Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
Poll: Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
Total Members Polled: 386
Discussion
Gargamel said:
Penelope Stopit said:
He was a bad man, many people suffered due to him attempting to protect an already crumbling British Empire
Of course he did his bit for the war effort but there were other Brits that wanted help for the people of the British Empire that were suffering and he did not give a toss about them
Churchill behaved like the Nazis that he was fighting against and caused far too much grief/suffering for far too many people
BAD BAD BAD.
The man should have been kicked out
Yes remind me again which Jewish Concentration Camps Churchill ran or organised? Of course he did his bit for the war effort but there were other Brits that wanted help for the people of the British Empire that were suffering and he did not give a toss about them
Churchill behaved like the Nazis that he was fighting against and caused far too much grief/suffering for far too many people
BAD BAD BAD.
The man should have been kicked out
He wasn't even PM when the war started... but he WAS PM when Great Britain stood ALONE against the Nazis.
I think his personal courage in the Boer War is often overlooked, at least he had served in the Miltary so knew the cost of the decisions he took. Lets face it, that was a incredibly difficult period of time in which to lead, knowing whatever your choices men (and women) would likely die.
That he worked so tirelessly to bring the about the Allied Forces and the success (in miltary terms) of D Day is not to be under estimated.
t they carried outBritain was fighting to stop Nazi domination throughout Europe while itself was dominating other countries
Accept it, Churchill was acting like a Nazi
Read up on it if you dont know anything about it and then come back and comment
A product of his times, as we are now. You can't criticise out of context and much of what he did in the pre-PM days would have been done by whoever was in the chair at the time, such were the prevailing attitudes. It was a time of 'ferocious rascals', colony's and Emperors. a landscape different from today.
With those caveats I think he certainly inspired folk in 'their darkest hour' and had more gumption, leadership and bloody-mindedness than any of the crop of current politicians. Hardly surprising as he'd been in action many times before and during his political career. He made some good decisions, good enough to stop us losing the war - the world would be a very different place nein? - and did it all while roaring drunk. So 'good' in my book, although in reality life is never as binary as that.
With those caveats I think he certainly inspired folk in 'their darkest hour' and had more gumption, leadership and bloody-mindedness than any of the crop of current politicians. Hardly surprising as he'd been in action many times before and during his political career. He made some good decisions, good enough to stop us losing the war - the world would be a very different place nein? - and did it all while roaring drunk. So 'good' in my book, although in reality life is never as binary as that.
andy_s said:
A product of his times, as we are now. You can't criticise out of context and much of what he did in the pre-PM days would have been done by whoever was in the chair at the time, such were the prevailing attitudes. It was a time of 'ferocious rascals', colony's and Emperors. a landscape different from today.
With those caveats I think he certainly inspired folk in 'their darkest hour' and had more gumption, leadership and bloody-mindedness than any of the crop of current politicians. Hardly surprising as he'd been in action many times before and during his political career. He made some good decisions, good enough to stop us losing the war - the world would be a very different place nein? - and did it all while roaring drunk. So 'good' in my book, although in reality life is never as binary as that.
F me, you think Churchill stopped us (whoever us is) from losing the warWith those caveats I think he certainly inspired folk in 'their darkest hour' and had more gumption, leadership and bloody-mindedness than any of the crop of current politicians. Hardly surprising as he'd been in action many times before and during his political career. He made some good decisions, good enough to stop us losing the war - the world would be a very different place nein? - and did it all while roaring drunk. So 'good' in my book, although in reality life is never as binary as that.
Penelope Stopit said:
F me, you think Churchill stopped us (whoever us is) from losing the war
I would imagine he had a part to play in our not losing, being PM and all at the time, yes.You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about it all, why don't you write out a cogent and compelling case for people to read and understand rather than spraying everyone in the spittle of rage to no end?
Penelope Stopit said:
F me, you think Churchill stopped us (whoever us is) from losing the war
yes.There was a strong chance that the UK would have done a deal with the H man after Dunkirk. We were stuffed, there was quite a strong argument to chuck the towel in. He argued us to continue.
That would have been the end.
Penelope Stopit said:
He wasnt misguided about anything, he knew about what was going on and had the stuff them attitude
Churchill behaved in the same way as the Nazis that he was fighting
Remarkable hey, a Brit leader acting like a Nazi
Over emotive cobblers. He didn't send Gipsys, Jews and the disabled by the million to death in an industrialised process.Churchill behaved in the same way as the Nazis that he was fighting
Remarkable hey, a Brit leader acting like a Nazi
Hosenbugler said:
Penelope Stopit said:
Yes he certainly did and much more. Hence I vote BAD
Nothing to do with nature then. Again, nonsense. Hindsight is wonderful, eh?
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-...
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-...
It was all a game to him.
In his early life he put people at risk with his little adventures.
In his political career he flip flopped to suit himself and his ideas were awful. Navy navy navy then err well stuff the navy.
Then when the money run out he was an easy target for outside influences.
I think today if we had someone running the country just like Winston and knew he was tanked for a lot of time he wouldn't have lasted.
History has been very kind.
For me a big no thanks.
In his early life he put people at risk with his little adventures.
In his political career he flip flopped to suit himself and his ideas were awful. Navy navy navy then err well stuff the navy.
Then when the money run out he was an easy target for outside influences.
I think today if we had someone running the country just like Winston and knew he was tanked for a lot of time he wouldn't have lasted.
History has been very kind.
For me a big no thanks.
Edited by Topbuzz on Monday 26th September 17:56
jmorgan said:
Penelope Stopit said:
F me, you think Churchill stopped us (whoever us is) from losing the war
yes.There was a strong chance that the UK would have done a deal with the H man after Dunkirk. We were stuffed, there was quite a strong argument to chuck the towel in. He argued us to continue.
That would have been the end.
andy_s said:
Penelope Stopit said:
F me, you think Churchill stopped us (whoever us is) from losing the war
I would imagine he had a part to play in our not losing, being PM and all at the time, yes.You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about it all, why don't you write out a cogent and compelling case for people to read and understand rather than spraying everyone in the spittle of rage to no end?
Ignorance is dangerous
Swordman said:
Hosenbugler said:
Penelope Stopit said:
Yes he certainly did and much more. Hence I vote BAD
Nothing to do with nature then. Again, nonsense. Hindsight is wonderful, eh?
Mothersruin said:
Both.
Complex chap.
First answer was the right answer.Complex chap.
Without a leader like Churchill we would have lost the war.
Without leaders like Churchill there may not have been any wars.
Very complex, very much a man of his time and not a moment longer.
Personally I still find it hard to believe that the Admiralty stopped him trying to reopen the Dardanelles and hung him out to dry over it. History tells us that the Turks had run out of mines and were on the brink of capitulation. It is not an exaggeration to say that if the Admiralty had given Churchill another 24 hours millions of lives would have been saved.
Hosenbugler said:
Swordman said:
Hosenbugler said:
Penelope Stopit said:
Yes he certainly did and much more. Hence I vote BAD
Nothing to do with nature then. Again, nonsense. Hindsight is wonderful, eh?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff