Mrs Thatcher - rather different from todays politicians
Discussion
colonel c said:
Arguably World war two would have turned out very differently without Churchill as Prime Minister. As a peacetime PM he was not so great.
Thatcher might have been a great leader if we were in a similar situation. Although I feel she would be lacking in understanding the global strategies' involved. As it was she was arguably one of the most divisive PMs this country has known.
Still I expect we'll hear plenty more adulatory comments from the faithful.
I don't think there is much "arguably" about it. Chamberlain (like everyone else) was scared of Hitler but as least was an honourable man. Halifax had already given up before the war started.Thatcher might have been a great leader if we were in a similar situation. Although I feel she would be lacking in understanding the global strategies' involved. As it was she was arguably one of the most divisive PMs this country has known.
Still I expect we'll hear plenty more adulatory comments from the faithful.
For all his faults Churchill was the only person willing to risk it all for the country he loved, utter determination, whatever the cost. He inspired millions to "KBO", long before the war he was warning of what might happen but was ignored because it wasn't what they needed to hear.
I don't disagree about peacetime, but then even by '45 he was a very old man and maybe his ideas and ideals were somewhat out of date.
As far as Maggie goes, I'm a bit young to remember her time first hand but I think she had a certain flair and gumption that is missing nowadays.
10 Pence Short said:
TheHeretic said:
:
And pray tell what special treatment should terrorists receive?
She could have stopped in more sea front hotels, but that would probably have blown up in her face. And pray tell what special treatment should terrorists receive? 
Ozzie Osmond said:
It seems to me Thatcher did actually stand for something, whether or not everyone agreed with her.
What does "call me Dave" stand for?
a) The Big Society? (WTF)
b) Trying to please all of the people all of the time? (Hopeless)
c) Both of the above?
He stands for getting CMD re-elected so he can help out his buddiesWhat does "call me Dave" stand for?
a) The Big Society? (WTF)
b) Trying to please all of the people all of the time? (Hopeless)
c) Both of the above?
thinfourth2 said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
It seems to me Thatcher did actually stand for something, whether or not everyone agreed with her.
What does "call me Dave" stand for?
a) The Big Society? (WTF)
b) Trying to please all of the people all of the time? (Hopeless)
c) Both of the above?
He stands for getting CMD re-elected so he can help out his buddiesWhat does "call me Dave" stand for?
a) The Big Society? (WTF)
b) Trying to please all of the people all of the time? (Hopeless)
c) Both of the above?
brenflys777 said:
The most interesting part of the new files for me is the statement that she didn't know if the islands could be retaken. I can't think of a politician now who would take on that amount of risk because it was the right thing to do. Serious balls in my opinion.
She had the assurance of the First Sea Lord:wiki said:
On 31 March 1982, soon after the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, Leach brushed aside serious doubts from the Secretary of State for Defence Sir John Nott, and addressed the Prime Minister on the appropriate course of action.[13] The Chief of the Defence Staff at the time was on his way back from a foreign visit, and in addressing the Prime Minister, Leach effectively bypassed the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff.[1] When he was asked if retaking the islands was possible, he replied "Yes we can recover the islands." He then added "and we must!" Thatcher replied "Why?" Leach exclaimed "Because if we do not, or if we pussyfoot in our actions and do not achieve complete success, in another few months we shall be living in a different country whose word counts for little."[1] Leach then explained how the task force would take shape and what ships would be involved: when asked about the lack of available aircraft carriers, Leach reassured the Prime Minister that the two small carriers available would suffice.[1] Thatcher approved this and preparations were made to send a task force to set sail to retake the Falklands.[1]
The wiki is inaccurate, the invasion did not take place until Friday 2nd April; on the evening of the 31st March there was a meeting at Thatcher's Commons office of Nott, Carrington's deputy, Thatcher, and a few others to discuss Britain's response to the now firm evidence that Argentina had dispatched an invasion force to the Falklands. Nott had been convinced of the armed forces' inability to recapture the islands by a recent pessimistic Defence Estimate and that is what he conveyed to the meeting. Leach gatecrashed and forcefully disagreed as per the quote above. I think his personality and the fact he was wearing his full Bhuna Admiral's uniform(having come straight from an official engagement in Portsmouth) may have helped sway the Maggon. brenflys777 said:
The most interesting part of the new files for me is the statement that she didn't know if the islands could be retaken. I can't think of a politician now who would take on that amount of risk because it was the right thing to do. Serious balls in my opinion.
It was worse than that.When Thatcher received the news in the Commons that an invasion was likely imminent, the mood was defeatist. The Defence Secretary informed her that it was the view of the MOD that the islands couldn't be retaken. This was actually based on a paper written by Admiral Woodward, later Commander Task Force in the Falklands, in the late 1970s where he stated that it was impossible to defend the Falklands without expending vast amounts and once lost, they would be gone forever. Thatcher actually asked about the old Ark Royal - long gone by then of course.
It was a view largely shared by other experts - neither the Soviets or the Americans rated our chances highly. The Chiefs of the General and Air Staffs had serious concerns about the ability to protect the fleet and the beachhead from air attack. In the end, they were prepared to accept the Navy's word that it could be done.
The day was saved when the First Sea Lord, having gone straight to the Prime Minister upon hearing the news, arrived. He not only said that the Navy could do the job but that the country must: "Because if we do not, or if we pussyfoot in our actions and do not achieve complete success, in another few months we shall be living in a different country whose word counts for little." He explained how a task group could be assembled within 48 hours and that Hermes and Invincible would be sufficient.
In the end, the Government never had a choice. Had Mrs Thatcher not stood up in the emergency sitting of Parliament the following day and announced that the task group was already being assembled, the Government would have fallen and the course of history would have changed entirely.
Even up to the Argentine surrender in June, the concerns remained. As Woodward said, "it was a damn close run thing".
Had Argentina not blown their hand at South Georgia; Had the plan to retake South Georgia failed completely or with significant loss of life; Had Conqueror not found the Belgrano; Had Had a few more bombs got off; Had one of the Exocets found one of the carriers, particularly Hermes; Had the Argentines hit the shipping in San Carlos Water rather than the firgates outside; Had they held out for just a few more days... Any one of these could have resulted in a very different outcome.
eldar said:
Derek Smith said:
What was so great about Churchill?
He lead the winning team.Almost without exception everyone was confidently predicting he would lead the Tories to a resounding victory in 1945 GE.
His approval ratings throughout the war never dipped below around 70 per cent.
Just prior to the General Election his ratings had risen to almost mid 80s per cent in the opinion polls.
What happened?
Labour had a massive landslide victory.
So regardless of any reasons given, and there were and have been masses of them, the public at that point in time obviously had a drastically different view.
I wince at anyone who says Thatcher was always right, just as I do with those who rigidly stick with Thatcher was Satan.If you can't nuance the debate, keep out.
On balance she was beneficial to the country, but without the Falklands, the reality is she would have become a one term footnote PM, remarkable only for the unwanted distinction of the lowest popularity of any prime minister in history.
I lived through her time & it was far from sunlit meadows under Thatcher. Having said that, Foot was worse, far worse & had she been beaten in 1983 or more likely 1984 if the Falkands hasn't occurred, we would have gone to the dogs entirely under a Labour administration led by Michael Foot.
As for Churchill, the truth is he was regarded as a warmongering adventuring toff in his youth & a political turncoat in middle age. He wasn't listened to in his wilderness years because he was the equivalent of Quentin Davies, crossing the floor to his colleague's enduring disgust.
He pursued military folly in Africa & Greece for political popularity & morale reasons and after 1943 really had no significant bearing on the strategic direction of the war at all.
Churchill's principal contribution was in standing up to a tyrant when no one else could or would & forcing a nation to believe in itself when it seemed all hope was gone.
On balance she was beneficial to the country, but without the Falklands, the reality is she would have become a one term footnote PM, remarkable only for the unwanted distinction of the lowest popularity of any prime minister in history.
I lived through her time & it was far from sunlit meadows under Thatcher. Having said that, Foot was worse, far worse & had she been beaten in 1983 or more likely 1984 if the Falkands hasn't occurred, we would have gone to the dogs entirely under a Labour administration led by Michael Foot.
As for Churchill, the truth is he was regarded as a warmongering adventuring toff in his youth & a political turncoat in middle age. He wasn't listened to in his wilderness years because he was the equivalent of Quentin Davies, crossing the floor to his colleague's enduring disgust.
He pursued military folly in Africa & Greece for political popularity & morale reasons and after 1943 really had no significant bearing on the strategic direction of the war at all.
Churchill's principal contribution was in standing up to a tyrant when no one else could or would & forcing a nation to believe in itself when it seemed all hope was gone.
Mojocvh said:
Well, he invented concentration camps [Boers], "suppressed" a British socialist revolution after the "Great" war when the troops came home and stitched up any military commander who had the audacity to question his orders for starters.....
Can you provide a source for Winston "inventing" concentration camps ? I suggest you are inaccurate in this regard. Plus he was born in 1874, The Empire was almost at its greatest, it would be very unusual to find many people in the UK who did feel superior to other nations (and by implication the peoples of those nations) As to your other charges - That Churchill ordered the troops to charge the Welsh Miners - is funnily enough quite similar to Maggie. The British and Churchill were very nervous of Communism and revolutions in Europe spreading to the UK, He was landed Gentry so naturally he was never going to be embracing the ideals of Communist states.
Laughable and innaccurate, you could make similar charges against any Poltical leader (Lloyd George for example - any early model Berlusconi)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff