Just read up on this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/therepor...ved_india.html
Bit of an arsehole wasn’t he
Printable View
Just read up on this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/therepor...ved_india.html
Bit of an arsehole wasn’t he
The winners write the history, the more I think about it the history that I was taught in school was no more than an English propaganda scheme!
He was a twat
He ordered the bombing of French ship is ww2,nearly 1300 died
To stop them becoming part of the German navy after the French refused to hand them over.Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepster
Phew well done Winnie, it was only 1300 lives!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyncoed Slumdog
Useless Boris offered 40k+ lives to covid 19
They would have been seized by the Germans or Italians. 1300 lives yes but during a world war.Quote:
Originally Posted by splott parker
Churchill wasn't all good, no man really is but he made tough decisions. He was the right man for the occasion, in peace time he wouldn't have been and his swift defeat in the polls following the war shows that.
Could have waited until they were in German hand then bomb themQuote:
Originally Posted by Cyncoed Slumdog
From what I recall there was a French admiral in charge who refused to give up the fleet despite repeated warning that it would be sunk. I suppose you think we should have said, "go on then, give the whole French fleet to the Nazis so they can run riot in the channel".Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepster
Perhaps reading a book or two might improve your limited knowledge of history..
Could we bomb south of France at the time?Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepster
Boris is a dangerous moron and I do hold out hope that he will be held criminally liable for his negligence, but you are assuming that the base case is 0 deaths. You have to accept that even if he'd aced it, thousands of people would have died because of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTaL ITK
I'd agree with this. It would of course have been better if it hadn't happened, but the allies were not winning the war at that point and the fleet could have done more damage than 1300 lives, it could have kept the Nazis in North Africa and repelled the Italian invasion. No one knows and that's with the benefit of hindsight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger
Thanks for your input,go read one or two yourself might learn not to go to an idiotic profile of a person you do not know :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish
In war, you have to make some awful, awful decisions. Churchill was in charge at the time, and the buck stopped with him. Looking back, maybe things could have been done differently, but no country at war would willingly hand over a fleet of heavy warships to it's enemies.
The fact that France was willing to let Germany seize them says a lot more about France, and their plans at the time. Britain really was on it's own at that time, and Churchill was the man we needed to lead us.
Churchill took us to war. The nazis never had any intention of invading Britain at the start.Quote:
Originally Posted by tforturton
Definitely hard decisions but some that showed some lives were more dispensable than others.
You think Churchill was the PM when we went to war?Quote:
Originally Posted by WJ99mobile
Good grief....Quote:
Originally Posted by WJ99mobile
Also, Hitler only had one ball. I don’t think he would have invaded Poland if he had had two. Just saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by WJ99mobile
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger
Do agree a very flawed man , if nasty decisions weren't made the even worse evils of Nazism would have prevailed.
I'm glad we had him and most of the world looked up to him including the Yanks with all their show and bluster, we had he real leader thank god.
you may want to research that fact , those hard times saw death was all around only brave people and tpugh churchillian decisions fixed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by WJ99mobile
RIP all those who innocents who lost their lives in the name of a master race and empire ,not forgetting the Holocaust which was a bloody good reason anyway to join an alliance to stop.
IndeedQuote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
You really aren't in touch with reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by WJ99mobile
Didn’t WC send the troops into the valleys to deal with a miners strike in the early part of the 20th century? where he’s still hated to this day. He didn’t become PM until May 1940 when the country had been at war for about 9 months, so he certainly didn’t lead the UK into war.
Without Churchill, Britain would have lost the war. His part in The Tonypandy Riots has mostly been misinformed. It was the Police that caused most friction.
A very good synopsis is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonypandy_riots
it's impossible not say we would have lost the war without Churchill we had many other military leaders. considering new played a pretty minor role in the second world war it's a bit of a stretch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maurice Swan
How do you know Britain would have lost the war without Churchill?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maurice Swan
He was clearly an enigmatic chap but how can it be said there was nobody else to defeat Hitler?
In the months following the end of the war he , stalin and the rest stood by as people of German descent living in the lands taken by Hitler were raped and murdered by the locals
He wasn't a very nice bloke
Can you repeat this in English??Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
Correction-Without Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maurice Swan
And the u s of aQuote:
Originally Posted by Tuerto
Hitlers insane decision to fight stalin in the east and the decision of America to get stuck in was the key , not churchill
The choice was between Lord Halifax and Churchill for Prime Minister.Quote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
Halifax wanted peace talks with Germany and indeed overtures had been made.
Churchill refused and Chamberlain backed Churchill
However if Halifax had become PM instead of Churchill who knows what might have happened.
You say some else could have done what Churchill did.
Who??????
I agree Churchill did a number of questionable things.
That does not negate what he did in time of war.
the UK had 2.5% of the war casualties. do you really think that if someone else was in charge the outcome of the war would have been different?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elwood Blues
unfortunately we've had decades of propaganda in this country convincing us that Churchill saved the day.
I recently saw a couple of opinion polls that were held in France, one just after the war and another a couple of years ago. they asked who was most responsible for the allied powers winning the war, the options were UK, France, USA and Russia.
in the survey just after the war Russia were massively out in front, with like 75% or more of the responses.
whereas in the recent poll the USA and UK were the highest.
only goes to show what 70 odd years of Hollywood movies and other propaganda have done to influence the public's perception
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJ99mobile
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
Alexander Pope 1709
(He actually said learning but near enough)
Applies to so much said on this board
Yes the head of police begged Churchill as he felt he couldn't contain the riots as folks loves were at risk and its noted that Churchill was against it and refused the police chiefs first request for the army to support ,and begrudgingly agreed in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maurice Swan
Thankfully I don't think the army's intervention caused any death. I'm guessing if it happened today, you'd be call upon other police forces, different times, and as you correctly point out not all Churchill's doing ,others involved.
I think Churchill's comment are Tonypandy and the starving were something like "Let's see how they like steel in their bellies". And nobody has mentioned India yet.
The thread started with IndiaQuote:
Originally Posted by cardiff55
Nor that he knew about the extermination camps as early as 1942 and did nothingQuote:
Originally Posted by cardiff55
Do agree its not good in todays age it was bad rhetoric and I guess for consumption at the time thankfully no steel did meet a belly and were ever likely to do , most war like leaders were brought up in that ideology of violent threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by cardiff55
A quote:
*8 November Churchill issued verbal instructions that “in no case should soldiers come in direct contact with rioters unless and until action had been taken by the police.” If police were overpowered, troops could be deployed, but even then a number of police should remain, “to emphasise the fact that the armed forces act merely as the support of the civil power.”
...winston was a ****Quote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
there was no such ****ing thing as the titanic
If Britain had sued for peace, Germany would in all likelihood have been able to divert more divisions to Russia and who knows what would have happenedQuote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
Also how would the USA have been able to invade Europe if it couldn't have used the UK to base its invasion force.
In answer to your first question quite possibly.
But it must not be forgotten that we are not a dictatorship. There was a war cabinet who all played their part, but Churchill of course was the figurehead.
What coul he have done?????Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepster