quote: north 2
      Well, how not to hate the USSR and Stalin after that ...

      he took revenge on him ... note that Churchill received the Order of the Garter not after the end of the world war, but a month after Stalin's death.
  3. Xlor
    Xlor 15 September 2021 05: 11
    +4
    Churchill's genius lies, perhaps, in the fact that the British sat on the islands and watched others fighting for them - New Zealanders, South Africans, Indians, Poles, Greeks and Canadians. But at various conferences where the fate of the world was decided, they were the first to strive ...
  4. Korsar4
    Korsar4 15 September 2021 06: 05
    +7
    Thanks for the story. But there is so much pathos.
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 15 September 2021 06: 32
      +11
      Sergey, good morning! smile
      And there is no story, just pathos. The author in the text jumps like a young lady over a stream, from pebble to pebble. And about such a figure as Churchill, you could write more and much more interesting. It is also necessary to look for such a politician, who pathologically hates Russia, Adolf is a small child in comparison with him.
      But he understood weapons, well, at least he could understand something? laughing
      1. Korsar4
        Korsar4 15 September 2021 07: 44
        +4
        Good morning, Constantine!

        Sometimes I noticed that the first word can be said encouraging. Indeed, efforts have been made. And then speak out.
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 15 September 2021 08: 07
          +10
          As a tanker, I have a special relationship with Sir Winston, because whatever you say, he was the first to push this project. smile He had a scent.
          1. Korsar4
            Korsar4 15 September 2021 09: 30
            +2
            I just caught myself thinking that I know too little. First associations: origins, meetings of the Big Three, Fulton speech, defeat at Attlee, Nobel Prize.

            And these are individual canvases, on the scale of which, for example, Leonid Leonov could undertake.
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 15 September 2021 09: 40
              +3
              Leonov somehow walked past me, for some reason I didn't feel like reading him. request
              1. Korsar4
                Korsar4 15 September 2021 09: 44
                +2
                The canvases are large. I will not say that it is harmony. But some of the chapters and observations are surprisingly masterful.
                1. The comment was deleted.
  5. parusnik
    parusnik 15 September 2021 06: 07
    +2
    The author's fertility is striking .. Yesterday, about the miners, today about Churchill. smile
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 15 September 2021 06: 19
      +8
      It would be better if he suffered from infertility. negative
      1. Okolotochny
        Okolotochny 15 September 2021 11: 20
        +1
        Constantine hi ... This is not necessary. "Covid dissidents" will run up and talk about the relationship of vaccination with erectile dysfunction))
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 15 September 2021 12: 14
          0
          Damn, I didn't think about them. wassat I won’t do it again. recourse
    2. Okolotochny
      Okolotochny 15 September 2021 07: 57
      +1
      It was also about miners here))
  6. tatra
    tatra 15 September 2021 06: 53
    0
    And the results of the Russian vote in the project "Name of Russia" in 2008, the enemies of the communists blatantly, demonstratively falsified, for weeks the voting buttons for Lenin and Stalin were blocked, and for those candidates who were beneficial to the enemies of the communists, they were sneaky, cowardly at night, threw 100-150 thousand votes each, and dragged into the top three winners of Nevsky and Stolypin, and de facto, Stalin won.
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 15 September 2021 08: 11
      +5
      Irina, dear love , but this has something to do with it?

      "Where is the river, and where is the estate?" (C) smile



      Beautiful, is not it?
      1. tatra
        tatra 15 September 2021 08: 28
        +4
        Despite the fact that at the beginning of the article we are talking about choosing the best Englishman, and in the Russian Federation there was a similar project, and Stalin and Churchill at the same time played a huge role in the history of their country.
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 15 September 2021 08: 37
          0
          All the same it is strongly strained, as the saying goes - "There is an elder in the garden, and there is an uncle in Kiev." smile
          But, your will, as you wish. hi
          1. tatra
            tatra 15 September 2021 08: 38
            +3
            Do not be indignant, it just inspired associations.
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 15 September 2021 08: 39
              +2
              Yes, I am not indignant, we have freedom of opinion here. smile love
    2. Phil77
      Phil77 15 September 2021 08: 22
      +1
      "Churchill invented it all,
      in the eighteenth year ... "
      V.S. Vysotsky. wink
    3. Ashes of Claes
      Ashes of Claes 15 September 2021 08: 59
      +1
      Quote: tatra
      but de facto, Stalin won.

      well, suppose. "The name of Russia - Dzhugashvili" - sounds, yes. And then what? Would grandmothers from Putin's Detachments go on a weeklong spree on this? Would you personally have been awarded the Stalin Prize with buckwheat and pasta? What exactly is the significance of this grass-roots farce with "names"?
  7. Undecim
    Undecim 15 September 2021 07: 07
    +8
    The purpose of this article is to throw away the veil of myths and legends that many historians and obsequious fans have spread around him, and take a look at the real Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill.

    The author, in addition to creative disability, also suffers from a complete lack of ability for self-esteem, because with his talents and knowledge, setting such a goal is a clear sign of megalomania, which is confirmed by the very first paragraph.
    John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and ancestor of Winston, was a man driven by ambition and self-interest.

    The author was going to "discard" something there, but did not even bother to get acquainted with the pedigree of the object of his exercises.
    Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill's first direct ancestor was Sir Winston Churchill, military man, politician, historian and father of John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough.
  8. Olgovich
    Olgovich 15 September 2021 07: 19
    +6
    Some kind of "chopped off", unfinished article .... request

    But even here the author failed to convince that Churchill was mediocre and a failure.

    Losers don't look like that ...
    1. Korsar4
      Korsar4 15 September 2021 07: 46
      +5
      Losers are known, usually in narrow circles.
      And who can be perfectly sure.
      As in Andersen's fairy tale about the lucky and the unlucky.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 15 September 2021 08: 02
        +1
        Quote: Korsar4
        Losers are known, usually in narrow circles.

        Napoleon, Hitler-lucky ones?
        1. Korsar4
          Korsar4 15 September 2021 09: 24
          +6
          Villains. But they succeeded too much to be called failures.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 15 September 2021 09: 34
            0
            Quote: Korsar4
            But they've done too much to be called a failure.

            the failed is orders of magnitude greater than the successful.

            I think they themselves would be very surprised to learn that they are "lucky"
            1. Korsar4
              Korsar4 15 September 2021 09: 42
              +3
              The finale, of course, determines a lot.
              I guess most French people are proud of Napoleon. At least the burial site confirms. Although both provisions are not an indicator.
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 15 September 2021 12: 02
                -1
                Quote: Korsar4
                I guess most French people are proud of Napoleon.

                not at all.

                The majority condemns him, they do not celebrate anniversaries, incl. and at the state level.

                Proud to have reintroduced slavery? Pushed France into the background? Brought unprecedented losses and so on?
                1. Korsar4
                  Korsar4 15 September 2021 18: 14
                  0
                  Along with Louis XIV and Charles de Gaulle, he is at least one of the three most important historical figures in France. Not bad for a potential loser.

                  Although, of course, all this is due to the shed blood. And this is not our hero.
                  1. Olgovich
                    Olgovich 16 September 2021 08: 03
                    -1
                    Quote: Korsar4
                    Along with Louis XIV and Charles de Gaulle, he is at least one of the three most important historical figures in France.

                    who installed it? And where is Charlemagne and Joan of Arc, for example?
                    Quote: Korsar4
                    Not bad for a potential "loser"

                    again: I can’t imagine (and hardly anyone will be able to) Napoleon on St. Helena, who considers himself a "lucky man", satisfied with his "achievements" request
                    1. Korsar4
                      Korsar4 16 September 2021 10: 21
                      0
                      There cannot be a universal answer book, as well as a universal questionnaire.

                      For some reason I think that Charlemagne is even more than the sovereign of the Franks. Yes, that's not the point. Okay, let's add up to a dozen historical figures.

                      But all the same, you can't close your eyes to Napoleon.

                      And the search for a "lucky man" can be reminiscent of the search for a "happy man's shirt."
      2. Catfish
        Catfish 15 September 2021 08: 14
        +6
        A portrait of an outspoken loser.
        1. Korsar4
          Korsar4 15 September 2021 09: 25
          +2
          When the situation is determined, the signs are no longer so important.
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 15 September 2021 09: 30
            +4
            Everyone, even the most seasoned pessimist, always hopes - what if !? drinks
            1. Korsar4
              Korsar4 15 September 2021 09: 40
              +4
              "I recognize my brother Kolya!" (with).
              1. depressant
                depressant 15 September 2021 15: 12
                +3
                "The worst rake is historical."
                They must be stepped on.
                1. Korsar4
                  Korsar4 15 September 2021 18: 19
                  +2
                  "Where will you go from everything when it is from all sides?" (with).
                  1. depressant
                    depressant 15 September 2021 18: 22
                    +2
                    In the thought of leaving, but it is at your door,
                    With the hungry gaze of a hungry beast.
                    1. Korsar4
                      Korsar4 15 September 2021 18: 35
                      +2
                      What places are you going to, Lyudmila Yakovlena?
                      1. depressant
                        depressant 15 September 2021 18: 58
                        +1
                        Is this ... a friendly warning? wassat )))
                        Prison, bag ...
                      2. Korsar4
                        Korsar4 15 September 2021 20: 03
                        +2
                        I just presented a picture: you are on the road, and something is at the door.
                      3. depressant
                        depressant 15 September 2021 20: 28
                        +3
                        Something dark, scary, wanders through the rooms ...)))
                        Just imagine, last night, at about two, after listening to the song of the Tajiks outside the window, I adjusted to go to sleep. Suddenly in the darkness there is a loud knock of something falling in the middle of the room. There was no fear. By the nature of the sound, similar to a crack, I understood what it was that had fallen from the shelf on the floor - plastic trays put in a pile from under all the store's nonsense. It is convenient for the refrigerator. Just wondered why they suddenly fell? They were set - firmly. However, she did not want to get up, decided that I would get up in the morning and wash them. And in the morning I saw: they were standing as they were. On the shelf. And everything else is in place.
                        Falling - what?
                        This has become such an interesting life.
                        Signs wassat )))
                      4. Korsar4
                        Korsar4 15 September 2021 22: 14
                        +2
                        Another reason for confirming the classics: the morning is wiser than the evening.
                      5. depressant
                        depressant 15 September 2021 23: 07
                        +2
                        Well, you and the master of preparing situations in favor of everyday ideas!
                        And if suddenly the Lord appears to you, you explain this by your own overwork)))
                      6. Korsar4
                        Korsar4 16 September 2021 05: 37
                        +2
                        It is important not to fall into delusion.
                        I am sure that the Creator can be convincing and will make itself felt.
                      7. depressant
                        depressant 16 September 2021 07: 35
                        +2
                        will make itself felt.

                        He already gives. We are bad.
                2. Sling cutter
                  Sling cutter 15 September 2021 23: 28
                  +3
                  Quote: depressant
                  Just imagine, last night, about two, after listening to the song of Tajiks outside the window

                  Quote: depressant
                  Falling - what?
                  This has become such an interesting life.
                  Signs)

                  Do not listen to Tajik songs at night! smile
                  Some kind of smoke spreads from them (songs), under which you can not get in any way, this is the estate of Prokopenko. wassat
                3. depressant
                  depressant 15 September 2021 23: 56
                  +2
                  Actually, I was pinned)))
                  In fact, it could have been a static discharge. Something unimaginable is happening with nature.
                  And that's why she started talking about things.
                  We are used to the fact that everything is in its place. But if suddenly, in a hurry, a thing is thrown into the wrong place, you will then look for it for a long time, glancing over it and not finding it. People say "the devil covered with his paw." So it is with social phenomena. We quickly get used to the fact that it is this and that. But life is gradually changing. Habitual phenomena are relegated to the margins, and we are perplexedly looking for them in their former places and for a long time we do not find. And when we finally find it, we are outraged that this is, they say, medicine is not in its rightful place, education, pension laws, etc. Who put them there? We. These are the bunglers we were - we threw everything in the wrong place, we hurried so as not to be late. The thing can be easily put in its original place, try the country.
                4. Sling cutter
                  Sling cutter 16 September 2021 00: 44
                  +1
                  Quote: depressant
                  medicine is not in its rightful place, education, pension laws, etc. Who put them there? We. These are the bunglers we were - we threw everything in the wrong place, we hurried so as not to be late. The thing can be easily put in its original place, try the country.

                  Curious allegories arise.
                  I looked at everything, intuitively I understand that your "throwing", like any inquiring mind, is connected with something. You are trying to find support-truth, looking for explanations for completely different facts, even in mysticism.
                  Try to simplify everything. yes For example, here is the state of affairs in the country. We come up with HPPs for them, build schemes, consider combinations. And if everything is simpler, but this makes it worse.
                  Remember, "... some are sitting on the pipes, while others need money. You are sitting on the pipe .." (c) x / f "Needle". In this case, they need money, and we are sitting on the "pipe" / extras. Recent events .. "no chela - no problem" (s), etc.
                  Look, Comrade "Tatra" - "enemies of the communists ...." and everything, everything is clear, concrete and clear! And no one has any arguments against this yes laughing
                  You, dear Comrade, do not lose heart, our main task is to hold on and survive all this bastard. In general, we keep in tune and NO PASARAN!
                5. Ashes of Claes
                  Ashes of Claes 16 September 2021 09: 36
                  -1
                  There is a strange feeling that you are writing comments solely in order to admire your own eloquence. In my opinion, the topic of the article is generally a side to you, isn't it?
                6. depressant
                  depressant 16 September 2021 10: 58
                  +2
                  Dear colleague Ash Klaas, we exercise our right of associative thinking. After all, an article is not a school lesson that you have to learn, answer "five, and even write an essay on the topic. Much stronger is the desire to talk about something closer, exciting, and this desire is irresistible, but in another case - No. He's not there, do you understand? We are separated by huge spaces, we will never see each other, but I want to join your thoughts of all who are for, who are against - all distant friends ...
                  And besides, there will always be colleagues who, showing respect for the Author, will speak out on the topic of the article, for which I am extremely grateful to them. After all, the article cannot contain all aspects of the topic. I always like these people, even if the comments are minified. Going to the topic, I look through everything!
                7. Ashes of Claes
                  Ashes of Claes 16 September 2021 11: 27
                  -1
                  Quote: depressant
                  we exercise our right of associative thinking.

                  Sorry, no associative rows can be found in your lengthy comments. I see a syndrome of lack of attention and admiration for their own eloquence.
                  Quote: depressant
                  Much stronger is the desire to talk about something closer, exciting

                  Ah, that's it. This is, of course, an ironclad reason for the off-top. Thank you for not sharing recipes for pies. By the way, I would not be surprised - associative thinking)
                8. depressant
                  depressant 16 September 2021 12: 26
                  +2
                  Yes, it is easy to draw a logical chain between the position in which we are now, and are forced to talk about what we are talking about, and Churchill's actions. To do this, I refer you to the extensive article

                  Smith A. Winston Churchill's "Secret Army" // Abroad. 1978. No. 49.


                  I read this article. And you? I guess not.
                9. Ashes of Claes
                  Ashes of Claes 16 September 2021 12: 34
                  -2
                  Quote: depressant
                  I read this article. And you? I guess not.

                  And for you in her something became a revelation? Seriously?
                  Quote: depressant
                  Yes, it is easy to draw a logical chain between the position in which we are now, and are forced to talk about what we are talking about, and Churchill's actions.

                  Well, strained logical connections can be stretched between anything. And shaking someone's left calf would be a great sign, yes.
  • Unknown
    Unknown 15 September 2021 07: 19
    +5
    The twentieth century is generally rich in individuals who have left their mark on history. Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was a consistent, ardent defender of the interests of the British Empire. At the same time, he was a persistent Germanophobe, he treated the Germans with prejudice. How would world history have gone if in the 40s it was not Churchill who headed the government of Great Britain, but whoever was like Chamberlain. There were enough supporters of the alliance with Nazi Germany. Take the Forsaken Edward VIII, for example. And it was not for nothing that Hess landed next to Lord Halifax's estate. And so Churchill, with his dislike for Germany, which exceeded even the strongest antipathy for the Soviet Union, set the country up to fight to a victorious end. For Britain, he will remain forever great, leading the state in difficult times. The example of the British to their leader, in spite of the big shoals, in the politics of that time, commands respect.
    1. Ashes of Claes
      Ashes of Claes 15 September 2021 17: 50
      0
      Quote: Unknown
      headed the state in difficult times.

      В Dark times)
    2. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter 15 September 2021 23: 57
      -2
      Quote: Unknown
      And so Churchill, with his dislike for Germany, which exceeded even the strongest antipathy for the Soviet Union, set the country up to fight to a victorious end.

      Churchill was the worst enemy of the Soviet regime, as an ally he was so-so, but he certainly became the father of the Cold War and the Iron Curtain.
      In addition, the greatest secret mission of Hess is covered, and was it not a harbinger of Germany's attack on the USSR?
  • Ashes of Claes
    Ashes of Claes 15 September 2021 08: 51
    +1
    The purpose of this article is to throw away the veil of myths and legends that many historians and obsequious fans have spread around him, and take a look at the real Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill.


    Yes, finally!!! As Meehan, untimely dumped on Zen, would say:
    Wait, guys! (with)

    Let's tear off the veils! "Oh! If my tight flesh ..."
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 15 September 2021 10: 18
    +3
    and participated in the cavalry attack in Omdurman

    Well, firstly, it was the last in the history of the attack of the royal cavalry of Britain in equestrian ranks, and secondly, it was carried out after the dervishes (as the opponents of the British were called) fled after acquaintance with 50 Maxim machine guns. So it was just a massacre of the fleeing people. The article is crude.
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 15 September 2021 11: 34
      +3
      ... it was the last mounted attack by the British Royal Cavalry in history ...

      With regard to 50 machine guns, the overkill is obvious, but otherwise "with a bare heel on the saber."

      Not all "dervishes" started running.

      But the battle won, of course, this one.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 15 September 2021 11: 42
        +3
        With regard to 50 machine guns, the overkill is obvious

        I took it from a book in the ZhZL series about Churchill. There is a lot of things written about him, the main thing is that his parents were engaged in social life, up to the illness of syphilis, and he was abandoned altogether, which had a positive effect on upbringing. They would make a dandy out of him ...
      2. Fat
        Fat 15 September 2021 21: 39
        0
        ..., Kostanin ... it turned out that the ministry of the fleet is Chukhazemen? ... Well, well, it's worth thinking ...
        "Not all of them are on the run! ...
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 15 September 2021 22: 27
          0
          Chukhazemen? ..

          Andrey, who are they?
          1. Fat
            Fat 16 September 2021 07: 08
            0
            hi Forgive me this nonsense on emotion yes Sinful, I repent ...
    2. Ashes of Claes
      Ashes of Claes 15 September 2021 16: 51
      0
      Quote: Aviator_
      and secondly, it was carried out after the dervishes (as the opponents of the British were called) fled after acquaintance with 50 machine guns "Maxim"

      Nonsense. No machine guns, the Mahdists jumped out on the lancers from an ambush in a dry riverbed. Two dozen Uhlan Mahdists killed. Lancers fought back, firing from carbines and revolvers. It was then, according to Vinnie, that he killed four of his C96, and beat one to death with a handle.
      1. Fat
        Fat 15 September 2021 21: 55
        +1
        Got it, Bro! How much money did Winnie get? Enough for after the campaign? ...
        If the War was not so terrible, we loved it immensely a phrase is added to General Lee ... which is doubtful ...
  • Petrik66
    Petrik66 15 September 2021 10: 49
    +6
    An ordinary, normal politician. Is it possible somehow differently? A polite, ascetic, well-mannered, highly educated and philanthropic person in politics? Are you serious ?: It's like a man with a voice on the Russian stage.
  • Looking for
    Looking for 15 September 2021 15: 30
    -2
    why such articles?
  • Dkuznecov
    Dkuznecov 15 September 2021 15: 37
    -1
    Britain did not forgive Churchill for abandoning the colonies
    according to the Atlantic Charter he signed in 1941.

    True, under this agreement, all the signatories lost their colonies.

    In fact, a document drawn up by the United States is an ultimatum to Britain, they say, "you or yourself
    butt the Nazis, or we will help you for a small share. "
    An excellent example of doing business.

    They say that Churchill participated in the negotiations of the Big Three as
    "wedding general" so as not to lose the face of the British crown.
    I will not be surprised at this.
    1. Ashes of Claes
      Ashes of Claes 15 September 2021 16: 33
      +2
      Quote: DKuznecov
      They say that Churchill participated in the negotiations of the Big Three as
      "wedding general",

      Well, of course, of course. Someone had to push the carriage with Roosevelt and run to the shop for tobacco for Stalin, yeah.
  • Alexander Moiseev
    Alexander Moiseev 16 September 2021 07: 06
    +2
    Churchill was not an enemy of Russia. He was an enemy of communism.
  • Vini-puxXxXx
    Vini-puxXxXx 17 September 2021 21: 16
    0
    how to put a dislike?
    if you read the biography of Churchill and his contemporaries + historians - then this false article goes down the toilet