Churchill

I highly recommend the two book series "Britain's War" by Daniel Todman. Incredibly insightful, covering all aspects of the war effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I know less about WW2 and Churchill than I should, but your fourth paragraph is on something that has always intrigued me. If Churchill was the great leader he is portrayed as being these days, how on earth did the Uk turf him and his party out of power so soon after the war for a Labour Party with the sort of radical policies that usually mean almost certain defeat at the ballot box? There must have been more going on than meets the eye as presented by how he is portrayed today.

---

Please, the didn't 'turf him and his party out'. It was a coalition government that had been running the country during the war, with leading figures from all parties in the war cabinet.
When the election was held Labour had the best ideas and the best election plan and won, and the deserved to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparticus_Mills

There's so much wrong with that, I don't know where to start.

---

do try!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

do try!!!

---

Italy invaded Abyssinia in 1935, not 1940. Chamberlain had nothing to do with putting out feelers to the Italians, that was all Halifax's work, Chamberlain supported Churchill, as a result, Halifax was persuaded not to resign, and all thoughts of a peace agreement were shelved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

They weren't in the south of fFance and they weren't bombed. They were in the french Algerian port of Oran and Admiral Cunningham sent a destroyer into the harbour to ask them to join him. They refused not realising the whole British Med fleet was sitting outside with all its guns (Including 3 battle ships) trained on them. Or perhaps they did know but thought that the British wouldn't fire. Wrong!!!

---

Yes youre right that it was in Algeria, I was confused with another scuttling. But I was replying to someone saying that we could have destroyed them after the Germans took them. I know they weren't bombed at that time, but if we were going to wait for the Germans then I assume that's the only way to do it, which seems a very difficult mission to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

When Churchill took over Chamberlain and Halifax were already in touch with The Italian Government asking if Mussolini could broker a face saving deal with Adolf.
It was only the fact that at that moment the Italians invaded Abyssinia that stopped them doing it.

---

Dear God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparticus_Mills

Italy invaded Abyssinia in 1935, not 1940. Chamberlain had nothing to do with putting out feelers to the Italians, that was all Halifax's work, Chamberlain supported Churchill, as a result, Halifax was persuaded not to resign, and all thoughts of a peace agreement were shelved.

---

Yep, Chamberlain was still leader of the Conservatives, despite not being PM. Churchill feared that he would be outvoted, but managed to get Chamberlain's support. Quite a critical moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Why did the tories try to stop it happening then ?

---

You will note I said a National Health Service not the

The Conservatives NHS would probably been a different beast to anyone to Nye Bevans creation.

Their manifesto said

"The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation"

A significant point to note of course is that free at the point of use is missing from that.

The Tory NHS from what I have read would have built on the voluntary hospitals which were widespread but would have had more control at a regional level. It would have been more pluralist than State run.

Yes they voted against a lot of Bevans proposal but some of it was because the system was different to the one they had proposed.

Some was because from what I have ( and I will need to check it further) was because the Tories felt that as an opposition their job was to oppose.

There will be those as well who didn't want a National Health System


Whatever, I feel some sort of National system was inevitable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

But Russian only survived long enough to fight back because we and the USA supplied them with tanks guns aeroplanes and other equipment without which they wouldn't have been able to hold the German army back long enough for General winter to get involved. Hundreds of british sailors died on the Murmansk convoys so Russia could "win" the war.

---

And they were very brave sailors

How many Russian men and women died fighting and exhausting the German forces on the eastern front so the allied forces could move in from the west ?

Stalingrad was the key to hitler being defeated and it was Russian men and women who died in their hundreds of thousands

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

You will note I said a National Health Service not the

The Conservatives NHS would probably been a different beast to anyone to Nye Bevans creation.

Their manifesto said

"The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation"

A significant point to note of course is that free at the point of use is missing from that.

The Tory NHS from what I have read would have built on the voluntary hospitals which were widespread but would have had more control at a regional level. It would have been more pluralist than State run.

Yes they voted against a lot of Bevans proposal but some of it was because the system was different to the one they had proposed.

Some was because from what I have ( and I will need to check it further) was because the Tories felt that as an opposition their job was to oppose.

There will be those as well who didn't want a National Health System


Whatever, I feel some sort of National system was inevitable

---

Their manifesto could say whatever it wanted but I wouldn't believe a tory manifesto then as I don't now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

But Russian only survived long enough to fight back because we and the USA supplied them with tanks guns aeroplanes and other equipment without which they wouldn't have been able to hold the German army back long enough for General winter to get involved. Hundreds of british sailors died on the Murmansk convoys so Russia could "win" the war.

---

Snaggs......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x2ovlPr2IE

F

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goats

Exactly this, crucial decisions needed to be made under massive pressure in a losing position for many years....people seem to forget this, like they want to try and forget our history. It appears doing anything that was deemed ok or normal for that time is now abhorrent and wiped clean if possible....whatever next hey....about time a Great Britain was renamed? I mean, we aren’t really that great are we?

---

‘Great’ is nothing to do with ‘the best’ or any description similar, it, perhaps, should really be ‘Greater’, it’s just an adjective to differentiate the larger of the British Isles to the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splott parker

F

‘Great’ is nothing to do with ‘the best’ or any description similar, it, perhaps, should really be ‘Greater’, it’s just an adjective to differentiate the larger of the British Isles to the others.

---

You're correct-Like 'Greater London' Includes such delights as Sutton, Croydon and Bexleyheath, Greater Britain included Asia, Africa, America and Australia, also parts of the Middle East, used as a sort of service station on our way back from robbing India. Brings a tear to my eye..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wash DC Blue

😁😁

---

...bertie bertie bertie....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

Please, the didn't 'turf him and his party out'. It was a coalition government that had been running the country during the war, with leading figures from all parties in the war cabinet.
When the election was held Labour had the best ideas and the best election plan and won, and the deserved to.

---

Right, apologies for that, as I said, neither Churchill or WW2 are subjects I have much knowledge of or interest in. However, a couple of things occur to me, why has Churchill come to be seen as "the man who won us the War" (in as much as one person was responsible for doing that) when the reality appears to be different to that and also I don't see what is wrong with saying he and his party were turfed out of Government in 1945 when he clearly was and the make up of the Commons whereby the Conservatives had a majority of MPs during the war years was dramatically altered to that party's cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeepster

Could have waited until they were in German hand then bomb them

---

If we'd done that, wouldnt they have fired back?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Right, apologies for that, as I said, neither Churchill or WW2 are subjects I have much knowledge of or interest in. However, a couple of things occur to me, why has Churchill come to be seen as "the man who won us the War" (in as much as one person was responsible for doing that) when the reality appears to be different to that and also I don't see what is wrong with saying he and his party were turfed out of Government in 1945 when he clearly was and the make up of the Commons whereby the Conservatives had a majority of MPs during the war years was dramatically altered to that party's cost.

---

His speech "We shall fight on the beaches" was not well received in Parliament. It was greeted with silence. It was also not particularly well delivered (comment by Tory MP I heard in a radio interview in the early 90s). Churchill later re-recorded his war speeches after the War in the 1950s, and they are the ones that are often played.

He also edited his speech to remove criticism of the neutral Americans, instead promising that the "Empire" would continue the fight; something that Roosevelt insisted on. Churchill knew it was pretty dire when he delivered that speech in 1940, and far from being the man to win the war, he was the man who realised the war was pretty much lost unless there was involvement from the Americans.

Wondering what the criteria is for threads getting moved to politics. This is fairly political, but remains here, yet comments about the increase in anti-immigration rhetoric whenever the Conservatives are in trouble gets moved to the Politics thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

I'm no fan of the chinese government, although they've taken more people out of extreme poverty than any other government on earth with state funded projects, better health care, more support for rural areas and huge investment in education.

---

Ironically they were saying the same thing about Hitler's economic miracle in the 1930's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

And they were very brave sailors

How many Russian men and women died fighting and exhausting the German forces on the eastern front so the allied forces could move in from the west ?

Stalingrad was the key to hitler being defeated and it was Russian men and women who died in their hundreds of thousands

---

Absolutely. However Hitler only ever wanted to expand eastward -he had a pathological hatred for the Eastern European States and Russia. It was when France, then the UK declared war on Germany that the war moved westward..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

But Russian only survived long enough to fight back because we and the USA supplied them with tanks guns aeroplanes and other equipment without which they wouldn't have been able to hold the German army back long enough for General winter to get involved. Hundreds of british sailors died on the Murmansk convoys so Russia could "win" the war.

---

The things you never hear about. Although I have the book Stalingrad, it’s my next read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

And they were very brave sailors

How many Russian men and women died fighting and exhausting the German forces on the eastern front so the allied forces could move in from the west ?

Stalingrad was the key to hitler being defeated and it was Russian men and women who died in their hundreds of thousands

---

20 million Russians wasn’t it? Basically doing anything to stop the German wave from taking the city

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

Absolutely. However Hitler only ever wanted to expand eastward -he had a pathological hatred for the Eastern European States and Russia. It was when France, then the UK declared war on Germany that the war moved westward..

---

Hitler occupied the demilitarised Rhineland in 1936 violating the Treaty of Versailles,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

Absolutely. However Hitler only ever wanted to expand eastward -he had a pathological hatred for the Eastern European States and Russia. It was when France, then the UK declared war on Germany that the war moved westward..

---

But they didn't improvise a plan on the hop to go west once war was suddenly declared. He wanted expansion in all directions on the continent. They knew and expected the declaration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goats

The things you never hear about. Although I have the book Stalingrad, it’s my next read.

---

is that the Antony beaver book ?

Read that alongside enemy at the gates and have some sleeping pills ready , its very graphic