The greatest human ever....
Discussion
Fast and Spurious said:
Roofless Toothless said:
Hitler didn't have any qualms about using gas on men, women and children. Millions of them.
My reading of the history of the Second World War is that Churchill wanted to keep poison gas in our armoury, just as we have ever since the first war, and to the modern age. If the Germans had invaded us, he wanted to use gas to try and prevent them succeeding. Given what Nazism represented as a threat to the free world, I have no hesitation in agreeing with this.
Churchill kept pushing to use gas in great quantities on German cities in 1944/45 because he hated the fact that we were under attack by V weapons and - for the V2 - that we could do nothing about it. The rest of the Government and even "bomber" Harris were rightly appalled by his proposal. I'll dig out more details if you are interested.My reading of the history of the Second World War is that Churchill wanted to keep poison gas in our armoury, just as we have ever since the first war, and to the modern age. If the Germans had invaded us, he wanted to use gas to try and prevent them succeeding. Given what Nazism represented as a threat to the free world, I have no hesitation in agreeing with this.
Talking about my dad, he loved boxing and mixed with a lot of East End boxers and even sparred with them. He knew all about the noble art and the Marquis of Queensbury rules. However, this did not stop him one day from giving me the advice that if I ever found myself in a fight, then fight dirty. 'They don't give out prizes for coming second.'
I dare say Churchill saw the war similarly.
I don't suggest for a minute this is an impartial account given where it comes from, but it tells the other side of the story.
https://www.winstonchurchill.org/publications/fine...
It explains the argument on Churchill's side. Given how desperate things were during the war, and what was at stake, I am not of the opinion that we should have kept one arm behind our back and fought according to the rules, or even the morality, over gas usage.
They weren't giving out prizes for coming second.
It’s easy to judge Churchill’s decisions when you haven’t been leading a country in a *total* world war scenario. I’m not saying his decisions were right or wrong, per-se, but they need to be taken in the context of the day. No-one on this thread has ever, or will ever (probably) come anywhere close to making the kinds of calls Churchill made, within the environment he made them in.
As for the use chemical weapons, this was a time where we were quite literally levelling entire cities. So chemical weapons were out, but for example, burning Dresden to the ground was totally ok!
The apparent hypocrisy of the likes of "Bomber" Harris is darkly amusing.
As for the use chemical weapons, this was a time where we were quite literally levelling entire cities. So chemical weapons were out, but for example, burning Dresden to the ground was totally ok!
The apparent hypocrisy of the likes of "Bomber" Harris is darkly amusing.
Or the Dardanelles.
To be honest - Churchill's most profound talents lay as a historian.
During the 1930s, during German rearmament, he was writing 'Marlborough: His Life and Times' - his biography of the Duke of Marlborough, who campaigned against Louis XIV during the reigns of William and Mary and later Queen Anne. He very intelligently used this parallel of his illustrious ancestor against a would be dominator of Europe against his campaigns at the time.
He also dictated his legacy very well when he wrote his History of the Second World War - and it meant it was his version of the wilderness years - as the lone voice of reason - that has resonated most strongly.
He really did hit the sweet spot in 1940 and 1941 as a leader. Thereafter he became an increasingly junior partner in the allied effort - and once the war was over, his general peace time eye for the wrong issue blighted his last premiership.
He certainly galvanized a country in the way that Chamberlain of Eden or Halifax would never have had a chance of - however, the Battle of Britain could equally have been stuffed without Dowding, or without the many young men who jumped in planes or the WAAFs or the Hurricane and so on and so on. I believe its called a team effort
Churchill once said that History would be kind to him, as he would write it. And he used his talents as a historian to guarantee his legacy. He decided his legacy - not us!
(Also re the invasion point - there is a very real question about whether Hitler would have invaded Britain if we had sued for peace at Dunkirk, or never got involved. We really weren't on his radar until we declared war - and he had bigger, more Soviet fish to fry than the UK had we backed down. The peace would probably have been punitive granted, but I think invasion wouldn't have been considered*.
That is if the invasion would have succeeded anyway - there is a very strong line of argument to say the Royal Navy was STILL too strong and there is no way the invasion would have been able to be supplied over the channel and it would have petered out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(... for more information on that score.
To be honest - Churchill's most profound talents lay as a historian.
During the 1930s, during German rearmament, he was writing 'Marlborough: His Life and Times' - his biography of the Duke of Marlborough, who campaigned against Louis XIV during the reigns of William and Mary and later Queen Anne. He very intelligently used this parallel of his illustrious ancestor against a would be dominator of Europe against his campaigns at the time.
He also dictated his legacy very well when he wrote his History of the Second World War - and it meant it was his version of the wilderness years - as the lone voice of reason - that has resonated most strongly.
He really did hit the sweet spot in 1940 and 1941 as a leader. Thereafter he became an increasingly junior partner in the allied effort - and once the war was over, his general peace time eye for the wrong issue blighted his last premiership.
He certainly galvanized a country in the way that Chamberlain of Eden or Halifax would never have had a chance of - however, the Battle of Britain could equally have been stuffed without Dowding, or without the many young men who jumped in planes or the WAAFs or the Hurricane and so on and so on. I believe its called a team effort
Churchill once said that History would be kind to him, as he would write it. And he used his talents as a historian to guarantee his legacy. He decided his legacy - not us!
(Also re the invasion point - there is a very real question about whether Hitler would have invaded Britain if we had sued for peace at Dunkirk, or never got involved. We really weren't on his radar until we declared war - and he had bigger, more Soviet fish to fry than the UK had we backed down. The peace would probably have been punitive granted, but I think invasion wouldn't have been considered*.
That is if the invasion would have succeeded anyway - there is a very strong line of argument to say the Royal Navy was STILL too strong and there is no way the invasion would have been able to be supplied over the channel and it would have petered out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(... for more information on that score.
- And because I know what PH is like when it comes to taking things wildly out of context, I think it was the necessary choice to go to war.
Edited by Vocal Minority on Tuesday 21st November 13:49
Edited by Vocal Minority on Tuesday 21st November 13:50
MYOB said:
Roofless Toothless said:
For one thing, I am positive I wouldn't be sitting here typing this were it not for him.
Are you seriously suggesting you have Churchill to thank for your existence?If the invasion had occurred and was successful, my family would have been off to the extermination camps.
I was born in 1949.
You work it out.
Don't know if he's been mentioned, but Cyrus the Great has to be in with a shout.
As well as founding an awesome empire, defeating a good few other empires in the process, he introduced a fairly free system of rule to what had been seriously oppressed people and emancipated many serf-cultures of the defeated to return and practice their religion as they saw fit. Which means without him, Judaism, Christianity and Islam would probably never have existed and the whole of the middle eastern and western world would be totally different. I'm happy to be corrected, but I believe he is the only non Jew to have been called a messiah, loads of other cultures were pleased as punch about him, too.
He probably had more of an effect on the Britain of today than William the Conqueror.
They call Alexander "great", but really he was a bit of a t
t. Just good at kicking ass and destroying other cultures.
As well as founding an awesome empire, defeating a good few other empires in the process, he introduced a fairly free system of rule to what had been seriously oppressed people and emancipated many serf-cultures of the defeated to return and practice their religion as they saw fit. Which means without him, Judaism, Christianity and Islam would probably never have existed and the whole of the middle eastern and western world would be totally different. I'm happy to be corrected, but I believe he is the only non Jew to have been called a messiah, loads of other cultures were pleased as punch about him, too.
He probably had more of an effect on the Britain of today than William the Conqueror.
They call Alexander "great", but really he was a bit of a t
t. Just good at kicking ass and destroying other cultures. Ayahuasca said:
MYOB said:
Roofless Toothless said:
For one thing, I am positive I wouldn't be sitting here typing this were it not for him.
Are you seriously suggesting you have Churchill to thank for your existence?Roofless Toothless said:
My mother's family were Russian Jewish immigrants. My dad was not Jewish, but for what it was worth, adopted the religion to keep some members of mum's family happy.
If the invasion had occurred and was successful, my family would have been off to the extermination camps.
I was born in 1949.
You work it out.
I appreciate what you are saying but you cannot seriously give thanks to one single person for your existence.If the invasion had occurred and was successful, my family would have been off to the extermination camps.
I was born in 1949.
You work it out.
Roofless Toothless said:
My mother's family were Russian Jewish immigrants. My dad was not Jewish, but for what it was worth, adopted the religion to keep some members of mum's family happy.
If the invasion had occurred and was successful, my family would have been off to the extermination camps.
I was born in 1949.
You work it out.
So if it wasn't for Stalin, not only would the invasion of Britain have happened, but your parents would never have met in the first place?If the invasion had occurred and was successful, my family would have been off to the extermination camps.
I was born in 1949.
You work it out.
Einion Yrth said:
glazbagun said:
Judaism, Christianity and Islam would probably never have existed
And this would have been a bad thing how, exactly?But I get your point- religion is bad, etc, etc. Very good.
Roofless Toothless said:
MYOB said:
Roofless Toothless said:
For one thing, I am positive I wouldn't be sitting here typing this were it not for him.
Are you seriously suggesting you have Churchill to thank for your existence?If the invasion had occurred and was successful, my family would have been off to the extermination camps.
I was born in 1949.
You work it out.
TooMany2cvs said:
Roofless Toothless said:
My mother's family were Russian Jewish immigrants. My dad was not Jewish, but for what it was worth, adopted the religion to keep some members of mum's family happy.
If the invasion had occurred and was successful, my family would have been off to the extermination camps.
I was born in 1949.
You work it out.
So if it wasn't for Stalin, not only would the invasion of Britain have happened, but your parents would never have met in the first place?If the invasion had occurred and was successful, my family would have been off to the extermination camps.
I was born in 1949.
You work it out.
Actually, my mum and dad met because mum's dad moved here in 1906. Oddly enough, I always wonder if he ever rubbed shoulders with Stalin and Lenin when they were both in the East End (with Trotsky) in 1907 while they were all in London for the Fifth Congress of the Russian social democratic and labour party.
Roofless Toothless said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Roofless Toothless said:
My mother's family were Russian Jewish immigrants. My dad was not Jewish, but for what it was worth, adopted the religion to keep some members of mum's family happy.
If the invasion had occurred and was successful, my family would have been off to the extermination camps.
I was born in 1949.
You work it out.
So if it wasn't for Stalin, not only would the invasion of Britain have happened, but your parents would never have met in the first place?If the invasion had occurred and was successful, my family would have been off to the extermination camps.
I was born in 1949.
You work it out.
Actually, my mum and dad met because mum's dad moved here in 1906. Oddly enough, I always wonder if he ever rubbed shoulders with Stalin and Lenin when they were both in the East End (with Trotsky) in 1907 while they were all in London for the Fifth Congress of the Russian social democratic and labour party.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff