Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Jan 15 6.46pm | |
---|---|
Quote Joe Bloggs at 29 Jan 2015 5.20pm
It is one thing to discuss Churchill and wartime Britain after the event but so many things went on during those times that censorship and propaganda removed so much of the truth. We heard of Coventry and the London docks,even more bombs fell on South London--but we never heard of the bombing which Hull suffered, possibly the worst in the country and yet people living through those dreadful times were kept in ignorance of those facts. The real crime is that nothing has been done to improve Hull since...
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jeeagles 29 Jan 15 7.16pm | |
---|---|
Churchill was stubborn and ruthless which could lead to some criticism which some people will inevitably manipulate for their own purposes but his stand helped saved the free world. Many people would say Chamberlain was a "nice man of peace" but his appeasement strategy was a catastrophe. The choice for the next prime minister was between Attlee, Halifax and Churchill. Many people think had Attlee or Halifax became prime minister Britain May have struck a deal with Hitler after France fell and the Dunkirk evacuations. That would have left a dominate Germany, Soviet Union and Japan vs the United States. Britain stood alone against the German's until the US entered the war. There's no doubt that Churchill's determination and belligerence helped this. Another man might have done the same thing, but Churchill was the one that did it. That is why he is our greatest hero, they offered him the Dukedom of London and made him (possibly the first) honorary citizen of the United States. Some might question his views on Ireland and India, rightly so, but the simple fact is he was the person the stood up for Britain and the world against the Nazi's. People also may critise him for wanting to go to war with the Soviets, but that was a despicable regime as well. He famously said in the Channel Islands that he would let the people starve. The islands weren't defended in the war and weren't liberated until after VE Day but people here understand that the Nazi's were monsters and it took a hard line tactics to beat them.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
rob1969 Banstead Surrey 29 Jan 15 7.34pm | |
---|---|
Churchill was a product of his time born and brought up in the later 19th century when the English/British ruled the largest empire of modern times. Yes Churchill was an imperialist - but most people were then! Churchill was also a man for his time certainly in 1940 when under his leadership - and as doubted by an earlier poster - Britain did actually stand alone against Nazi Germany keeping a bridgehead for the eventual liberation of continental Europe. Yes it was done mostly with US production and Russian blood but not in 1940. By 1945 he was 70 and Britain was changing, mostly - but not totally - for the better, and he was largely no longer relevant. However most people appreciated that without him in 1940/41 they would not have had the opportunity to vote and elect a socialist government. You cannot judge past events or people by the standards and sensitivities of today. Churchill had his weaknesses and had as many failures as he had successes - nut on balance he deserves to be considered as , at least one of, the greatest leaders this country has had.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
TheJudge 29 Jan 15 8.08pm | |
---|---|
Another attempt to revise history to suit modern fashion. Edited by TheJudge (29 Jan 2015 8.08pm) Edited by TheJudge (29 Jan 2015 8.11pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
premier fan BR4 29 Jan 15 8.35pm | |
---|---|
Shameful attention seeking post.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Jamesrichards8 29 Jan 15 8.52pm | |
---|---|
Every great leader was a prick. Andrew jackson, oft considered the greatest president committed genocide against a race of natives, some russians worship stalin, and we all know what he was like. Churchill was a phenomenal speaker, a brilliant tactician, and was what the country needed at the time.
When you’re knocked on your back and your life’s a flop... |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
legaleagle 29 Jan 15 8.59pm | |
---|---|
Churchill was indeed a multi-faceted individual with some aspects largely very much less focused on since his elevation to national saviour status post perhaps 1945.And even then,it was a beautiful aspect of our country relative to many others,that he could be rightly lauded as a hero,but kicked out at an election when the war was over and the focus could just be on politics, without affecting his "national hero" status. The Bengal famine is not something to be proud of nor was his treatment of the miners.And his military strategy re Gallipoli in world war 1 was a fiasco.Only 3 examples. ps.blackgirl 3.He didn't send the POW's we captured back to please the Americans.It was an awful thing but a deal was cut,at Soviet insistence,that all the allies must return their respective nationals found in territory liberated by another ally to their "home country".We had very large numbers of POW's in territories liberated by the Soviet Union.If that deal hadn't been cut,a lot less than did would have made it back. Did you know quite a few never came back,disappeared at the end of the war into thin air,probably killed or sent to the Gulag and have never been accounted for,even today? Most of the people being handed back to the Soviet Union against their will weren't liberated POW's but Soviet nationals who had fought with the Nazis post 1941.That doesn't make it right but...Wonder if we would have agreed to any of our allies refusing to hand over any of our nationals who had fought with the Nazis (and very small numbers did). As for anti-semitism in Britain in the 1930's,which the OP suggests we ignore in favour of still banging on about German anti-semitism in the 1930's, forgive me but there is perhaps a very slight difference between the support for it here and the near total support for the vilest form of it leading to the industrial slaughter of millions.And that ignores the many British people who took to the streets against Mosley's fascists here,hugely supported by the unions and left wingers. Bear in mind,in the 1930's Churchill was an anti-appeaser.It was appeasers,who tended to contain in their ranks the anti-semites. The main thing he's remembered for is the decision in 1940 not to cut a deal with the Nazis post-Dunkirk.If we had lost, he wouldn't be remembered well perhaps because we'd have all been indoctrinated to think of Hitler as a laudable figure(or indeed perhaps the opposite and he would have been a hero to the "underground resistance" and the general population.) The outcome had appeasement triumphed in 1940/early 1941 would have been being in reality an indoctrinated client state of Hitler like Vichy France,though not at first under partial occupation. The Soviet Union likely would have fallen back way way further east in 1941 with the Nazis controlling even vaster swathes of its territory for decades,and The US unable to invade France due to lack of a "floating island" air and sea base in Northern/Western Europe. So,lets get real.Do I agree with him politically including his rampant imperialism? No.Did he do some very bad things? Yes.Did he do some very good things? Yes.Did he do an amazingly great thing in being a superb people's war leader when it seriously counted? Yes So,yes a need for balance and seeing beyond "national myth",but those calling for more balance (fair enough) all need to be as balanced and realistic overall as anyone else,particularly when stakes are very high and alternatives bad too and one decision or another has to be made (and,as in Bengal, he got it very wrong more than once during the war).
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
cornwalls palace Torpoint 29 Jan 15 9.38pm | |
---|---|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2013 9.41am
Being a prick is an essential quality in any leader, show me one that wasn't an arrogant prick. But Churchill made some very important big calls during the war, and his speeches galvanised an nation that was on its knees. Great wartime leaders need to be pricks at time, because sometimes you have to let Coventry burn, for the long term objectives. And the idea for SOE which almost certainly shortened the war dramatically, and saved thousands of allied lives was his.
.......has our coach driver done a Poo'yet, without thinking about Gus! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
legaleagle 29 Jan 15 9.41pm | |
---|---|
Quote cornwalls palace at 29 Jan 2015 9.38pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2013 9.41am
Being a prick is an essential quality in any leader, show me one that wasn't an arrogant prick. But Churchill made some very important big calls during the war, and his speeches galvanised an nation that was on its knees. Great wartime leaders need to be pricks at time, because sometimes you have to let Coventry burn, for the long term objectives. And the idea for SOE which almost certainly shortened the war dramatically, and saved thousands of allied lives was his.
And a prick is of course not a one sided thing only.You have to think of it in the round. Edited by legaleagle (29 Jan 2015 9.44pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
crystal balls The Garden of Earthly Delights 29 Jan 15 10.03pm | |
---|---|
Quote jeeagles at 29 Jan 2015 7.16pm
Churchill was stubborn and ruthless which could lead to some criticism which some people will inevitably manipulate for their own purposes but his stand helped saved the free world. Many people would say Chamberlain was a "nice man of peace" but his appeasement strategy was a catastrophe. The choice for the next prime minister was between Attlee, Halifax and Churchill. Many people think had Attlee or Halifax became prime minister Britain May have struck a deal with Hitler after France fell and the Dunkirk evacuations. That would have left a dominate Germany, Soviet Union and Japan vs the United States. Britain stood alone against the German's until the US entered the war. There's no doubt that Churchill's determination and belligerence helped this. Another man might have done the same thing, but Churchill was the one that did it. That is why he is our greatest hero, they offered him the Dukedom of London and made him (possibly the first) honorary citizen of the United States. People also may critise him for wanting to go to war with the Soviets, but that was a despicable regime as well. He famously said in the Channel Islands that he would let the people starve. The islands weren't defended in the war and weren't liberated until after VE Day but people here understand that the Nazi's were monsters and it took a hard line tactics to beat them.
And you could say that the Russians made a bit of an effort too. AS you probably know, his mother was American, so no real surprise. Something I didn't know until recently; Churchill was only 5'6" tall; short man, big personality!
I used to be immortal |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
moaner Westerham 29 Jan 15 10.28pm | |
---|---|
Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm
Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history. I think I may have brought this up on here before but I've always held the view that Churchill is viewed as a great leader because he won. Had he lost, I believe a lot of questionable stuff the British did would have come out, but instead it's wiped under the carpet and we continue to moan about those nasty Germans with their concentration camps (an idea they knicked off us) and anti-Semitism (which was thriving in Britain in the 30s). The clearest example of this for me is the Bengal Famine. Churchill, fearful that the Japs might invade northern India, decided rather than evacuate the natives, he would just stop sending them food and shelter (in the middle of a famine) leading to millions of deaths, some claim on a similar scale as the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. When asked about this, Churchill blamed them for 'breeding like rabbits'. He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics. So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation. Now who does that remind me of... Anyone willing to defend him? Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm)
Everyone is entitled to my opinions |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
TheJudge 29 Jan 15 10.29pm | |
---|---|
Quote premier fan at 29 Jan 2015 8.35pm
Shameful attention seeking post. Lol. I suppose the irony of your post is lost on you.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.