Winston Churchill

[scots civil war]

gallipoli was his idea....and we all know how that ******* panned out......a total disaster ,heartfelt by families from here to the other side of the world

 

he also visited the trenches in flanders ,taking a tour around trenches in a `cushy spot` he got himself a weapon and started firing away ....needless to say the huns retaliated and caused needless casualties...

 

him and his generation didnt care about the men,too much brainwashing with their ******* empires and whatnot

 

 

 

 

 

thread closed

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

That fact that you are sure you there is a quote, but are unable to supply one says every thing about the Churchillian cover up. The steaming pile of ordure you mention was my great and grandfathers lives. I'm sure many others on this board have similar histories. If you want to debate, happy to help you. If you want to behave like a Con/Dem, you are beyond a Scot's reasonable help.

 

 

Sanctimonious claptrap. I had two Grandfathers too. One who played for Hearts and was in the BEF in 1940 and was lucky to make it back from Boulogne. The other served in the Royal Engineers.

 

You can give it out but it seems ye cannae tak' it.

[Big D]

Sanctimonious claptrap. I had two Grandfathers too. One who played for Hearts and was in the BEF in 1940 and was lucky to make it back from Boulogne. The other served in the Royal Engineers.

 

You can give it out but it seems ye cannae tak' it.

What am I supposed to take? You said my verifiable history of SWC acts of treachery towards Scotland and the Scots were odious. And verifiable history (from many war veterans)is sanctimonious claptrap. And your counter argument is that you weren't a test tube baby.

[Cade]

He was planning to start WW3 with huge tank advances into Russia.

 

During the war we needed a man like him, afterwards, not so much.

First thing the voting population did was to boot him out.

[Harry Palmer]

He was planning to start WW3 with huge tank advances into Russia.

 

During the war we needed a man like him, afterwards, not so much.

First thing the voting population did was to boot him out.

 

And then elect him back in again. 1951.

[shaun.lawson]

And then elect him back in again. 1951.

 

I once gave a paper on the second Churchill government. I called it 'Life after Death?'

 

But ah yes, Winston. Gallipoli, the Black and Tans, the General Strike, gassed the Kurds. Changed his party as often as his socks throughout his career; tried to starve Gandhi into submission. Total annihilation of his party by the electorate in 1945; near total failure by him to understand a rapidly changing country with new, important priorities too.

 

Bankrupted this country and began the demise of its Empire by insisting on it having such a huge role during the war - which we began primus inter pares, yet finished, just six years later, tertius inter pares. Spent the duration of the war fighting against Nazi tyranny, only to abandon the whole of Eastern Europe to, er, Communist tyranny instead.

 

And then there's the question of what difference Britain actually made to the outcome of the war anyway. Germany foundered upon the freezing Soviet winter, and there, the tide began to turn. How would this not have been the case, even had Britain played no part in the conflict at all?

 

But yeah, he gave good speeches! And yeah, he was pimping it with that cigar and that V sign! But the thing is, when you examine the substance of his long political life, the reality ain't what it was cracked up to be at all. Others have quoted his oratory - so, what did the Tories under Churchill's leadership think in 1949?

 

"It is sometimes forgotten that the potential strength of the British Empire and Commonwealth is greater than that of the United States and USSR."

 

:rofl:

 

Given this was at a time when Britain had already been forced to scuttle in humiliation from India and Palestine, self-delusion doesn't even begin to cover it. Churchill's answer? Britain could enjoy unique power - because it was at the centre of three 'concentric circles': the USA, Europe, and, er, the Commonwealth.

 

What genius! What a visionary! Clearly a man way ahead of his time.

[ToadKiller Dog]

Said Winston in 1937 "I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race, has come in and taken their place." So not that different in his world view as the Nazis opinions on the clearences of Slavic peoples .

 

In fact Churchill saw Latins( italians, french spaniards ) , Slavs as dirty whites a lesser breed than the anglo saxon English whites , He also lent toward (like many of his time ) to the wrong and racist understanding of Darwins discoveries , the survival of the fitist understanding in terms meaning the strongest .

 

Now Charles Darwin there was a great Briton who added something to the advancement of the Human race .

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

What am I supposed to take? You said my verifiable history of SWC acts of treachery towards Scotland and the Scots were odious. And verifiable history (from many war veterans)is sanctimonious claptrap. And your counter argument is that you weren't a test tube baby.

 

'Although I am an Englishman, it was in Scotland that I found the best three things in my life: My wife, my constituency and my regiment.'

 

Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

I once gave a paper on the second Churchill government. I called it 'Life after Death?'

 

But ah yes, Winston. Gallipoli, the Black and Tans, the General Strike, gassed the Kurds. Changed his party as often as his socks throughout his career; tried to starve Gandhi into submission. Total annihilation of his party by the electorate in 1945; near total failure by him to understand a rapidly changing country with new, important priorities too.

 

Bankrupted this country and began the demise of its Empire by insisting on it having such a huge role during the war - which we began primus inter pares, yet finished, just six years later, tertius inter pares. Spent the duration of the war fighting against Nazi tyranny, only to abandon the whole of Eastern Europe to, er, Communist tyranny instead.

 

And then there's the question of what difference Britain actually made to the outcome of the war anyway. Germany foundered upon the freezing Soviet winter, and there, the tide began to turn. How would this not have been the case, even had Britain played no part in the conflict at all?

 

But yeah, he gave good speeches! And yeah, he was pimping it with that cigar and that V sign! But the thing is, when you examine the substance of his long political life, the reality ain't what it was cracked up to be at all. Others have quoted his oratory - so, what did the Tories under Churchill's leadership think in 1949?

 

"It is sometimes forgotten that the potential strength of the British Empire and Commonwealth is greater than that of the United States and USSR."

 

:rofl:

 

Given this was at a time when Britain had already been forced to scuttle in humiliation from India and Palestine, self-delusion doesn't even begin to cover it. Churchill's answer? Britain could enjoy unique power - because it was at the centre of three 'concentric circles': the USA, Europe, and, er, the Commonwealth.

 

What genius! What a visionary! Clearly a man way ahead of his time.

 

 

You seem to revel here in focussing on all the 'negatives'.

 

Each statement you have made here can be refuted. You've conveniently left out so much.

 

He was considered to be on the left of the liberal party because of his views on social reform which were way ahead of there time, old age pen sions, 8 hour working day, labour exchanges, etc.

 

He changed parties, yes. You should ask yourself why. He joined the Liberals because he was getting nowhere with his social reform ideas in the Tory Party. The Liberals then crushed the Tories in the election and he found his place there. Remember also his wife Clemmie was a life-long Liberal who despised the Tory party. But I ask this. Is any politician today treated with reverence? No. Apart from the odd love-in with Alex Salmond from time to time, politicians are regarded as the lowest of the low and always have been in Britain.It was no different in the past.

 

You could have said that he always championed the state of Israel.

 

Gallipoli's failings were not through him. It was a criminally badly executed plan by the military authorities on the spot. Indeed Churchill tried to force the ships through the Dardanelles and one more push would have succeeded as it was later proven that the Turkish batteries were out of shells. The push was called of incorrectly by the Admiral in charge.

 

'Gassing the Kurd's' You'll have to give me the details. As Colonial Secretary he almost resigned when Lloyd George refused to discontinue supporting Greece in their war against Turkey and at the later Cairo conferenceChurchill proposed giving autonomy to the Kurdish people because he feared Iraqi rulers would repress the Kurdish minority. Ring any bells?

 

There was a real fear of a 'Red' takeover on the 1920's. Have you heard of the Zinoviev letter? That helped to bring down a British Government.

 

After the agreement was signed on the partition of Ireland, Michael Collins told a British Government official, 'Say thanks to Winston for me. We would never have got here without him.'

 

He believed that India should get self government but more gradually as he feared factional fighting and was proven correct.

 

I won't go into your ridiculous arguments about what role Britain played in the war and his 'bankrupting' Britain. Complete nonsense. I usually follow your well-reasoned debates on JKB but on this subject you've thrown a wobbly, mate.

 

Your comments about how he abandoned Eastern Europe. Have you heard of Stalin? Yes, there was the infamous 'naughty' document. But remember, as you so gleefully point out we were the 'junior partner' so, how much sway did you think he really had? He spent the entire Yalta conference trying to save Poland at least whilst being sidelined by Roosevelt and Stalin.

 

It was only when Truman became President that the US wisened up to Stalin.

 

The substance of his political life? That you ask that shows you have completely failed to understand him.

 

If there is to be one epitaph only and this one is enough, Western civilisation was saved by his singular efforts in May/June 1940.

 

If that's not enough for you, then I don't know what is.

[Jamhammer]

I'd sooner believe me grandad than any book ta so I'll just keep on thinking he was a dick

[Big D]

'Although I am an Englishman, it was in Scotland that I found the best three things in my life: My wife, my constituency and my regiment.'

 

Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill.

Oh dear.This is what is called politics FW. I assume he is referring to Clementine, Dundee and The Scots Fusiliers? Were they really his choices?

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

Oh dear.This is what is called politics FW. I assume he is referring to Clementine, Dundee and The Scots Fusiliers? Were they really his choices?

 

You wanted a quote and you got one.

 

Trying to get through to someone so cynical and with an inability to see through blinkered eyes is a real challenge, I must say.

 

What would Winston have done...?

[Big D]

You wanted a quote and you got one.

 

Trying to get through to someone so cynical and with an inability to see through blinkered eyes is a real challenge, I must say.

 

What would Winston have done...?

Probably joined a different party. Cynicism is the correct response when discussing an amoral opportunist. Was I correct that you meant those three, and would you agree that he was railroaded into at least two of them?

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

Probably joined a different party. Cynicism is the correct response when discussing an amoral opportunist. Was I correct that you meant those three, and would you agree that he was railroaded into at least two of them?

 

 

Amoral opportunist: Are we discussing your great hero, Shrek?

 

And when he wears that embarassing wee Saltire tie, is he railroaded into it?

 

I suggest you make a proper study of the subject rather than rely on your highly dubious sound-bites.

[Big D]

Amoral opportunist: Are we discussing your great hero, Shrek?

 

And when he wears that embarassing wee Saltire tie, is he railroaded into it?

 

I suggest you make a proper study of the subject rather than rely on your highly dubious sound-bites.

I'm sure Rab Z and Kilgour would hate each other, but it explains your confusion. Your idea of what is right is your idea. Who is Shrek? And since I have studied the fiend SWC since my relations from the Scottish coalfields and the British Army alerted me to his hypocrisy, I am still eager for you (a Churchill lioniser) to answer my questions. Dundee, Clementine (you know the tune).

[scott_jambo]

I once gave a paper on the second Churchill government. I called it 'Life after Death?'

 

But ah yes, Winston. Gallipoli, the Black and Tans, the General Strike, gassed the Kurds. Changed his party as often as his socks throughout his career; tried to starve Gandhi into submission. Total annihilation of his party by the electorate in 1945; near total failure by him to understand a rapidly changing country with new, important priorities too.

 

Bankrupted this country and began the demise of its Empire by insisting on it having such a huge role during the war - which we began primus inter pares, yet finished, just six years later, tertius inter pares. Spent the duration of the war fighting against Nazi tyranny, only to abandon the whole of Eastern Europe to, er, Communist tyranny instead.

 

And then there's the question of what difference Britain actually made to the outcome of the war anyway. Germany foundered upon the freezing Soviet winter, and there, the tide began to turn. How would this not have been the case, even had Britain played no part in the conflict at all?

 

But yeah, he gave good speeches! And yeah, he was pimping it with that cigar and that V sign! But the thing is, when you examine the substance of his long political life, the reality ain't what it was cracked up to be at all. Others have quoted his oratory - so, what did the Tories under Churchill's leadership think in 1949?

 

"It is sometimes forgotten that the potential strength of the British Empire and Commonwealth is greater than that of the United States and USSR."

 

:rofl:

 

Given this was at a time when Britain had already been forced to scuttle in humiliation from India and Palestine, self-delusion doesn't even begin to cover it. Churchill's answer? Britain could enjoy unique power - because it was at the centre of three 'concentric circles': the USA, Europe, and, er, the Commonwealth.

 

What genius! What a visionary! Clearly a man way ahead of his time.

 

 

You seem to revel here in focussing on all the 'negatives'.

 

Each statement you have made here can be refuted. You've conveniently left out so much.

 

He was considered to be on the left of the liberal party because of his views on social reform which were way ahead of there time, old age pen sions, 8 hour working day, labour exchanges, etc.

 

He changed parties, yes. You should ask yourself why. He joined the Liberals because he was getting nowhere with his social reform ideas in the Tory Party. The Liberals then crushed the Tories in the election and he found his place there. Remember also his wife Clemmie was a life-long Liberal who despised the Tory party. But I ask this. Is any politician today treated with reverence? No. Apart from the odd love-in with Alex Salmond from time to time, politicians are regarded as the lowest of the low and always have been in Britain.It was no different in the past.

 

You could have said that he always championed the state of Israel.

 

Gallipoli's failings were not through him. It was a criminally badly executed plan by the military authorities on the spot. Indeed Churchill tried to force the ships through the Dardanelles and one more push would have succeeded as it was later proven that the Turkish batteries were out of shells. The push was called of incorrectly by the Admiral in charge.

 

'Gassing the Kurd's' You'll have to give me the details. As Colonial Secretary he almost resigned when Lloyd George refused to discontinue supporting Greece in their war against Turkey and at the later Cairo conferenceChurchill proposed giving autonomy to the Kurdish people because he feared Iraqi rulers would repress the Kurdish minority. Ring any bells?

 

There was a real fear of a 'Red' takeover on the 1920's. Have you heard of the Zinoviev letter? That helped to bring down a British Government.

 

After the agreement was signed on the partition of Ireland, Michael Collins told a British Government official, 'Say thanks to Winston for me. We would never have got here without him.'

 

He believed that India should get self government but more gradually as he feared factional fighting and was proven correct.

 

I won't go into your ridiculous arguments about what role Britain played in the war and his 'bankrupting' Britain. Complete nonsense. I usually follow your well-reasoned debates on JKB but on this subject you've thrown a wobbly, mate.

 

Your comments about how he abandoned Eastern Europe. Have you heard of Stalin? Yes, there was the infamous 'naughty' document. But remember, as you so gleefully point out we were the 'junior partner' so, how much sway did you think he really had? He spent the entire Yalta conference trying to save Poland at least whilst being sidelined by Roosevelt and Stalin.

 

It was only when Truman became President that the US wisened up to Stalin.

 

The substance of his political life? That you ask that shows you have completely failed to understand him.

 

If there is to be one epitaph only and this one is enough, Western civilisation was saved by his singular efforts in May/June 1940.

 

If that's not enough for you, then I don't know what is.

 

Superb arguments "for" and "against" WC.

 

Several clique members having different opinions on WC too, surely this doesn't happen?

 

I think to get a real take on WC you have to read books dedicated to the man or academic sources of his decisions he has made.

 

Most World War two books/documentaries, while accurate in other areas, unconcsiously romanticise him to a certain degree.

 

 

Can someone tell me what his great military failing was in the 1930s that almost ruined him as a politician and a military man. I'm sure it was in the Navy and his poor decision making sent a load of Brit's to their death.....even so, listening to his speeches and him being the man that took on Hitler, makes him great.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

I'm sure Rab Z and Kilgour would hate each other, but it explains your confusion. Your idea of what is right is your idea. Who is Shrek? And since I have studied the fiend SWC since my relations from the Scottish coalfields and the British Army alerted me to his hypocrisy, I am still eager for you (a Churchill lioniser) to answer my questions. Dundee, Clementine (you know the tune).

 

It was addressed to the officers of the 6th on the day he left the Battalion. Was it sincere? Who knows? He was reluctant to leave even though the Battalion was to be amalgamated with another due to shortages and he had not been chosen as its commanding officer.

 

Are you the worlds leading expert on hypocrisy, then? You've got a high opinion of yourself. And I'm not a lioniser. I have made a careful study of him 'warts and all' and I have come to the conclusion that great men have great flaws. I think you expect perfection and have become bitter due to not finding it anywhere.

 

My Grandad thought he was marvellous, possibly due to the fact that Winston sanctioned Lord Gorts decision to get the BEF back and therefore probably saved his life.

 

I have a brother who was a Bootneck and thinks Winston was the greatest. Nothing in the Corps alerted him to his hypocrisy.

 

What special knowledge do you have?

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

Superb arguments "for" and "against" WC.

 

Several clique members having different opinions on WC too, surely this doesn't happen?

 

I think to get a real take on WC you have to read books dedicated to the man or academic sources of his decisions he has made.

 

Most World War two books/documentaries, while accurate in other areas, unconcsiously romanticise him to a certain degree.

 

 

Can someone tell me what his great military failing was in the 1930s that almost ruined him as a politician and a military man. I'm sure it was in the Navy and his poor decision making sent a load of Brit's to their death.....even so, listening to his speeches and him being the man that took on Hitler, makes him great.

 

 

Scott, some of us HAVE read and made a study of him... some patently have not!!

 

He was blamed for Gallipoli, even though an official enquiry exonerated him in 1917. It was his idea but the final details were taken out of his hands and the military leaders on the scene made a botch of it. Winston was made scapegoat.

 

I've already listed a number of great books on the subject. They are subjective, all of them even Martin Gilbert.

 

Avoid so-called 'revisionists'. They have their own agendas.

[scott_jambo]

Scott, some of us HAVE read and made a study of him... some patently have not!!

 

He was blamed for Gallipoli, even though an official enquiry exonerated him in 1917. It was his idea but the final details were taken out of his hands and the military leaders on the scene made a botch of it. Winston was made scapegoat.

 

I've already listed a number of great books on the subject. They are subjective, all of them even Martin Gilbert.

 

Avoid so-called 'revisionists'. They have their own agendas.

 

FW, there is no doubt that WInston Churchill has had his successes but also his mistakes/failures.

 

I think a lot of people would argue that the arguments in support of WC are more 'revisionist'. From what I hear, he wasn't as popular during his tenure as he is now looking back.

 

It is clear that you have read up alot on his life and it interests you, Shaun was also asked to provide a criticial analysis - I think with both points of view, certain prejudices show and both are not entirely objective.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

FW, there is no doubt that WInston Churchill has had his successes but also his mistakes/failures.

 

I think a lot of people would argue that the arguments in support of WC are more 'revisionist'. From what I hear, he wasn't as popular during his tenure as he is now looking back.

 

It is clear that you have read up alot on his life and it interests you, Shaun was also asked to provide a criticial analysis - I think with both points of view, certain prejudices show and both are not entirely objective.

 

 

I was subjective in retorting Shauns's views.

 

I could list my own views in that if it had not been for Lord Alanbrooke, we might have lost the war because he spent far too much time holding back Winston's more crazed ideas like invading Europe through Portugal and Norway.

 

The generalised negative views of Churchill on this thread appear to me to be misinformed and based on 'myths' passed down. When you review the facts, you come to startlingly different conclusions.

 

He made mistakes, was a poor judge at times of character. For example, he chose wrongly in his desert generals, convinced that because Auchinleck, Cunningham, Rirchie and Gott all looked like the classical British Generals ie. tall upright Guardsmen, then they would do the job. He was wrong in every choice and it was Alanbrooke who convinced him to choose Montgomery. And only after Gott, the original replacement was killed in an aircrash.

 

He did not like Monty because Monty took his time and would not be bullied. Churchill was a bully but the diference was he admitted his mistakes and would always seek ways to make amends. And he always in the end listened to advice, though he nearly drove his chiefs mad.

 

Another really good book you should get is 'Churchill and Hitler: Secrets of Leadership' by Andrew Roberts. Its a well written and at times amusing look at the differences in styles and you will get a few surprises.

[The White Cockade]

He may have had plenty of faults and made many mistakes but he is the only leader who could have taken the

country through WW2

He was good in a crisis but maybe not so hot in more normal times but he was there when we needed him in those

dark days

[Big D]

It was addressed to the officers of the 6th on the day he left the Battalion. Was it sincere? Who knows? He was reluctant to leave even though the Battalion was to be amalgamated with another due to shortages and he had not been chosen as its commanding officer.

 

Are you the worlds leading expert on hypocrisy, then? You've got a high opinion of yourself. And I'm not a lioniser. I have made a careful study of him 'warts and all' and I have come to the conclusion that great men have great flaws. I think you expect perfection and have become bitter due to not finding it anywhere.

 

My Grandad thought he was marvellous, possibly due to the fact that Winston sanctioned Lord Gorts decision to get the BEF back and therefore probably saved his life.

 

I have a brother who was a Bootneck and thinks Winston was the greatest. Nothing in the Corps alerted him to his hypocrisy.

 

What special knowledge do you have?

My knowledge isn't special. Anyone with a brain can read about what a shite SWC was. Any chance of you answering questions rather than doing a SWC and ignoring the inconvenient truth? Let's start with your quote. Wife, regiment and constituency. How many of them were his choice? You do know why Coppolla chose the name Kilgour?

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

My knowledge isn't special. Anyone with a brain can read about what a shite SWC was. Any chance of you answering questions rather than doing a SWC and ignoring the inconvenient truth? Let's start with your quote. Wife, regiment and constituency. How many of them were his choice? You do know why Coppolla chose the name Kilgour?

 

 

This harping on about whether a quote was genuinely heartfelt or just a piece of theatre is a bit odd.

 

How do I know? Do you think I have some special knowledge?

 

And Kilgour was reputedly based on Colonel David Hackworth.

 

Or do you know something different?

[Big D]

The defence of the indefensible is hard work. But well done for trying. Any chance you can answer my questions or is your inability to tell fact from theatre undermining your argument that reported quotes are proof of greatness. SWC was an evil man and 5 lucky years fought against his hero cannot change that. The rumour that he was a ******* relation to the Mitfords has an appeal to those that despise him.

[stirlo]

Roy Jenkins did a very good biography. Well worth a read, and moves fast unlike many political books.

 

 

 

.

 

I could strongly recommend this book as well - its a long book but you're unlikely to get bored.

[Barney Rubble]

Great orator talking us through ww11 yeah but a leader nah ! bipolar schizophrenic freak taking us to the brink ABSOLUTELY !

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

The defence of the indefensible is hard work. But well done for trying. Any chance you can answer my questions or is your inability to tell fact from theatre undermining your argument that reported quotes are proof of greatness. SWC was an evil man and 5 lucky years fought against his hero cannot change that. The rumour that he was a ******* relation to the Mitfords has an appeal to those that despise him.

 

 

You're either pissed or stark raving mad.