And the u s of aOriginally 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
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
And the u s of a
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.
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?
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
There's so much about WW2 that isn't generally discussed - the UK's military 'strength' was smaller than Portugal in Sept. '39. Dunkirk was a disaster, not a miracle, when we left behind 75% of military hardware we had. We only 'fought' the Germans in Europe for the 1st time in 1944. Poland declared war on Germany. The USA screwed us for every penny because we never bothered to pay them for the arms we bought off them in WW1. France had a larger, stronger army and air force than Germany in 1939. We started the bombing of civilians when a German bomber missed his target of London docks and hit the East end of London We retaliated by bombing civilian areas in Berlin, and then the Germans hit us back. Large regions of Germany were never pro-nazi. Yes, we were genarally the good guys, the French were pathetic, and the German machine was pure evil, but there's a huge amount of history out there which isn't really told..
Well one thing is for certain, it wasn't the french!!!!
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.
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.
Nor that he knew about the extermination camps as early as 1942 and did nothing
The thread started with India
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.
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 ****
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 happened
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?????
Reading through the comments it's interesting that in any discussion on Churchill, WW2 and his leadership throughout, is the main topic of discussion. Obviously that's his legacy and no suprise what he will be most remembered for.
But Wartime and the events during are very exceptional and I wonder if you took WW2 out of the picture, how would you appraise Churchill then?
From the little I have read about him, his time in politics seemed generally unremarkable and it was quite likely that he was racsit and had no time for the working/poorer classes. Happy for people to correct me on this.
What I find interesting is that despite leading Great Britain to victory in the War, the people of the time removed him as prime minister by voting Atlee and his labour goverment into power, straight after. That labour governemt ushered in transformative social legislation to rebuild the nation, something that would not have happened under Churchill I assume (I'm not a labour voter BTW).
He's a complex and devisive figure, easy to see why he triggers a lot of debate.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_U...neral_electionThe greatest factor in Labour's dramatic win appeared to be their policy of social reform. In one opinion poll, 41% of respondents considered housing to be the most important issue that faced the country, 15% stated the Labour policy of full employment, 7% mentioned social security, 6% nationalisation, and just 5% international security, which was emphasised by the Conservatives.
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.
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.
Great reply 👍
This thread is the most ill-informed discussion of WW2 I have ever had the misfortune in reading
Mr lee could you give us all the well informed information at your disposal.
I want you to keep this very quiet .......
Churchill was a great admirer of Fascism, check out some of his speeches from the 20s and 30s, he even negotiated with Hitler before War broke out and was very aware of what Hitler was doing to the jewish community-do some research people
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote