Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
Poll: Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
Total Members Polled: 386
Discussion
Penelope Stopit said:
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?
Penelope Stopit said:
You are joking arent you, the Nazis committed atrocities in every country they occupied, what they did to the jews was only part of the s
t they carried out
Britain 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
Whilst Churchill's stance on Indian home rule in the 1930s was backward-looking even for the time and has always made him a whipping boy for the anti-Imperialists, he was not noticeably more or less imperialistic than any of his contemporaries throughout the bulk of his political career.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
If you wanted to criticise him, the Cossack repatriations and the sinking of the French Mediterranean fleet at Mers El Kabir would be far more legitimate criticisms..
Both his strengths and his weaknesses lay in his great talent as an arch manipulator; of people, of events and - ultimately - of history
Rude-boy said:
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.
Oh sorry you are another one that doesnt know the truth
ClaphamGT3 said:
Penelope Stopit said:
You are joking arent you, the Nazis committed atrocities in every country they occupied, what they did to the jews was only part of the st they carried out
Britain 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
Whilst Churchill's stance on Indian home rule in the 1930s was backward-looking even for the time and has always made him a whipping boy for the anti-Imperialists, he was not noticeably more or less imperialistic than any of his contemporaries throughout the bulk of his political career.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
If you wanted to criticise him, the Cossack repatriations and the sinking of the French Mediterranean fleet at Mers El Kabir would be far more legitimate criticisms..
Both his strengths and his weaknesses lay in his great talent as an arch manipulator; of people, of events and - ultimately - of history
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-...
Penelope Stopit said:
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
Penelope Stopit said:
Yes............note who the discredited author is. Vile lying scumbag. Hosenbugler said:
Penelope Stopit said:
Yes............note who the discredited author is. Vile lying scumbag. You are a fool of the highest order
Do carry on
Penelope Stopit said:
Top tip; if you're trying to give your argument credibility, don't support it by an article written by Johann Hari....Penelope Stopit said:
Hosenbugler said:
Penelope Stopit said:
Yes............note who the discredited author is. Vile lying scumbag. You are a fool of the highest order
Do carry on
Penelope Stopit said:
Do you really believe Churchill was the only Brit that wouldnt chuck the towel in?
I believe he pulled it together. It was likely to go the other way.Someone else might have stepped up, but it was Churchill that did it. So yes, you have to think him for your freedom, bet that grates.
Penelope Stopit said:
Are you attempting to have people believe that Churchill did not have anything to do with the starvation of 3 million people
You are a fool of the highest order
Do carry on
You'd be more convincing if you didn't insult and berate everyone who doesn't share your obsession.You are a fool of the highest order
Do carry on
Are you saying Churchill did nothing that wasn't bad?
Good guy/bad guy is too broad a brush.
Did he do good things? I was fed anti Churchill prejudices when I was a kid and I took a fair bit in. There were few around me, east London, who had a different point of view. Being a fairly normal kid I reacted against it as a kid and when taught at my somewhat Conservative school that he was better than a god I took that in. Then I did research and discovered that he was exactly what my family reckoned - they used examples - and something similar to what the school said.
So the answer is that he did good things. His leadership in the war was better than some leaders, worse than others.
Was he a bad guy?
He made some errors in the war, ignoring reasonable advice, and the blame rests firmly with him, but I know of no other war leader who didn't make mistakes. Napoleaon, one of the greatest war leaders, wasn't 100%. That doesn't make him bad, just wrong on occasion.
Some of his decisions were somewhat selfish and you can't remove guilt by suggesting that it was the times. Some, quite a few, reckoned he was racist, a white supremacist. What upset my grandmothers was that he was overly casual with soldiers and sailors lives.
He treated certain foreigners as inferior to the UK. We can't absolve him of responsibilities in this as a man of his time. One could say the same of various leaders whom we now condemn.
Was he useful?
I doubt we would have lost the war without him. However, we might have done without the team he chose and managed effectively. Some of his team were an instrumental in securing the victory as he, especially those who stood up against his bullying.
But he was the one managing the team, he was the one making decisions. He was in charge for most of the war. He deserves praise for that.
Good and bad and useful.
Did he do good things? I was fed anti Churchill prejudices when I was a kid and I took a fair bit in. There were few around me, east London, who had a different point of view. Being a fairly normal kid I reacted against it as a kid and when taught at my somewhat Conservative school that he was better than a god I took that in. Then I did research and discovered that he was exactly what my family reckoned - they used examples - and something similar to what the school said.
So the answer is that he did good things. His leadership in the war was better than some leaders, worse than others.
Was he a bad guy?
He made some errors in the war, ignoring reasonable advice, and the blame rests firmly with him, but I know of no other war leader who didn't make mistakes. Napoleaon, one of the greatest war leaders, wasn't 100%. That doesn't make him bad, just wrong on occasion.
Some of his decisions were somewhat selfish and you can't remove guilt by suggesting that it was the times. Some, quite a few, reckoned he was racist, a white supremacist. What upset my grandmothers was that he was overly casual with soldiers and sailors lives.
He treated certain foreigners as inferior to the UK. We can't absolve him of responsibilities in this as a man of his time. One could say the same of various leaders whom we now condemn.
Was he useful?
I doubt we would have lost the war without him. However, we might have done without the team he chose and managed effectively. Some of his team were an instrumental in securing the victory as he, especially those who stood up against his bullying.
But he was the one managing the team, he was the one making decisions. He was in charge for most of the war. He deserves praise for that.
Good and bad and useful.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Penelope Stopit said:
Top tip; if you're trying to give your argument credibility, don't support it by an article written by Johann Hari....Are you denying what Churchill got up to?
Educate yourself
Do bear in mind that what happened in Bengal is only one example of Churchill being the bad man
Derek Smith said:
Good guy/bad guy is too broad a brush.
Did he do good things? I was fed anti Churchill prejudices when I was a kid and I took a fair bit in. There were few around me, east London, who had a different point of view. Being a fairly normal kid I reacted against it as a kid and when taught at my somewhat Conservative school that he was better than a god I took that in. Then I did research and discovered that he was exactly what my family reckoned - they used examples - and something similar to what the school said.
So the answer is that he did good things. His leadership in the war was better than some leaders, worse than others.
Was he a bad guy?
He made some errors in the war, ignoring reasonable advice, and the blame rests firmly with him, but I know of no other war leader who didn't make mistakes. Napoleaon, one of the greatest war leaders, wasn't 100%. That doesn't make him bad, just wrong on occasion.
Some of his decisions were somewhat selfish and you can't remove guilt by suggesting that it was the times. Some, quite a few, reckoned he was racist, a white supremacist. What upset my grandmothers was that he was overly casual with soldiers and sailors lives.
He treated certain foreigners as inferior to the UK. We can't absolve him of responsibilities in this as a man of his time. One could say the same of various leaders whom we now condemn.
Was he useful?
I doubt we would have lost the war without him. However, we might have done without the team he chose and managed effectively. Some of his team were an instrumental in securing the victory as he, especially those who stood up against his bullying.
But he was the one managing the team, he was the one making decisions. He was in charge for most of the war. He deserves praise for that.
Good and bad and useful.
A sensible readable post. Thank you Derek. Did he do good things? I was fed anti Churchill prejudices when I was a kid and I took a fair bit in. There were few around me, east London, who had a different point of view. Being a fairly normal kid I reacted against it as a kid and when taught at my somewhat Conservative school that he was better than a god I took that in. Then I did research and discovered that he was exactly what my family reckoned - they used examples - and something similar to what the school said.
So the answer is that he did good things. His leadership in the war was better than some leaders, worse than others.
Was he a bad guy?
He made some errors in the war, ignoring reasonable advice, and the blame rests firmly with him, but I know of no other war leader who didn't make mistakes. Napoleaon, one of the greatest war leaders, wasn't 100%. That doesn't make him bad, just wrong on occasion.
Some of his decisions were somewhat selfish and you can't remove guilt by suggesting that it was the times. Some, quite a few, reckoned he was racist, a white supremacist. What upset my grandmothers was that he was overly casual with soldiers and sailors lives.
He treated certain foreigners as inferior to the UK. We can't absolve him of responsibilities in this as a man of his time. One could say the same of various leaders whom we now condemn.
Was he useful?
I doubt we would have lost the war without him. However, we might have done without the team he chose and managed effectively. Some of his team were an instrumental in securing the victory as he, especially those who stood up against his bullying.
But he was the one managing the team, he was the one making decisions. He was in charge for most of the war. He deserves praise for that.
Good and bad and useful.
I
Bengal happened, it is much easier for me to post a link than type for an hour
Are you denying what Churchill got up to?
Educate yourself
Do bear in mind that what happened in Bengal is only one example of Churchill being the bad manIf you came down off your high horse and read my posts, you would see that I am hardly a Churchill fan-boy but you really need to see that you are not doing much to advance your argument in the company of quite a lot of people here who actually do know what they are talking about
Penelope Stopit said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Penelope Stopit said:
Top tip; if you're trying to give your argument credibility, don't support it by an article written by Johann Hari....Are you denying what Churchill got up to?
Educate yourself
Do bear in mind that what happened in Bengal is only one example of Churchill being the bad man
Penelope Stopit said:
And what about the millions of lives he terminated?
Oh sorry you are another one that doesnt know the truth
I know the truth, but do you or do you just remember the bits of it that serve and support your stance. I am more than willing to accept the divisive nature of both Churchill and his legacy. It would seem that others have just formed an opinion and now are trying to desperately find the appropriate facts to prove their hypothesis, whilst ignoring the inconvenient facts that suggest that there was far more to Churchill than a misogynistic imperialist with a drink problem. Oh sorry you are another one that doesnt know the truth
ClaphamGT3 said:
I
Bengal happened, it is much easier for me to post a link than type for an hour
Are you denying what Churchill got up to?
Educate yourself
Do bear in mind that what happened in Bengal is only one example of Churchill being the bad manIf you came down off your high horse and read my posts, you would see that I am hardly a Churchill fan-boy but you really need to see that you are not doing much to advance your argument in the company of quite a lot of people here who actually do know what they are talking about
You dont understand. I dont have an argument. This is clean cut. Churchill was a bad man. I have only posted facts.Penelope Stopit said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Penelope Stopit said:
Top tip; if you're trying to give your argument credibility, don't support it by an article written by Johann Hari....Are you denying what Churchill got up to?
Educate yourself
Do bear in mind that what happened in Bengal is only one example of Churchill being the bad man
I even doubt Britain would have suffered more without him but cant prove what may have been can I, hence I have only posted the facts
If a bad man achieves many good things for his country it does not make him a good man
I hope this helps
L
I even doubt Britain would have suffered more without him but cant prove what may have been can I, hence I have only posted the facts
If a bad man achieves many good things for his country it does not make him a good man
I hope this helpsIn your opinion he was a bad man. In others he was a good man. You need to stop confusing facts and opinions
Penelope Stopit said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I
Bengal happened, it is much easier for me to post a link than type for an hour
Are you denying what Churchill got up to?
Educate yourself
Do bear in mind that what happened in Bengal is only one example of Churchill being the bad manIf you came down off your high horse and read my posts, you would see that I am hardly a Churchill fan-boy but you really need to see that you are not doing much to advance your argument in the company of quite a lot of people here who actually do know what they are talking about
You dont understand. I dont have an argument. This is clean cut. Churchill was a bad man. I have only posted facts.Penelope Stopit said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Penelope Stopit said:
Top tip; if you're trying to give your argument credibility, don't support it by an article written by Johann Hari....Are you denying what Churchill got up to?
Educate yourself
Do bear in mind that what happened in Bengal is only one example of Churchill being the bad man
I even doubt Britain would have suffered more without him but cant prove what may have been can I, hence I have only posted the facts
If a bad man achieves many good things for his country it does not make him a good man
I hope this helps
Penelope Stopit said:
You dont understand. I dont have an argument. This is clean cut. Churchill was a bad man. I have only posted facts.
I even doubt Britain would have suffered more without him but cant prove what may have been can I, hence I have only posted the facts
If a bad man achieves many good things for his country it does not make him a good man
I hope this helps
Used to hear polarised arguments like this when I was in school. The times and he man and all the other events remove your black and white view. Complex times. He even saw which way the soviets were going, very astute as well.I even doubt Britain would have suffered more without him but cant prove what may have been can I, hence I have only posted the facts
If a bad man achieves many good things for his country it does not make him a good man
I hope this helps
Edited by jmorgan on Monday 26th September 19:13
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff