Just read up on this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/therepor...ved_india.html
Bit of an arsehole wasn’t he
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
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
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".Originally Posted by jeepster
Perhaps reading a book or two might improve your limited knowledge of history..
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
To stop them becoming part of the German navy after the French refused to hand them over.
Phew well done Winnie, it was only 1300 lives!!
They would have been seized by the Germans or Italians. 1300 lives yes but during a world war.
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.
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.
It was those lives or the lives of the British sailors of the Mediterranean and atlantic squadrons that could have been sunk by those ships combined with the modern diesel Italian cruisers which would have led to the starvation of the good people of Malta and it's loss together with probably the loss of Gibraltar and the war in the Med, no invasion of Italy and the extension of the war by god knows how long and all the people that would have killed, not to mention we may have lost.
the officers and crews were given the opportunity to sail out go to UK and join the free french navy but declined, stating they were part of the vichy french state which was a German controlled puppet government set up after the french surrender.
Could have waited until they were in German hand then bomb them
Could we bomb south of France at the time?
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.
If we'd done that, wouldnt they have fired back?
Useless Boris offered 40k+ lives to covid 19
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.
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.
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?
I always thought the 'great' in Great Britain was for 'big' not for 'eminent' or 'important' or 'powerful' or any of the other synonyms that suggest Fantabulous Britain. It was to distinguish this island from Little Britain (aka Brittany).
or perhaps the mystique around Churchill is wearing off and we are finally able to start fairly evaluating him as a country
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..
Churchill took us to war. The nazis never had any intention of invading Britain at the start.
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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote