Churchill

[Hate Is Art]

I'm not really a big Churchill admirer, to be honest I think he was a bit of a prick who just happened to become a face for the British Resistance and sucsess in WW2. He always seemed to harber some deep reactionary conservative views. I was just wondering about other people opinions on the "greatest briton"

? ? ?

If anyone has any interesting links on Churchill I'd like to have a gander.

[praxis1966]

An ordinary politician in extraordinary circumstances, I'd wager. I once was told about an interesting comparison between he and another leader of that era. One was very fit, excersized daily, was a vegetarian, and never drank or smoked. The other was a drunk, never slept a full night in his life, obese, and smoked cigars to excess. The latter was Winston Churchill, the former Adolf Hitler. Would you like to know the funny thing about Churchill and all that Greatest Briton business? The guy was half American on his mother's side.

Fact was Churchill was a Conservative, and save for the advent of World War II, would probably have been seen as an oppressor by the left. He took a hard line of opposition to the General Strike of 1925, and some years later in 1945 his comparison of Clement Atlee and Labour to Nazi Germany got his government thrown out in landslide elections.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRchurchill.htm

[PRC-UTE]

He was an anti-semetic nut. He adored the Nazis, even writing anti-semetic tirades of his own. He hoped to see the USSR wiped out by the Germans. He also wanted to invade Ireland during WWII but Rosevelt convinced him not to.

As I've come to understand it, he's considered somewhat an idiot in England and a failure to conservatives (they lost much of their empire under his watch). He's uncritically adored in America though!

[Invader Zim]

As I've come to understand it, he's considered somewhat an idiot in England and a failure to conservatives

Well I think you have understood wrong, I am constantly amazed by the rubbish I hear from British people when it comes to Churchill, how he "saved" us in our hour of need, and all that shit.

They have also demonised the appeasement policy without actually knowing a damn thing about it.

A statement I recently wrote on another message board to contradict some educationally challenged American conservatives. When reading this you must remember the audiance I was writing for, so I could not say what I would have liked, and was forced to be far more tactful than I would have been with you lot. But you lot dont start off with inaccurate views of 1930's politics.

The reason Britain in particular was forced into the appeasement policy was because they had no alternative. According to the heads of the armed forces (and what they told the British ministers, as revealed by secret documentation which have now been released) any war with Germany would be lost. Following the 1919 peace settlement Britain had disarmed completely, and the 10 years rolling plan was implemented by Churchill (basically stated that Britain would avoid all wars for at least 10 years, it was rolling because that 10 year period was constantly reset). One must also remember that at this period when appeasement was being employed the largest world depression in history had occurred. Not only did Britain not have the military to fight a war they did not have the money to fight either. France was in an even more difficult position financially, as they had been even more dependant on the US lend lease economic plans.

British public opinion was heavily anti-war at the time, as a democratic country the leaders were forced to abide by it, as already stated by 2fatt. It only became possible to convince the British public of the need for war once Kristallnacht had occurred, if you care to read some of the polls taken at the time, which reiterate these facts.

However despite these things which made it impossible for a war to be contemplated, when it became clear that Hitler was what he was (1936) Britain did begin re-arming. In 1937 when Chamberlain was first in power Britain implemented the largest military build up in modern history, building up the army from a token force into the BEF, actually built up the RAF and set up the radar network. I am sure I need not explain to you the role the RAF and the radar net to you, as the battle of Britain is famous. The BEF on the other hand was not so successful. So despite the military build up Britain was still not ready until at least 1942 to make any significant impact on the war.

So you can say that we are nothing but appeasers, but you are wrong. Appeasement was the only policy available, war was unthinkable at the time, and until 1942 more or less a guaranteed defeat according to the military. Indeed it would have been had it not been for Hitler’s love of the British and his delay of the invasion. Instead he elected to invade the Soviet Union. This, despite patriotic rhetoric, was the real reason we won the war, and anyone who denies it is lying to them selves.

I am sure that you John are intelligent enough grasp the situation which we were facing, we needed time to re-arm, and the appeasement policy was that stalling technique. If you care to read some of Chamberlains private letters to his sister he makes this very plain, he was buying time, nothing more. There may well have been a significant hope that Hitler would see reason, but the re-arming policy was a safe guard should that fail. As such I consider appeasement to be one of the most successful policies in history, it did gain time, Britain did re-arm and the war was won. Had the war occurred in 1937-38 I feel sure we would have lost.

[Wurkwurk]

Recently when I looked a bit into Churchill's life (which by the way is very long, involved, and interesting) I've come to dislike the man. First off, he fount in the battle of Omdurman against the Sudanese for the 'glory' (imperialism) of Great Britian. He then became a politicial and was one of Britian's foremost advocators of Britian's middle-east policy (forseer of many Arab revolts than was in turn used to colonize the middle-east).

Considering that he was a key player in Britian's enslavement of hundreds of millions of Africans for over half a century, IMHO, outweighs his efforts for the British in WWII. I mean, he wasn't very effective at that either, save at making speeches! :lol:

[Intifada]

He was a racist, who had a sympathetic attitude towards fascism.

"I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes, or any other method of warfare we have hitherto refrained from using."
-- Churchill on gassing the Arabs.

"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
-- Churchill on the Palestinian people.

"If I had been an Italian, I am sure I would have been entirely with you from the beginning to the end of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism."
-- Churchill on Mussolini.

[Invader Zim]

To be fair I've seen some of those quotes in full and they are totally inexcusable, however they sound worse than they actually are when taken out of context.

[B_T_N_H]

Recently, I been reading about Churchil, I used to perceive him as a stupid warmonger who had big desire to see other people fight his war. Maybe because he wanted to show the world that he was far more better than his father....

Anyhow, apart from the fact that Churchil was a racist and warmonger, I think he was rather a good strategist.... I think he beat hitler on the Battle of the Mind.

Bealfan aka Ak-94u

[ComradeChris]

Stalin actually confided some of his most hidden secrets to Churchill. Stalin told him at one point that he believed he was responsible for the death of 10,000,000 people after a few years into his rule. It was supposedly to Churchill during the Potsdam (?) Conference that Stalin is reportedly to have said the infamous quote, "the death of one is a tragedy. The death of millions is just a statistic." Churchill basically just reassured Stalin. SO I assume from his demeanor here and other quotes, he wasn't particularily phased by mass deaths.

[commiecrusader]

Churchill was just another in a looooong line of Bourgeois Conservatives.

His modern day alternative = George Bu$h.

Only difference is Churchill's most famous adversary actually was a threat to global security, although there was other benefits to be gained from defeating Hitler.

[praxis1966]

I think he beat hitler on the Battle of the Mind.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you meant that he posessed a superior strategic intellect you're wrong. Britain suffered a series of humiliating defeats early in the war, largely due to his meddling in military affairs. So much so that in '41 he faced a vote of no confidence and, though he beat it resoundingly, continued to receive criticism for the same. Not that Hitler was any better (Germany by all accounts should have won World War II were it not for total mismanagement by the Fuhrer; they had superior technology if not numbers in most cases after all), but eventually Churchill resigned himself to let the army and navy run themselves.

[Roses in the Hospital]

In his favour he was fairly influential in the Liberal reforms which laid the foundations for the Welfare State. Then again he also used guns against the miners, my Great Grandfather refused to have Churchill's name spoken in his house...

[bolshevik butcher]

Churchill shot striking miners in 1912, and he initiated Gallipoli. He also gassed several Iraqi tribes in the 1930's. He was the first man to use chemecal weapons in the middle east.

[NyChe21]

It seems as though WWII was his only highlight, and even then he was not the one writing those famous speeches of those, in fact he was a drunkard. The only positive that I can decipher is that he wasnt that good of a politician so he lost to the then socialist democratic Labour Party at the time. And this was the first election after the war in which he became famous. How do you lose an election after leading your people to victory, you must not be a great leader obviously. Of course, George Bush won after leading his country to "victory" in Iraq. :blink:

[Hero_of_the_Revolution]

Well, though Churchil is much more intelligent that bush

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 11:40 AM
Well, though Churchil is much more intelligent that bush
Yeah for real. I'm sure Bush might have actually liked Hitler because of "religious" grounds. *shudders*

[praxis1966]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 05:03 PM
It seems as though WWII was his only highlight, and even then he was not the one writing those famous speeches of those, in fact he was a drunkard. The only positive that I can decipher is that he wasnt that good of a politician so he lost to the then socialist democratic Labour Party at the time. And this was the first election after the war in which he became famous. How do you lose an election after leading your people to victory, you must not be a great leader obviously. Of course, George Bush won after leading his country to "victory" in Iraq. :blink:
You've correctly stated that he didn't write the speeches that he was famous for, but in all fairness most politicians don't. This may have something to do with why he is generally heralded as a great orator and not a great writer. I've heard alot of those speeches, however, ("We will fight them in the air, we will fight them in the sea...") and wasn't particularly impressed. The guy was a mushmouth; half the time you can't understand what he's saying.

As for the question on how you lead your country to military victory and lose the following election, I'd refer you to my original post. By all accounts, he lost because he compared Labour candidate Clement Atlee to Adolf Hitler and the Labour Party to the Nazi Party. Bush (when I say Bush I mean his advisors) was at least smart enough to leave the shit talking up to PACs and special interest groups which had only tenuous links to himself.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 17 2005, 06:51 PM
Churchill shot striking miners in 1912, and he initiated Gallipoli. He also gassed several Iraqi tribes in the 1930's. He was the first man to use chemecal weapons in the middle east.
I fail to undersand how that is possible, in the 1930's Churchill was a backbench politician with little political power or in decision making position.

He had been chanceller of the exchequer in the 1920's, but then lost any position during the 30's, until he became primeminister in the 40's.

[Big_Don]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 04:31 PM
Recently, I been reading about Churchil, I used to perceive him as a stupid warmonger who had big desire to see other people fight his war. Maybe because he wanted to show the world that he was far more better than his father....

Anyhow, apart from the fact that Churchil was a racist and warmonger, I think he was rather a good strategist.... I think he beat hitler on the Battle of the Mind.

Bealfan aka Ak-94u
I don't think so

[SpeCtrE]

What do you mean BIg Don?