I strongly disagree that Greece was 'Churchill's worst decision'. However, I agree with you that Churchill probably didn't comprehend the end result completely.
The action taken in Greece was done so in honour of a promise of help and protection. Unlike with Chamberlain and his dilly-dallying over the invasion of Poland, my Great-Grandfather believed one should not have to be asked or begged to honour an assurance. Interesting question though: we say Churchill 'probably didn't comprehend the end result or the significance of the action', but with the years of practice as a child playing with toy soldiers and then as an officer in the British Army, can we be sure that he didn't 'comprehend' his action fully? Churchill fought the Second World War mainly on campaign strategies that had been successful in the past, but he also added his own special flair in many cases. I wonder if my great-grandfather had thought out this strategy, knowing the huge price to be paid, but also being fully aware of the desired result and how the move would play out in history. Quoting from a popular Sci-fi series, Star Trek, 'The good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one.' I believe my great-grandfather understood he was going to help 'the one', and strategically that may have been an error, but maybe an all out victory in Greece was not his aim, maybe, as during the Napolionic wars, the idea was to raise the hopes and rebellious spirits of the captives into action, knowing they were not alone and just needed to meet him half-way. Also, maybe by fulfilling his promise to Greece, he showed other nations facing the same peril that 'you' can bank on a promise from Churchill. History, Churchill's greatest weapon and Hitler's greatest downfall. Hitler knew his country's history, but his own arrogance and anger forced him to choose campaigns mostly fought and lost during the First World War, using his own belief in the correct strategy, which in many cases was right and successful, but eventually led to his defeat when he became over confident and instead of focusing on the end result, lite his victory cigar long before the 'fat lady', or in my great- grandfather's case, 'the portly man' sang. Churchill knew British and ancient history and he based many campaigns of wars within the Roman and British Empires, using victories by worthy adversaries and allies such as Spartacus, Julius Ceaser, even Napoleon and certainly Nelson. My great-grandfather saw the big picture and focused his thoughts on the 'end-game' while recognising, like Elizabeth I, and the early plot against her life that victory was not guaranteed and the only thing that was assured was that the determined victory would be a result that history would always recognise was a very close thing. What are your views? Carey Stronach wrote: > A friend, David Harrison (whose father knew WSC), and I were chatting > recently, primarily about Sir Walter Raleigh, but the conversation turned to > Churchill. We started talking about the North Africa battles in WW2 and > wondered about Churchill's decision to send British troops to Greece in the > spring of 1941 to oppose the Nazi invasion of that country. As a consequence > of this move, the reduction in British forces in North Africa allowed Rommel > to seize the initiative and push the remaining British forces back toward > Egypt. > The troops who were sent to Greece eventually had to be evacuated with > considerable losses. But, the Wehrmacht had been expecting to romp through > Greece against only token opposition from the local Greek forces. Instead, > they had to fight top-of-the-line British troops, which delayed their > timetable considerably, even though they eventually completed the conquest of > Greece. > The key fact, though, is that the Greek diversion delayed the initiation of > Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the Soviet Union) from about May 10 > until June 22. If the German panzers had begun Barbarossa in mid-May, they > almost certainly would have reached Moscow before the snow began to fly, the > Soviet Union would have likely collapsed, and Hitler would have won the war, > with the USA and Britain unable to stop him. The Nazis and the Japanese would > have together controlled the entire Eurasian land mass. > As it was, the Nazis never reached Moscow, although they came close. The > Battle of Moscow involved seven million troops on the two sides, with two and > a half million killed. It was the biggest and bloodiest battle in world > history, and was, in retrospect, the turning-point of the war. > Anyone interested in a detailed analysis of the Battle of Moscow may wish to > read "The Greatest Battle," by Andrew Nagorski. > Here we have another example of the "butterfly effect," wherein one small > action has an enormous effect on future events. I doubt that WSC had any > explicit realization of the importance of this action, but it displayed his > incredible prescience in dealing with this supreme world crisis. > CES > 5/01/10 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "ChurchillChat" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat?hl=en.
