FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Jump to: Newest in thread
Very flawed man. Horrific imperialist, racist and white supremacist.
Fancied himself as a military strategist, but...Gallipoli. He thought that Italy was the soft underbelly of Europe but it was a hellish slog over 2 years which failed to completely dislodge the Germans.
Caused the death by starvation of 2 million Indians.
Deployed armoured cars to the streets of Glasgow to break a strike.
Extremely flawed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *ild_oatsMan 1 week ago
the land of saints & sinners |
"The international Churchill Society says 74% of Britons think Churchill was a good prime minister
(Thatcher 47%, Starmer currently -19%)"
How many of that 74% we alive when Churchill was prime minister and are not just looking back on history through the rose tinted lenses of nostalgia?
Context is everything rather than just a set of isolated statistics. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The international Churchill Society says 74% of Britons think Churchill was a good prime minister
(Thatcher 47%, Starmer currently -19%)
How many of that 74% we alive when Churchill was prime minister and are not just looking back on history through the rose tinted lenses of nostalgia?
Context is everything rather than just a set of isolated statistics."
Not a clue
There are no details of the data sets, respondent profiles or methodology |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Probably yes. As others have said, he had his flaws (but who hasn't). But he was the right man at the right time, and he did the job. "
I think it was the poor feckers on the front lines who did the job. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Very flawed man. Horrific imperialist, racist and white supremacist.
Fancied himself as a military strategist, but...Gallipoli. He thought that Italy was the soft underbelly of Europe but it was a hellish slog over 2 years which failed to completely dislodge the Germans.
Caused the death by starvation of 2 million Indians.
Deployed armoured cars to the streets of Glasgow to break a strike.
Extremely flawed."
What a lot of nonsense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The international Churchill Society says 74% of Britons think Churchill was a good prime minister
(Thatcher 47%, Starmer currently -19%)"
I'm surprised it's so low. Probably affected by young people who've been brainwashed by fake history. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The international Churchill Society says 74% of Britons think Churchill was a good prime minister
(Thatcher 47%, Starmer currently -19%)
I'm surprised it's so low. Probably affected by young people who've been brainwashed by fake history. "
make it 74.1% he gets my vote |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The international Churchill Society says 74% of Britons think Churchill was a good prime minister
(Thatcher 47%, Starmer currently -19%)
I'm surprised it's so low. Probably affected by young people who've been brainwashed by fake history. "
300,000 travelled to pay their respects while he lay in rest, and 350 million watched his state funeral on tv, in 1965 the global population was 3.3bn.
57 years later, 400 million watched the coronation of King Charles, global population 8bn.
Evidently more popular than the monarch. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The international Churchill Society says 74% of Britons think Churchill was a good prime minister
(Thatcher 47%, Starmer currently -19%)
I'm surprised it's so low. Probably affected by young people who've been brainwashed by fake history.
300,000 travelled to pay their respects while he lay in rest, and 350 million watched his state funeral on tv, in 1965 the global population was 3.3bn.
57 years later, 400 million watched the coronation of King Charles, global population 8bn.
Evidently more popular than the monarch. "
I've visited his grave several times, it's very modest and in the burial grounds of his local village church near Blenheim. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Very flawed man. Horrific imperialist, racist and white supremacist.
Fancied himself as a military strategist, but...Gallipoli. He thought that Italy was the soft underbelly of Europe but it was a hellish slog over 2 years which failed to completely dislodge the Germans.
Caused the death by starvation of 2 million Indians.
Deployed armoured cars to the streets of Glasgow to break a strike.
Extremely flawed."
To answer these accusations.
Churchill's view on Empire and race would have been held by the vast majority of Britons at the time. Scotland was very strongly involved in the Empire and your descendants very likely shared his views.
Like all wartime leaders I'm sure he made mistakes, and in war these have terrible consequences, but ultimately he got the big decisions right and secured victory over fascism.
The claim that he caused the Bengal famine has been widely debunked by serious historians.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The international Churchill Society says 74% of Britons think Churchill was a good prime minister
(Thatcher 47%, Starmer currently -19%)
I'm surprised it's so low. Probably affected by young people who've been brainwashed by fake history. "
There's so much poor revisionist history produced by second-rate academics. It's a huge mistake to judge history through the prism of current society and values. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *x cplCouple 1 week ago
North of Oxford |
We can condemn or praise many historical figures when you apply it to modern society its thinking along with knowledge applied decades after the event. One thing for sure is he was a charismatic leader uniting the UK and allies. The fact that his (and many others) ideals of the time are not acceptable in modern society shouldnt be really brought into the debate, after all what historical figure has not carried out horrendous acts, and errors when modern standards and knowledge after the act are applied ? . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
He managed to coin the bulldog spirit to build morale for the war effort which was very admiral.
By no means a perfect Prime Minister.
If he was up against Starmer today I think he'd actually lose, because there isn't enough patriot support. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The international Churchill Society says 74% of Britons think Churchill was a good prime minister
(Thatcher 47%, Starmer currently -19%)
I'm surprised it's so low. Probably affected by young people who've been brainwashed by fake history.
There's so much poor revisionist history produced by second-rate academics. It's a huge mistake to judge history through the prism of current society and values. "
My long dead grandfather was wireless operator on HMS Oribi (Arctic convoys). He never said a bad word about him.
Who am I to judge. Like Ukraine now, too many war tourists chatting shit about other peoples lost lives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Very flawed man. Horrific imperialist, racist and white supremacist.
Fancied himself as a military strategist, but...Gallipoli. He thought that Italy was the soft underbelly of Europe but it was a hellish slog over 2 years which failed to completely dislodge the Germans.
Caused the death by starvation of 2 million Indians.
Deployed armoured cars to the streets of Glasgow to break a strike.
Extremely flawed."
Horrific imperialist? I'll give you the imperialist bit but in his time most of the UK population shared that view, but horrific, no he was mainstream.
Yes Italy was a two year slog but it achieved (at least) 2 things. It brought about the early capitulation of the Italians and bogged down countless German divisions that could have made a big difference on the eastern front (and later in France after D Day)
As said above, him causing the Bengal famine has been debunked by serious historians.
To be fair he wasn't a particularly good peacetime PM but I think by 1950 he was getting a bit old and wasn't in the best of health. Although he was an improvement on Atlee who 5 years on still hadn't ended rationing. And they talk about austerity today LOL.
I often think about the "what if's" when it comes to Churchill.
What if Churchill had replaced Baldwin in 1937 instead of Chamberlain?
He was certainly no appeaser of Hitler and would have almost certainly stood up to him a lot sooner.
I'm pretty sure he would have accelerated the re-arming of Britain and maybe, just maybe saved us from the debacle of Dunkirk.
Who knows, he may have even cajoled the French and been in a position to threaten Hitler enough to stop the invasion of France altogether.
History is full of "what if's"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sent a telegram to Roosevelt to ask the Americans to join the fight against fachism...
Strategic, maybe? Best leader, not bad. Deserving of the praise and admiration? Not."
What was Ireland's position against Hitler and the fascists ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sent a telegram to Roosevelt to ask the Americans to join the fight against fachism...
Strategic, maybe? Best leader, not bad. Deserving of the praise and admiration? Not.
What was Ireland's position against Hitler and the fascists ? "
Ask William Joyce.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sent a telegram to Roosevelt to ask the Americans to join the fight against fachism...
Strategic, maybe? Best leader, not bad. Deserving of the praise and admiration? Not.
What was Ireland's position against Hitler and the fascists ? "
Topical. Ask Mary Lou McDonald. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sent a telegram to Roosevelt to ask the Americans to join the fight against fachism...
Strategic, maybe? Best leader, not bad. Deserving of the praise and admiration? Not.
What was Ireland's position against Hitler and the fascists ?
Ask William Joyce. "
Indeed. Or President Eamon DeValera who sent his condolences to the German Embassy when Hitler died. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sent a telegram to Roosevelt to ask the Americans to join the fight against fachism...
Strategic, maybe? Best leader, not bad. Deserving of the praise and admiration? Not.
What was Ireland's position against Hitler and the fascists ?
Ask William Joyce. "
The weirdest DJ ever. Was sentenced to death after WW2. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sent a telegram to Roosevelt to ask the Americans to join the fight against fachism...
Strategic, maybe? Best leader, not bad. Deserving of the praise and admiration? Not.
What was Ireland's position against Hitler and the fascists ?
Ask William Joyce.
The weirdest DJ ever. Was sentenced to death after WW2."
Hang the DJ, Hang the DJ, Hang the DJ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sent a telegram to Roosevelt to ask the Americans to join the fight against fachism...
Strategic, maybe? Best leader, not bad. Deserving of the praise and admiration? Not.
What was Ireland's position against Hitler and the fascists ? "
Same as now, stay out of NATO, get your defence for free. shout 'we're neutral'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I can just imagine all these unpatriotic,mamby pamby anti establishment coward's today would probably have rolled over and shown their yellow bellys to the Nazis and probably will if Putin carries on the way he's going.
Churchill was the right man for the job at the time when we needed someone in charge to make the difficult decisions.
Which is what you need during wartime.
Honestly I read some of the comments on here sometimes aimed at the government and the monarchy and frankly some are borderline treasonous. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"mamby pamby anti establishment coward's today would probably have rolled over and shown their yellow bellys to the Nazis
Half the people on here would probably have voted for them.
"
There's no need for personal insults please. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"mamby pamby anti establishment coward's today would probably have rolled over and shown their yellow bellys to the Nazis
Half the people on here would probably have voted for them.
There's no need for personal insults please."
Did you reply to the wrong person by mistake? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The international Churchill Society says 74% of Britons think Churchill was a good prime minister
(Thatcher 47%, Starmer currently -19%)
I'm surprised it's so low. Probably affected by young people who've been brainwashed by fake history.
There's so much poor revisionist history produced by second-rate academics. It's a huge mistake to judge history through the prism of current society and values. "
Well said. I couldn't have put it better. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 1 week ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"150 years since the great man was born. Saved the world from the Nazis, won the Nobel Prize for literature and was a decent brickie.
Was he Britain's greatest ever politician ? 🇬🇧✌️"
Really good “war time “ prime minister
Really crap “peace time” prime minister
If that makes sense…… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"150 years since the great man was born. Saved the world from the Nazis, won the Nobel Prize for literature and was a decent brickie.
Was he Britain's greatest ever politician ? 🇬🇧✌️
Really good “war time “ prime minister
Really crap “peace time” prime minister
If that makes sense……"
It does, except his achievements as a wartime PM are incomparably greater than his shortcomings as a peacetime PM.
For me he will always be Britain's greatest politicians because his policies and character saved the nation from invasion and annihilation, and in doing so saved the world from Hitler and Nazism. For all his flaws and failings that achievement in undeniable and unmatched in British history.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
What is people's evidence for saying he was a "really crap peacetime Prime Minister" ?
Granted, he should probably have retired after his stroke in 1953, but his Government of 1951-55 built on the foundations of recovery laid by Atlee. If you want an example of a "crap peacetime PM" you need to look at his successor and the fuck-up that was Suez.
Should he have succeeded Baldwin in 1937 ? No, absolutely not. Firstly he was still in the "wilderness". Secondly, he'd been a bit further tarnished by supporting Edward VIII during the Abdication crisis. And thirdly, the country was nowhere near ready to go into battle, something very much reflected in Chamberlain's "buying time" actions during 1938.
But come 1940 when Chamberlain lost support of Parliament, the options were Churchill or Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, who would have sought a very dishonourable peace with Germany. And had that happened the freedoms we enjoy today might be very different, possibly even non-existent.
Every leader has their flaws as well as their good points, but the "Churchill was this, Churchill was that, Churchill was the other" Brigade need to give their heads a wobble and study the options the country had at the time. Right man in the right place at the right time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What is people's evidence for saying he was a "really crap peacetime Prime Minister" ?
Granted, he should probably have retired after his stroke in 1953, but his Government of 1951-55 built on the foundations of recovery laid by Atlee. If you want an example of a "crap peacetime PM" you need to look at his successor and the fuck-up that was Suez.
Should he have succeeded Baldwin in 1937 ? No, absolutely not. Firstly he was still in the "wilderness". Secondly, he'd been a bit further tarnished by supporting Edward VIII during the Abdication crisis. And thirdly, the country was nowhere near ready to go into battle, something very much reflected in Chamberlain's "buying time" actions during 1938.
But come 1940 when Chamberlain lost support of Parliament, the options were Churchill or Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, who would have sought a very dishonourable peace with Germany. And had that happened the freedoms we enjoy today might be very different, possibly even non-existent.
Every leader has their flaws as well as their good points, but the "Churchill was this, Churchill was that, Churchill was the other" Brigade need to give their heads a wobble and study the options the country had at the time. Right man in the right place at the right time."
Very good post. 
It gives a different perspective on my "what if?" question. And an equally valid one.
However, Chamberlains "buying time" was viewed in Berlin as weakness. Many documents discovered after the war, including Goebbels diary's, confirmed this.
Hitler was still nervous about invading Poland when he did, but the British and French response (or lack of) to the annexation of the Sudetenland had encouraged him to think he could get away with it.
"What if" Britain had a more robust PM in 1938? Maybe Hitler would have postponed the invasion of Poland. It would have certainly bought more time.
But then again, that brings another very large set of "what if's?" with it.
So should Churchill have succeeded Baldwin? I think so.
Could Churchill have succeeded Baldwin? For the reasons you give probably not.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Russians and Americans won the war. Not the UK.
Allied forces, clues in the name 
Not to mention who kept Russia in the war with Artic conveys at huge cost of ships and lives. "
Yes
Also remember that the Soviet Union had been Hitlers ally until June 1941. And the Americans didn't enter the war until December of the same year.
Britain and the empire stood alone from May 1940 - June '41.
Oh and before anyone mentions the Polish pilots Etc. As some invariably do when this comes up.
Remember that they were flying RAF aircraft from RAF airfields wearing RAF uniforms firing RAF ammunition and eating RAF rations. Did a great job though.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sent a telegram to Roosevelt to ask the Americans to join the fight against fachism...
Strategic, maybe? Best leader, not bad. Deserving of the praise and admiration? Not.
What was Ireland's position against Hitler and the fascists ? "
Churchill was hated so much in Ireland, and rightly so, the Irish government wouldn't fight on the same side as him. Also ireland had seen enough death and misery over the centuries thanks to our nearest neighbour. His merry band of brother he sent to quell the Irish rebels the ' black and tans' murdered, tortured, burned and rap*d their way around Ireland. Thousands of Irish men died fighting the axis powers but no way was official Ireland siding with Britain |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sent a telegram to Roosevelt to ask the Americans to join the fight against fachism...
Strategic, maybe? Best leader, not bad. Deserving of the praise and admiration? Not.
What was Ireland's position against Hitler and the fascists ?
Churchill was hated so much in Ireland, and rightly so, the Irish government wouldn't fight on the same side as him. Also ireland had seen enough death and misery over the centuries thanks to our nearest neighbour. His merry band of brother he sent to quell the Irish rebels the ' black and tans' murdered, tortured, burned and rap*d their way around Ireland. Thousands of Irish men died fighting the axis powers but no way was official Ireland siding with Britain"
You forgot to mention the potato famine and Cromwell 4/10 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Thanks for filling in the blanks. I'm just a Brit living here slowly realising that the version of history we learned in school was so different to what actually happened
"
Churchill was hated so much in Ireland, and rightly so, the Irish government wouldn't fight on the same side as him. Also ireland had seen enough death and misery over the centuries thanks to our nearest neighbour. His merry band of brother he sent to quell the Irish rebels the ' black and tans' murdered, tortured, burned and rap*d their way around Ireland. Thousands of Irish men died fighting the axis powers but no way was official Ireland siding with Britain"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"WW2 would have never happened if it wasn't for the wall st crash, it was all about the money."
While the Wall St crash certainly didn't help I wouldn't go as far as that.
If anything (in Europe at least) it was the treaty of Versailles that sowed the seeds for the 2nd conflict.
While the crash and the great depression that followed affected the world (inc Germany) it was the terms of Versailles that spawned the rise of Hitler.
Inflation that was completely off the scale (even for those times) war reparations that bankrupted the Wiemar Republic, loss of territory and the general loss of national pride was the vacuum that Hitler filled.
In fact some historians believe that WW2 in Europe was a misnomer. It was really WW1 part two. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 1 week ago
South Devon |
Article 48 of the constitution gave the president authority to rule by decree in the state of an emergency, bypassing the elected Reichstag. It did not, however, give a definition as to what constituted a ‘state of emergency’. This article was repeatedly misused by Hindenburg and eventually allowed Hitler to ‘legally’ take total control of Germany
The reliance on foreign loans following the Dawes Plan led to a severe economic depression following the Wall Street Crash. This ultimately led to further political instability, and eventually, contributed to the end of democratic government.
https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-weimar-republic/wall-street-crash/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Article 48 of the constitution gave the president authority to rule by decree in the state of an emergency, bypassing the elected Reichstag. It did not, however, give a definition as to what constituted a ‘state of emergency’. This article was repeatedly misused by Hindenburg and eventually allowed Hitler to ‘legally’ take total control of Germany
The reliance on foreign loans following the Dawes Plan led to a severe economic depression following the Wall Street Crash. This ultimately led to further political instability, and eventually, contributed to the end of democratic government.
https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-weimar-republic/wall-street-crash/"
Of course the Wall St crash contributed to the rise of Hitler but it really wasn't that simple.
Wall St may have been the petrol poured on the flames but the fire was started 10 years earlier. At Versailles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 1 week ago
South Devon |
The treaty was also about money and power. Then years later millions die for this and wall st. Rich mens cannon fodder, very sad.
The terms of the Treaty can be classified into four groups:
territorial - provisions that took land away from Germany
military - provisions that limited Germany's armed forces
financial and economic
punishment |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
He is not really liked in Wales after sending troops to quell a strike. Using the tools of the state to back a business trying to keep it's workers underpaid is, in common parlance, seen as a bad look.
I was reading the wiki to make sure I was having somewhat accurate info ( as there is a quote about filing hungry miners bellies with lead that is attributed to him but he never said) on the riots and enjoyed this bit.
'A few shops remained untouched, notably that of the chemist Willie Llewellyn, which was rumoured to have been spared because he had been a famous Welsh international rugby footballer.'
Ultimately he did well in a war but the rest of his legacy is pretty poor anywhere he wasn't standing up for the interests of the rich and powerful.
You cannot, on the one hand, say he was great as he stood up to the Nazis but also wave away his treatment of the colonies and the poor as ' everyone thought that way then.'
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ouple49Couple 1 week ago
Cheshire near Whitchurch, Shropshire |
"Sent a telegram to Roosevelt to ask the Americans to join the fight against fachism...
Strategic, maybe? Best leader, not bad. Deserving of the praise and admiration? Not."
Did a lot more than that
Were you aware that he knew about the attack on pearl harbour but did not inform the Americans as he knew the devastation would draw them into the war as combatants rather than profiteers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ouple49Couple 1 week ago
Cheshire near Whitchurch, Shropshire |
"Very flawed man. Horrific imperialist, racist and white supremacist.
Fancied himself as a military strategist, but...Gallipoli. He thought that Italy was the soft underbelly of Europe but it was a hellish slog over 2 years which failed to completely dislodge the Germans.
Caused the death by starvation of 2 million Indians.
Deployed armoured cars to the streets of Glasgow to break a strike.
Extremely flawed.
What a load of fuckin' bollocks. And what a sad, sad world you must live in to think and believe such tripe.
The Russians and Americans won the war. Not the UK.
Fuck off. No, actually fuck off. How insulting is this to all the dead British who fought and died for the preservation of a free and liberal Western society against the horror and tyranny of the spreading fascists? Why don't you just spit and piss on the gaves while you're at it?
Before the Russians and the Americans, there was Great Britain, alone and surrounded, standing up the Hitler and his Nazi war machine. Ever heard of the Battle of Britain? The Blitz?
Go and read a fucking history book before coming out with such ignorant, insolent nonsense again. Jesus fuckin' Christ what a world we live in."
Well said |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ouple49Couple 1 week ago
Cheshire near Whitchurch, Shropshire |
"He is not really liked in Wales after sending troops to quell a strike. Using the tools of the state to back a business trying to keep it's workers underpaid is, in common parlance, seen as a bad look.
I was reading the wiki to make sure I was having somewhat accurate info ( as there is a quote about filing hungry miners bellies with lead that is attributed to him but he never said) on the riots and enjoyed this bit.
'A few shops remained untouched, notably that of the chemist Willie Llewellyn, which was rumoured to have been spared because he had been a famous Welsh international rugby footballer.'
Ultimately he did well in a war but the rest of his legacy is pretty poor anywhere he wasn't standing up for the interests of the rich and powerful.
You cannot, on the one hand, say he was great as he stood up to the Nazis but also wave away his treatment of the colonies and the poor as ' everyone thought that way then.'
"
Who is liked in wales? lol
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 1 week ago
South Devon |
To say the least it's insulting that millions died because of money, greed, power and the so called politicians and financial institutions associated with this. Everyday people are just expendable cannon fodder for their needs.
"Very flawed man. Horrific imperialist, racist and white supremacist.
Fancied himself as a military strategist, but...Gallipoli. He thought that Italy was the soft underbelly of Europe but it was a hellish slog over 2 years which failed to completely dislodge the Germans.
Caused the death by starvation of 2 million Indians.
Deployed armoured cars to the streets of Glasgow to break a strike.
Extremely flawed.
What a load of fuckin' bollocks. And what a sad, sad world you must live in to think and believe such tripe.
The Russians and Americans won the war. Not the UK.
Fuck off. No, actually fuck off. How insulting is this to all the dead British who fought and died for the preservation of a free and liberal Western society against the horror and tyranny of the spreading fascists? Why don't you just spit and piss on the gaves while you're at it?
Before the Russians and the Americans, there was Great Britain, alone and surrounded, standing up the Hitler and his Nazi war machine. Ever heard of the Battle of Britain? The Blitz?
Go and read a fucking history book before coming out with such ignorant, insolent nonsense again. Jesus fuckin' Christ what a world we live in.
Well said "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
...
Go and read a fucking history book before coming out with such ignorant, insolent nonsense again. Jesus fuckin' Christ what a world we live in.
Well said "
There are probably less offensive ways of saying it, however. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sent a telegram to Roosevelt to ask the Americans to join the fight against fachism...
Strategic, maybe? Best leader, not bad. Deserving of the praise and admiration? Not.
Did a lot more than that
Were you aware that he knew about the attack on pearl harbour but did not inform the Americans as he knew the devastation would draw them into the war as combatants rather than profiteers."
I would really like to know your source for that one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ild_oatsMan 1 week ago
the land of saints & sinners |
All Prime Ministers are flawed and whether you regard them as the best or worst really depends upon your political outlook and bias.
Churchill was on the whole probably a good wartime leader but had some questionable views as did a lot of society then if we look at back through the prism of our current societal norms.
This is a debate that you will never resolve just like who was the worst Prime Minister.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All Prime Ministers are flawed and whether you regard them as the best or worst really depends upon your political outlook and bias.
Churchill was on the whole probably a good wartime leader but had some questionable views as did a lot of society then if we look at back through the prism of our current societal norms.
This is a debate that you will never resolve just like who was the worst Prime Minister.
"
Well...I mean it's Liz Truss though isn't it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 1 week ago
South Devon |
The Americans messed pearl harbour up themselves, missed warnings and the fleet altogether in one place. And why did Japan attack, decades of American colonialism, greed, money, power...a familiar war story.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/path-pearl-harbor#:~:text=But%20a%20communications%20delay%20prevented,planes%20were%20headed%20their%20way.
"Sent a telegram to Roosevelt to ask the Americans to join the fight against fachism...
Strategic, maybe? Best leader, not bad. Deserving of the praise and admiration? Not.
Did a lot more than that
Were you aware that he knew about the attack on pearl harbour but did not inform the Americans as he knew the devastation would draw them into the war as combatants rather than profiteers.
I would really like to know your source for that one."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ild_oatsMan 1 week ago
the land of saints & sinners |
"All Prime Ministers are flawed and whether you regard them as the best or worst really depends upon your political outlook and bias.
Churchill was on the whole probably a good wartime leader but had some questionable views as did a lot of society then if we look at back through the prism of our current societal norms.
This is a debate that you will never resolve just like who was the worst Prime Minister.
Well...I mean it's Liz Truss though isn't it? "
No, my vote goes to David Cameron due to the long lasting economic damage done to this country by holding the Brexit referendum. All because he was running scared of Nigel Farage, UKIP and the ERG.
The long term economic damage he caused is far greater than anything that Liz Truss could dream up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Americans messed pearl harbour up themselves, missed warnings and the fleet altogether in one place. And why did Japan attack, decades of American colonialism, greed, money, power...a familiar war story.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/path-pearl-harbor#:~:text=But%20a%20communications%20delay%20prevented,planes%20were%20headed%20their%20way.
Sent a telegram to Roosevelt to ask the Americans to join the fight against fachism...
Strategic, maybe? Best leader, not bad. Deserving of the praise and admiration? Not.
Did a lot more than that
Were you aware that he knew about the attack on pearl harbour but did not inform the Americans as he knew the devastation would draw them into the war as combatants rather than profiteers.
I would really like to know your source for that one."
I agree that the Americans fucked up good style in the run up to Pearl Harbour.
While the US annexation of the Philippines could be described as colonialism it was nothing compared to Japanese aggression in China and their plans to expand into French Indo China and the Malay peninsular. Which they ultimately did causing the US to issue an oil embargo in mid 1941.
At that time Japan was the colonialist/expansionist power in the region and aggressively so. Not the US.
Ultimately it was the sanctions/embargo's that pushed Japan into attacking the US. Japan also calculated that by destroying the US Pacific fleet it would give them a lot more freedom to expand further into south east Asia.
In short, bugger all to do with the money. Had that been the case then the US would have been all too pleased to keep the oil taps (among other things) to Japan turned on.
I do detect a bit of an anti American bias in your posts.
Oh and for anyone to say that Churchill knew about the attack and failed to warn the Americans is ludicrous. He may have suspected it but not even the Japanese ambassador to Washington knew the exact details until it happened.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 1 week ago
South Devon |
"The Americans messed pearl harbour up themselves, missed warnings and the fleet altogether in one place. And why did Japan attack, decades of American colonialism, greed, money, power...a familiar war story.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/path-pearl-harbor#:~:text=But%20a%20communications%20delay%20prevented,planes%20were%20headed%20their%20way.
Sent a telegram to Roosevelt to ask the Americans to join the fight against fachism...
Strategic, maybe? Best leader, not bad. Deserving of the praise and admiration? Not.
Did a lot more than that
Were you aware that he knew about the attack on pearl harbour but did not inform the Americans as he knew the devastation would draw them into the war as combatants rather than profiteers.
I would really like to know your source for that one.
I agree that the Americans fucked up good style in the run up to Pearl Harbour.
While the US annexation of the Philippines could be described as colonialism it was nothing compared to Japanese aggression in China and their plans to expand into French Indo China and the Malay peninsular. Which they ultimately did causing the US to issue an oil embargo in mid 1941.
At that time Japan was the colonialist/expansionist power in the region and aggressively so. Not the US.
Ultimately it was the sanctions/embargo's that pushed Japan into attacking the US. Japan also calculated that by destroying the US Pacific fleet it would give them a lot more freedom to expand further into south east Asia.
In short, bugger all to do with the money. Had that been the case then the US would have been all too pleased to keep the oil taps (among other things) to Japan turned on.
I do detect a bit of an anti American bias in your posts.
Oh and for anyone to say that Churchill knew about the attack and failed to warn the Americans is ludicrous. He may have suspected it but not even the Japanese ambassador to Washington knew the exact details until it happened.
"
As said all a familiar war story, power, money, Japan, US etc....cannon fodder, over the top etc...WW2 was no different..the only thing I am anti is BS |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Americans messed pearl harbour up themselves, missed warnings and the fleet altogether in one place. And why did Japan attack, decades of American colonialism, greed, money, power...a familiar war story.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/path-pearl-harbor#:~:text=But%20a%20communications%20delay%20prevented,planes%20were%20headed%20their%20way.
Sent a telegram to Roosevelt to ask the Americans to join the fight against fachism...
Strategic, maybe? Best leader, not bad. Deserving of the praise and admiration? Not.
Did a lot more than that
Were you aware that he knew about the attack on pearl harbour but did not inform the Americans as he knew the devastation would draw them into the war as combatants rather than profiteers.
I would really like to know your source for that one.
I agree that the Americans fucked up good style in the run up to Pearl Harbour.
While the US annexation of the Philippines could be described as colonialism it was nothing compared to Japanese aggression in China and their plans to expand into French Indo China and the Malay peninsular. Which they ultimately did causing the US to issue an oil embargo in mid 1941.
At that time Japan was the colonialist/expansionist power in the region and aggressively so. Not the US.
Ultimately it was the sanctions/embargo's that pushed Japan into attacking the US. Japan also calculated that by destroying the US Pacific fleet it would give them a lot more freedom to expand further into south east Asia.
In short, bugger all to do with the money. Had that been the case then the US would have been all too pleased to keep the oil taps (among other things) to Japan turned on.
I do detect a bit of an anti American bias in your posts.
Oh and for anyone to say that Churchill knew about the attack and failed to warn the Americans is ludicrous. He may have suspected it but not even the Japanese ambassador to Washington knew the exact details until it happened.
As said all a familiar war story, power, money, Japan, US etc....cannon fodder, over the top etc...WW2 was no different..the only thing I am anti is BS"
No BS in my posts.
All is historically verifiable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *exyusMan 7 days ago
halifax |
"Very flawed man. Horrific imperialist, racist and white supremacist.
Fancied himself as a military strategist, but...Gallipoli. He thought that Italy was the soft underbelly of Europe but it was a hellish slog over 2 years which failed to completely dislodge the Germans.
Caused the death by starvation of 2 million Indians.
Deployed armoured cars to the streets of Glasgow to break a strike.
Extremely flawed."
YAWN |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iseekingbiCouple 7 days ago
N ireland and West Midlands |
"The Russians and Americans won the war. Not the UK.
According to the pub landlord the British won the war the Russians and Americans ... helped.....a bit...sometimes."
Unfortunately, not just pub landlords but a revisionist view of what actually happened and a widely believed exaggeration.
UK did it's bit for sure. But " we won the war" is a stretch too far. The Yanks and Soviets did. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man 7 days ago
NW London |
"The Russians and Americans won the war. Not the UK.
According to the pub landlord the British won the war the Russians and Americans ... helped.....a bit...sometimes.
Unfortunately, not just pub landlords but a revisionist view of what actually happened and a widely believed exaggeration.
UK did it's bit for sure. But " we won the war" is a stretch too far. The Yanks and Soviets did."
It's probably more accurate to say The British Empire did it's bit as it wasn't just British soldiers (and Ireland remained neutral although a number of Irish did volunteer to fight).
As for Churchill, he's a complicated character historically. He did some very good things and some very bad things- sometimes he took decisions which benefitted the war effort that were unpleasant (French Pearl Harbor and excabating the Bengali for example).
Also he wasn't as universally popular as people seem to remember - he was voted out of office after WW2 and John Lynch, a dock man in 1965, explained in the film that although the socialist dockers were not fond of Churchill, they were paid to operate the cranes on the day of his funeral because it took place on a Saturday when they did not usually work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Russians and Americans won the war. Not the UK.
According to the pub landlord the British won the war the Russians and Americans ... helped.....a bit...sometimes.
Unfortunately, not just pub landlords but a revisionist view of what actually happened and a widely believed exaggeration.
UK did it's bit for sure. But " we won the war" is a stretch too far. The Yanks and Soviets did.
It's probably more accurate to say The British Empire did it's bit as it wasn't just British soldiers (and Ireland remained neutral although a number of Irish did volunteer to fight).
As for Churchill, he's a complicated character historically. He did some very good things and some very bad things- sometimes he took decisions which benefitted the war effort that were unpleasant (French Pearl Harbor and excabating the Bengali for example).
Also he wasn't as universally popular as people seem to remember - he was voted out of office after WW2 and John Lynch, a dock man in 1965, explained in the film that although the socialist dockers were not fond of Churchill, they were paid to operate the cranes on the day of his funeral because it took place on a Saturday when they did not usually work."
The sinking of the French Fleet is a good measure of the man as a leader I believe. An incredibly tough decision that prevented the ships falling under German control. Wartime needs leaders prepared to make those decisions and Churchill was that man. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 7 days ago
South Devon |
"The Russians and Americans won the war. Not the UK.
According to the pub landlord the British won the war the Russians and Americans ... helped.....a bit...sometimes.
Unfortunately, not just pub landlords but a revisionist view of what actually happened and a widely believed exaggeration.
UK did it's bit for sure. But " we won the war" is a stretch too far. The Yanks and Soviets did.
It's probably more accurate to say The British Empire did it's bit as it wasn't just British soldiers (and Ireland remained neutral although a number of Irish did volunteer to fight).
As for Churchill, he's a complicated character historically. He did some very good things and some very bad things- sometimes he took decisions which benefitted the war effort that were unpleasant (French Pearl Harbor and excabating the Bengali for example).
Also he wasn't as universally popular as people seem to remember - he was voted out of office after WW2 and John Lynch, a dock man in 1965, explained in the film that although the socialist dockers were not fond of Churchill, they were paid to operate the cranes on the day of his funeral because it took place on a Saturday when they did not usually work.
The sinking of the French Fleet is a good measure of the man as a leader I believe. An incredibly tough decision that prevented the ships falling under German control. Wartime needs leaders prepared to make those decisions and Churchill was that man."
That's standard procedure when retreating. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Russians and Americans won the war. Not the UK.
According to the pub landlord the British won the war the Russians and Americans ... helped.....a bit...sometimes.
Unfortunately, not just pub landlords but a revisionist view of what actually happened and a widely believed exaggeration.
UK did it's bit for sure. But " we won the war" is a stretch too far. The Yanks and Soviets did.
It's probably more accurate to say The British Empire did it's bit as it wasn't just British soldiers (and Ireland remained neutral although a number of Irish did volunteer to fight).
As for Churchill, he's a complicated character historically. He did some very good things and some very bad things- sometimes he took decisions which benefitted the war effort that were unpleasant (French Pearl Harbor and excabating the Bengali for example).
Also he wasn't as universally popular as people seem to remember - he was voted out of office after WW2 and John Lynch, a dock man in 1965, explained in the film that although the socialist dockers were not fond of Churchill, they were paid to operate the cranes on the day of his funeral because it took place on a Saturday when they did not usually work.
The sinking of the French Fleet is a good measure of the man as a leader I believe. An incredibly tough decision that prevented the ships falling under German control. Wartime needs leaders prepared to make those decisions and Churchill was that man.
That's standard procedure when retreating. "
Retreating? France had already surrendered when the French fleet was attacked by the RN.
Yes "attacked" this wasn't some kind of scorched earth scuttling (which would have been standard procedure) It wasn't even in France.
This was an attack by the RN because of the French refusal to either hand over the ships to Britain or send them to a location where the Axis could not seize them.
To quote Churchill. "This was the most hateful decision, the most unnatural and painful in which I have ever been concerned."
A million miles from "standard procedure". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 6 days ago
South Devon |
"The Russians and Americans won the war. Not the UK.
According to the pub landlord the British won the war the Russians and Americans ... helped.....a bit...sometimes.
Unfortunately, not just pub landlords but a revisionist view of what actually happened and a widely believed exaggeration.
UK did it's bit for sure. But " we won the war" is a stretch too far. The Yanks and Soviets did.
It's probably more accurate to say The British Empire did it's bit as it wasn't just British soldiers (and Ireland remained neutral although a number of Irish did volunteer to fight).
As for Churchill, he's a complicated character historically. He did some very good things and some very bad things- sometimes he took decisions which benefitted the war effort that were unpleasant (French Pearl Harbor and excabating the Bengali for example).
Also he wasn't as universally popular as people seem to remember - he was voted out of office after WW2 and John Lynch, a dock man in 1965, explained in the film that although the socialist dockers were not fond of Churchill, they were paid to operate the cranes on the day of his funeral because it took place on a Saturday when they did not usually work.
The sinking of the French Fleet is a good measure of the man as a leader I believe. An incredibly tough decision that prevented the ships falling under German control. Wartime needs leaders prepared to make those decisions and Churchill was that man.
That's standard procedure when retreating.
Retreating? France had already surrendered when the French fleet was attacked by the RN.
Yes "attacked" this wasn't some kind of scorched earth scuttling (which would have been standard procedure) It wasn't even in France.
This was an attack by the RN because of the French refusal to either hand over the ships to Britain or send them to a location where the Axis could not seize them.
To quote Churchill. "This was the most hateful decision, the most unnatural and painful in which I have ever been concerned."
A million miles from "standard procedure"."
The British and French all destroyed tanks, ammo, etc not just ships. That is standard when retreating when you cannot defend the attack. We are both saying the same thing but it seems you don't like the word retreat. Unfortunately it was a retreat.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 6 days ago
South Devon |
"The Russians and Americans won the war. Not the UK.
According to the pub landlord the British won the war the Russians and Americans ... helped.....a bit...sometimes.
Unfortunately, not just pub landlords but a revisionist view of what actually happened and a widely believed exaggeration.
UK did it's bit for sure. But " we won the war" is a stretch too far. The Yanks and Soviets did.
It's probably more accurate to say The British Empire did it's bit as it wasn't just British soldiers (and Ireland remained neutral although a number of Irish did volunteer to fight).
As for Churchill, he's a complicated character historically. He did some very good things and some very bad things- sometimes he took decisions which benefitted the war effort that were unpleasant (French Pearl Harbor and excabating the Bengali for example).
Also he wasn't as universally popular as people seem to remember - he was voted out of office after WW2 and John Lynch, a dock man in 1965, explained in the film that although the socialist dockers were not fond of Churchill, they were paid to operate the cranes on the day of his funeral because it took place on a Saturday when they did not usually work.
The sinking of the French Fleet is a good measure of the man as a leader I believe. An incredibly tough decision that prevented the ships falling under German control. Wartime needs leaders prepared to make those decisions and Churchill was that man.
That's standard procedure when retreating.
Retreating? France had already surrendered when the French fleet was attacked by the RN.
Yes "attacked" this wasn't some kind of scorched earth scuttling (which would have been standard procedure) It wasn't even in France.
This was an attack by the RN because of the French refusal to either hand over the ships to Britain or send them to a location where the Axis could not seize them.
To quote Churchill. "This was the most hateful decision, the most unnatural and painful in which I have ever been concerned."
A million miles from "standard procedure".
The British and French all destroyed tanks, ammo, etc not just ships. That is standard when retreating when you cannot defend the attack. We are both saying the same thing but it seems you don't like the word retreat. Unfortunately it was a retreat.
"
There is some great information on this in the national archives, just Google it, before Belgium was invaded it was decided to send boats over to rescue the troops, they called it the retreat to victory... amazing read |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Russians and Americans won the war. Not the UK.
According to the pub landlord the British won the war the Russians and Americans ... helped.....a bit...sometimes.
Unfortunately, not just pub landlords but a revisionist view of what actually happened and a widely believed exaggeration.
UK did it's bit for sure. But " we won the war" is a stretch too far. The Yanks and Soviets did.
It's probably more accurate to say The British Empire did it's bit as it wasn't just British soldiers (and Ireland remained neutral although a number of Irish did volunteer to fight).
As for Churchill, he's a complicated character historically. He did some very good things and some very bad things- sometimes he took decisions which benefitted the war effort that were unpleasant (French Pearl Harbor and excabating the Bengali for example).
Also he wasn't as universally popular as people seem to remember - he was voted out of office after WW2 and John Lynch, a dock man in 1965, explained in the film that although the socialist dockers were not fond of Churchill, they were paid to operate the cranes on the day of his funeral because it took place on a Saturday when they did not usually work.
The sinking of the French Fleet is a good measure of the man as a leader I believe. An incredibly tough decision that prevented the ships falling under German control. Wartime needs leaders prepared to make those decisions and Churchill was that man.
That's standard procedure when retreating.
Retreating? France had already surrendered when the French fleet was attacked by the RN.
Yes "attacked" this wasn't some kind of scorched earth scuttling (which would have been standard procedure) It wasn't even in France.
This was an attack by the RN because of the French refusal to either hand over the ships to Britain or send them to a location where the Axis could not seize them.
To quote Churchill. "This was the most hateful decision, the most unnatural and painful in which I have ever been concerned."
A million miles from "standard procedure".
The British and French all destroyed tanks, ammo, etc not just ships. That is standard when retreating when you cannot defend the attack. We are both saying the same thing but it seems you don't like the word retreat. Unfortunately it was a retreat.
"
It wasn't a retreat. The French had signed an armistice with Germany and were mulling what to do with their fleet. The French insisted they would retain command of their ships. Churchill and his advisors judged it more likely that French ships would fall under German command. So the RN sank them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 6 days ago
South Devon |
"The Russians and Americans won the war. Not the UK.
According to the pub landlord the British won the war the Russians and Americans ... helped.....a bit...sometimes.
Unfortunately, not just pub landlords but a revisionist view of what actually happened and a widely believed exaggeration.
UK did it's bit for sure. But " we won the war" is a stretch too far. The Yanks and Soviets did.
It's probably more accurate to say The British Empire did it's bit as it wasn't just British soldiers (and Ireland remained neutral although a number of Irish did volunteer to fight).
As for Churchill, he's a complicated character historically. He did some very good things and some very bad things- sometimes he took decisions which benefitted the war effort that were unpleasant (French Pearl Harbor and excabating the Bengali for example).
Also he wasn't as universally popular as people seem to remember - he was voted out of office after WW2 and John Lynch, a dock man in 1965, explained in the film that although the socialist dockers were not fond of Churchill, they were paid to operate the cranes on the day of his funeral because it took place on a Saturday when they did not usually work.
The sinking of the French Fleet is a good measure of the man as a leader I believe. An incredibly tough decision that prevented the ships falling under German control. Wartime needs leaders prepared to make those decisions and Churchill was that man.
That's standard procedure when retreating.
Retreating? France had already surrendered when the French fleet was attacked by the RN.
Yes "attacked" this wasn't some kind of scorched earth scuttling (which would have been standard procedure) It wasn't even in France.
This was an attack by the RN because of the French refusal to either hand over the ships to Britain or send them to a location where the Axis could not seize them.
To quote Churchill. "This was the most hateful decision, the most unnatural and painful in which I have ever been concerned."
A million miles from "standard procedure".
The British and French all destroyed tanks, ammo, etc not just ships. That is standard when retreating when you cannot defend the attack. We are both saying the same thing but it seems you don't like the word retreat. Unfortunately it was a retreat.
It wasn't a retreat. The French had signed an armistice with Germany and were mulling what to do with their fleet. The French insisted they would retain command of their ships. Churchill and his advisors judged it more likely that French ships would fall under German command. So the RN sank them."
Ok I will take your word for it over the national archives |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *coptoCouple 6 days ago
Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth |
“Ok I will take your word for it over the national archives”
Please do: _otlovefun42’s brief summary is not far off, the attack on the base at Mers-el-Kébir is a sore point to this day. Don’t overlook the fact that under the terms of the French-German Armistice - one could rub it in and say “after the British Army had run away and left them to it” - the Germans agreed to occupy only half of France. Vichy feared that if he allowed French warships to be used by Britain, Germany would make life hell in “Free France”.
cf. two years later when the French scuttled their remaining ships in Toulon rather than let them fall into German hands. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 6 days ago
South Devon |
"“Ok I will take your word for it over the national archives”
Please do: _otlovefun42’s brief summary is not far off, the attack on the base at Mers-el-Kébir is a sore point to this day. Don’t overlook the fact that under the terms of the French-German Armistice - one could rub it in and say “after the British Army had run away and left them to it” - the Germans agreed to occupy only half of France. Vichy feared that if he allowed French warships to be used by Britain, Germany would make life hell in “Free France”.
cf. two years later when the French scuttled their remaining ships in Toulon rather than let them fall into German hands."
I think it was more about me using the word retreat, but it doesn't really matter, it's the weekend 😀 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aid backMan 6 days ago
by a lake with my rod out |
"150 years since the great man was born. Saved the world from the Nazis, won the Nobel Prize for literature and was a decent brickie.
Was he Britain's greatest ever politician ? 🇬🇧✌️"
If anything Stalin saved the world from nazis |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavilMan 6 days ago
Stalybridge |
I thought the French fleet was given the choice to sail to a neutral port and be interned until the end of the war as an alternative to joining the British. The French Admiral did not like either choice and the result was inevitable however unfortunate.
Given the situation Britain faced in summer 1940 the risk of French warships in the Mediterranean joining the Axis was totally unacceptable. Churchill faced a hard choice but made the right call. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"150 years since the great man was born. Saved the world from the Nazis, won the Nobel Prize for literature and was a decent brickie.
Was he Britain's greatest ever politician ? 🇬🇧✌️
If anything Stalin saved the world from nazis"
Was that when he kissed Hitler's arse with the non aggression pact that allowed Germany to invade Poland ? Or when he killed or imprisoned all his best Generals so the Red Army and Russian civilians suffered massive casualties ? The heroics of the Russian people certainly helped defeat Hitler but no thanks to the Georgian monster. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavilMan 6 days ago
Stalybridge |
"150 years since the great man was born. Saved the world from the Nazis, won the Nobel Prize for literature and was a decent brickie.
Was he Britain's greatest ever politician ? 🇬🇧✌️
If anything Stalin saved the world from nazis
Was that when he kissed Hitler's arse with the non aggression pact that allowed Germany to invade Poland ? Or when he killed or imprisoned all his best Generals so the Red Army and Russian civilians suffered massive casualties ? The heroics of the Russian people certainly helped defeat Hitler but no thanks to the Georgian monster."
Totally agree - the Russians won despite Stalin not because of him. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"150 years since the great man was born. Saved the world from the Nazis, won the Nobel Prize for literature and was a decent brickie.
Was he Britain's greatest ever politician ? 🇬🇧✌️
If anything Stalin saved the world from nazis
Was that when he kissed Hitler's arse with the non aggression pact that allowed Germany to invade Poland ? Or when he killed or imprisoned all his best Generals so the Red Army and Russian civilians suffered massive casualties ? The heroics of the Russian people certainly helped defeat Hitler but no thanks to the Georgian monster.
Totally agree - the Russians won despite Stalin not because of him."
The sacrifices of the Russian people at Stalingrad and Leningrad were colossal and terrible, but mostly due to Stalin's appalling management of the armed forces. The Russians beat the Nazis because Stalin ordered no surrender whatever the cost, which millions of others paid for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"150 years since the great man was born. Saved the world from the Nazis, won the Nobel Prize for literature and was a decent brickie.
Was he Britain's greatest ever politician ? 🇬🇧✌️
If anything Stalin saved the world from nazis
Was that when he kissed Hitler's arse with the non aggression pact that allowed Germany to invade Poland ? Or when he killed or imprisoned all his best Generals so the Red Army and Russian civilians suffered massive casualties ? The heroics of the Russian people certainly helped defeat Hitler but no thanks to the Georgian monster.
Totally agree - the Russians won despite Stalin not because of him.
The sacrifices of the Russian people at Stalingrad and Leningrad were colossal and terrible, but mostly due to Stalin's appalling management of the armed forces. The Russians beat the Nazis because Stalin ordered no surrender whatever the cost, which millions of others paid for."
I was going to come in on this but you guys saved me the trouble. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"150 years since the great man was born. Saved the world from the Nazis, won the Nobel Prize for literature and was a decent brickie.
Was he Britain's greatest ever politician ? 🇬🇧✌️
If anything Stalin saved the world from nazis
Was that when he kissed Hitler's arse with the non aggression pact that allowed Germany to invade Poland ? Or when he killed or imprisoned all his best Generals so the Red Army and Russian civilians suffered massive casualties ? The heroics of the Russian people certainly helped defeat Hitler but no thanks to the Georgian monster.
Totally agree - the Russians won despite Stalin not because of him.
The sacrifices of the Russian people at Stalingrad and Leningrad were colossal and terrible, but mostly due to Stalin's appalling management of the armed forces. The Russians beat the Nazis because Stalin ordered no surrender whatever the cost, which millions of others paid for.
I was going to come in on this but you guys saved me the trouble. "
Oh, and I would just add.
Everyone remembers the German invasion of Poland in 1939. What a lot (conveniently) forget is that it was a joint invasion.
The Molotov/Ribbentrop pact included Stalin taking eastern Poland.
Until the summer of 1941 Hitler and Stalin were buddies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
wasn’t at the USA that saved Britain from the Nazis?
All I really know about Winston Churchill is he was a white supremist and genocidal maniac responsible for millions of deaths in India and Africa. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"wasn’t at the USA that saved Britain from the Nazis?
All I really know about Winston Churchill is he was a white supremist and genocidal maniac responsible for millions of deaths in India and Africa."
Yes, but what don't you like about him ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
