Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
Poll: Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
Total Members Polled: 386
Discussion
JagLover said:
Colonial said:
Leaving aside Ww2 for a moment...
His actions leading to the disaster that was Gallipolli were abysmal. He treated colonial troops with utter disdain and little more than cannon fodder.
Yes. It was the mindset of the time. But it was complete detachment from the needless sacrifice of human life
A successful Dardanelles operation was probably the only way the war could have been won with a lower casualty rate for the western allies than eventually resulted.His actions leading to the disaster that was Gallipolli were abysmal. He treated colonial troops with utter disdain and little more than cannon fodder.
Yes. It was the mindset of the time. But it was complete detachment from the needless sacrifice of human life
It was not the idea that was at fault but the execution.
If the commanders had moved with speed the Turks would not have had enough time to dig in and Istanbul would have been threatened.
They would most probably have come to the negotiating table within weeks and Turkey (Ottomans) would have been out of the war.
Edited by SPS on Wednesday 28th September 16:31
Blue One said:
PS: someone will raise the issue that the Nazis were EVIL, well of course they were, the Holocaust will go down in history for ever as being the zenith of human depravity, but Stalin killed more people than Hitler in camps and persecutions, he just didn't have the psychopathic hatred for one group the Germans did, he just killed 'people'. Take your pick.
pedantry alert! The word in this context is 'nadir' 
Anywho - you could equally argue that what won WWII were actually 'lady luck' & the weather. "WTF is he talking about?"
Bear with me on this...
The Russian winter pretty much put paid to Hitler's eastern ambitions, I know that the QM's of the Wehrmacht could have prepared better but for all that the '41/'42 winter was a '100 year' winter which would have undoubtedly caused the Nazis problems regardless.
The US aircraft carriers were out of Pearl on that infamous day.
The weather put paid to Hitler's ideas of invading England (which may well have saved the Royal Navy the bother of sinking them all)
The Germans didn't fully twig about the radar installations on the south coast early in the BoB
A 'lucky' torpedo crippled the Bismark
Luckily Goering was a useless braggart who could also be accused of costing the Nazis if not the war outright certainly a great deal
Luckily the Italians were incompetent allies and in Mussolini they had a braggart who was actually worse than Goering
V6Pushfit said:
Blue One said:
mcdjl said:
I was reading his point as being if we hadn't fought WWI, the Nazis wouldn't have existed. The pre-WW1 Germany wasn't too difficult to the UK at that time in outlook, where as pre-WWII nazi Germany was very different. By not engaging in WWI those immediate lives would have been saved, the lines on a map different and another European war would have had the UK sat on the side lines or nudging here and there in our own interests.
This, exactly!Our learned friend who gushed out his lengthy reply to my last post would do well to do his prep first...
A different trajectory of a bit of shrapnel in WW1 would have probably meant that WW2 never happened.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28593256
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Tandey
DMN said:
Funny you should mention that last bit. Hitler was almost gunned down whilst in no-mans land, but the shooter decided to let him live. According to the story that is:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28593256
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Tandey
I read he was wounded by shrapnel and a Tommy who came across him thought about shooting him but didn't.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28593256
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Tandey
WW2 was the thanks we got.
irocfan said:
Blue One said:
PS: someone will raise the issue that the Nazis were EVIL, well of course they were, the Holocaust will go down in history for ever as being the zenith of human depravity, but Stalin killed more people than Hitler in camps and persecutions, he just didn't have the psychopathic hatred for one group the Germans did, he just killed 'people'. Take your pick.
pedantry alert! The word in this context is 'nadir' Anywho - you could equally argue that what won WWII were actually 'lady luck' & the weather. "WTF is he talking about?"
Bear with me on this...
The Russian winter pretty much put paid to Hitler's eastern ambitions, I know that the QM's of the Wehrmacht could have prepared better but for all that the '41/'42 winter was a '100 year' winter which would have undoubtedly caused the Nazis problems regardless.
The US aircraft carriers were out of Pearl on that infamous day.
The weather put paid to Hitler's ideas of invading England (which may well have saved the Royal Navy the bother of sinking them all)
The Germans didn't fully twig about the radar installations on the south coast early in the BoB
A 'lucky' torpedo crippled the Bismark
Luckily Goering was a useless braggart who could also be accused of costing the Nazis if not the war outright certainly a great deal
Luckily the Italians were incompetent allies and in Mussolini they had a braggart who was actually worse than Goering
Colonial said:
Leaving aside Ww2 for a moment...
His actions leading to the disaster that was Gallipoli were abysmal. He treated colonial troops with utter disdain and little more than cannon fodder.
Yes. It was the mindset of the time. But it was complete detachment from the needless sacrifice of human life
The machine gun was a game changer, no longer could you rely on weight of numbers and a charge of the light brigade style strategies. It took time for military strategy to adapt.His actions leading to the disaster that was Gallipoli were abysmal. He treated colonial troops with utter disdain and little more than cannon fodder.
Yes. It was the mindset of the time. But it was complete detachment from the needless sacrifice of human life
In relation to WW2 concentration camps, (mentioned previously) there appears to be evidence that the allies were aware of atrocities but suppressed news and did not bomb the camps, despite pressure from the Jewish community at the time.
stripy7 said:
Colonial said:
Leaving aside Ww2 for a moment...
His actions leading to the disaster that was Gallipoli were abysmal. He treated colonial troops with utter disdain and little more than cannon fodder.
Yes. It was the mindset of the time. But it was complete detachment from the needless sacrifice of human life
The machine gun was a game changer, no longer could you rely on weight of numbers and a charge of the light brigade style strategies. It took time for military strategy to adapt.His actions leading to the disaster that was Gallipoli were abysmal. He treated colonial troops with utter disdain and little more than cannon fodder.
Yes. It was the mindset of the time. But it was complete detachment from the needless sacrifice of human life
In relation to WW2 concentration camps, (mentioned previously) there appears to be evidence that the allies were aware of atrocities but suppressed news and did not bomb the camps, despite pressure from the Jewish community at the time.
Penelope Stopit said:
This is for all of you that obviously dont know what you are talking about and are blindly led to believe that Churchill was a good man. Here I post a very good example of the horrors that Churchill created and also include a link that is all fact about this mass murderer that was on a par with the Nazis
1943........Bengal......Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused
Do you want more, that on its own is knocking on to the same figures as the Nazis withn the Jews
3 Million People........BAD BAD BAD
I bet most of you wont read the following because going by your postings I dont think you read and digest anything that matters
Horror Below...Read it all and then post Churchill was a good man
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-...
An article written by Johann Hari is never going to provide an accurate source based musing.1943........Bengal......Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused
Do you want more, that on its own is knocking on to the same figures as the Nazis withn the Jews
3 Million People........BAD BAD BAD
I bet most of you wont read the following because going by your postings I dont think you read and digest anything that matters
Horror Below...Read it all and then post Churchill was a good man
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-...
There are many things that happened in his youth that would be deemed bad, but the begal famine was not one of them.
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/did-churchi...
Maybe not the most unbiased of reporting, but then again I could add my own musings and it would be more accurate than Johann Hari. The sources quoted on each section are easy enough to follow though.
For the likes of McDonnell Churchill = bad but Mao = good.
“Winston Churchill was a villain, says John McDonnell
Shadow chancellor condemns wartime PM over his role in quelling of 1910 riots in Wales”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/13/w...
“Winston Churchill was a villain, says John McDonnell
Shadow chancellor condemns wartime PM over his role in quelling of 1910 riots in Wales”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/13/w...
irocfan said:
The weather put paid to Hitler's ideas of invading England (which may well have saved the Royal Navy the bother of sinking them all)
Either that or the lack of air superiority due to range & Hitler's choice to bomb London rather than the RAF bases.irocfan said:
A 'lucky' torpedo crippled the Bismark[
It wasn't luck so much as the fact that it was fired at the Bismarck, presumably with the intention of hitting it.I think he was a great man, but you don't have to have been good to have been great in fact often the great make decisions that the good wouldn't/can't.
He made mistakes many of which were bad he also did many good things but he also had to make many great decisions and you're always going to upset someone when making those, but we mustn't confuse great with good. (he also wanted to make those decisions and actively sought to be the man making them so clearly he embraced the challenge for better or worse)
Above all he kept buggering on, his quotes with their wisdom and wit are also a great gift to anyone that cares to read them.
He made mistakes many of which were bad he also did many good things but he also had to make many great decisions and you're always going to upset someone when making those, but we mustn't confuse great with good. (he also wanted to make those decisions and actively sought to be the man making them so clearly he embraced the challenge for better or worse)
Above all he kept buggering on, his quotes with their wisdom and wit are also a great gift to anyone that cares to read them.
Rovinghawk said:
irocfan said:
The weather put paid to Hitler's ideas of invading England (which may well have saved the Royal Navy the bother of sinking them all)
Either that or the lack of air superiority due to range & Hitler's choice to bomb London rather than the RAF bases.
t. Hitler should have done his research, ditto the Eastern Front - Tolstoy would have set him straight.Rovinghawk said:
irocfan said:
A 'lucky' torpedo crippled the Bismark[
It wasn't luck so much as the fact that it was fired at the Bismarck, presumably with the intention of hitting it.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff