NationStates Jolt Archive

I have the great honour of writing a brief obituary for Winston Churchill who died 40 years ago on this day.

Born on the 30th November 1874, he was son of Lord Randolph Churchill (who was later briefly Chancellor of Exchequer under the Salisbury government) and Jennie Jerome, the daughter of a rich New York businessman. The Churchill family was an off shoot of the Marlborough duchy, won all those years ago by the great John Churchill, the First Duke of Marlborough. As a child he showed remarkably little promise at Harrow, although he had a tremendous aptitude for history and the written word. His father deemed him too dim to be entered into Oxford or Cambridge and so the young Winston joined the army, becoming a second lieutenant (or coronet to give it the correct calavry term) in the 4th Hussars. They were positioned in India where he spent a remarkably small amount of time - the time he spent there was spent mostly on becoming a polo champion. However his talents with the written word were soon to play a greater part in his life - he became a military journalist and wrote high profile pieces for high profile papers including the coverage of the Battle of Omdurman in Sudan. On similar duites, he went to the Boer War where he was later captured after heroically defending the derailed train he was riding with little more than a pistol. He then escaped the POW camp and made his way across miles of enemy terrority to the nearest friendly town.

On returning to England in 1900, he became a Conservative MP. However he was not to remain so. He was swung from his 'hereditary' Conservatism to Liberalism by the destructive Free Trade debate and became active in the desire for social reform. In 1905 he defected to the Liberals and was elected in a Manchester seat in 1906. The Campbell-Bannerman administration quickly realised his talents and promoted him to Under Secretary for the Colonies. Asquith then became Prime Minister and made Churchill President of the Board of Trade. In 1908 he married his long suffering but ever devoted wife, Clementine. In 1910 he was made Home Secretary where he continued his passion for liberal social reform by changing the prison service. However he was harshly criticised for using soldiers to crush striking miners. By choice in 1911, he became First Lord of the Admirality, a post he held into the First World War.

The First World War was a low point in Churchill's life. In the early days he showed his outstanding personal bravery by taking part in the defence of Brussels and had to be evacuated. His first major action as First Lord was to propose the Gallipoli campaign against the errant Turks. As history has recorded, this campaign was a lamentable failure and the balme must be traced to the top. Churchill's constant arguments with his naval counterpart, Lord Fisher and his insistent refusal to adhere to the advice of his naval advisors, led to the botched mess that would cost so many British, French, Australian and New Zealander lives. He never fully accepted culpability for this failure and acted most irresponsible ways in trying to clear his name. He was demoted to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which he quickly resigned from. He returned to his old regiment as a Major and quickly became Colonel. he served briefly on the Western Frint, seeing at first hand the true misery of that hateful conflict. He retuned under David Llyod George as Minister for Munitions until the end of the war. He became Minister of War and Air (1919-20) and Colonial Secretary (1921-22) where his Iraqi campaign drew great criticisms. However he did demand a quick campaign with the Canadians against the fledging Soviet Union - had he been listened to, a great evil may have been stopped.

Churchill became disillusioned by the Liberal Party and its internal squabbles and rejoined the Conservative Party in 1924. Stanley Baldwin appointed Churchill Chancellor of the Exchequer in which his main achievement was the reintroduction of the Gold Standard which brought much needed stability and strength back to the wavering pound. The Baldwin administration lost power in 1929 and Churchill was to spend the next 10 years in political exile. He strongly opposed granting India home rule during that time but is most well known for being strongly determined to prevent appeasement of Nazi Germany.

In 1939 the Second World War broke out and a victorious Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. In 1940, Neville Chamberlain resigned and King George VI appointed Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister of Great Britain. His achievements during this time were countless. Through tireless diplomacy he brought America into the war. Through great leadership, he brought Britain fighting through the Blitz. His team skills were to prove invaluable when organising his coalition government which contained two future Prime Ministers. He brought Britain victory when defeat seemed all too close. For this noble action, he is remembered best. I have not the time nor the space to speak of all his achievements here.

In 1945 after the war, he was thrown out of office in a surprise Labour victory. To this day historians have problems understanding why this happened and there still no clear cut answer. However he was out of power until 1951 when he became Prime Minister once more. During this time, he oversaw the creation of a fledging European Union and observed the falling of the Iron Curtain. In 1955 he suffered a stroke and was forced from office. He was aged 81. He died on the 24th January 1965 and on the 30th January became the first non-royal of the 20th Century (other than the Unknown Soldier) to receive a public burial. He was brought down the Thames under naval guard and 325,000 people attended his wake.

Churchill's legacy is not just in his Prime Ministership of 1940 to 1945. He was much, much more than that. He was an extraordinary writer - he wrote countless books and newspaper articles. He was given the Nobel Prize the Literature, beating the famous American novelist Ernest Hemmingway. He held almost every senior cabinet position other than Foreign Secretary. He served under Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II. He did not leave office until the age of 81, after being a MP for 55 years. Margaret Thatcher called him the only true Tory until herself: what an irony for the man who swapped political allegiances not once but twice. In somethings he was not wise but his mistakes only endeared him more to a nation much in his debt. He was human which makes his achievements all the more astonishing. Many said that revisionist historians would attack Churchill in the years following his death and they have done but with no great effect. He was made the Greatest Briton by a BBC programme and his statue still stands proudly at the forefront of Parliament Square. His name is not just revered in Britain but everywhere throughout the world where it has become synonymous with courage, determination, leadership and defiance. To remember him I think it best to use his own words, although I doubt he would ever have applied them to himself:

"Never have so many owed so much to so few"
To Sir Winston Churchill

Very nice and fitting of the NS theme, man!

You could mention that he personally oversaw the Anarchist shootout in Sidney Street in 1911...yep...he played to the cameras back then as well....

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/templates/news/detail.cfm?newsid=1033

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties
and so bear ourselves
that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years
men will still say
- This -
was their finest hour.


Victory
victory at all costs
victory in spite of all terror
victory however long and hard the road may be.


We shall fight in france
we shall fight on the seas and oceans
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air
we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be
we shall fight on the beaches
we shall fight on the landing grounds
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets
we shall fight in the hills
we shall never surrender.

Cheers to the greatest man of the 20th century, and one of the greatest who has ever lived.

My great grandad hated him with a passion for bringing in the army to break the miner's strike in the 20s. And he was a tory.

Did a lot of good things for the country, and made some excellent speeches. But was he the greatest Briton of the century? I'm not too sure.

You could mention that he personally oversaw the Anarchist shootout in Sidney Street in 1911...yep...he played to the cameras back then as well....

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/templates/news/detail.cfm?newsid=1033
Do not speak ill of the dead. Especially not this one around this period.

It might be true, but some people would rather kick your head in rather then hear the truth.

My great grandad hated him with a passion for bringing in the army to break the miner's strike in the 20s. And he was a tory.


Did he actually do that?

I kknew he had grand plans of deploying tanks, machine guns etc etc.... But wasn't sure if he carried them out.

You know, the annual Dance on Churchill's Grave never gets as big a turnout as is expected?

I wonder, will people refuse to dance my grave even if I invite them?

You know, the annual Dance on Churchill's Grave never gets as big a turnout as is expected?

I wonder, will people refuse to dance my grave even if I invite them?
He he.

I think there'll be plenty of volunteers to dance on mine, especially after I defended the protesters that 'defaced' Churchill's statue a few years back.

He he.

I think there'll be plenty of volunteers to dance on mine, especially after I defended the protesters that 'defaced' Churchill's statue a few years back.

I danced on my own grave once. It was actually pretty fun.

Three cheers for Churchill.

A truly great man in a troubled time.

Damn you for questioning me Conceptualists :P I can't find corroberating evidence to make sure either way. The majority of information is from biased Churchil biographies which skirt over any possible negative details.
What i do know for sure is this:

There was a miners strike in 1921 (before the bigger strike in '25 and the general strike in '26) which saw soldiers despatched to working class areas. Churchill was Colonial Secretary at the time i believe, so i'm dubious as to how much effect he had

In '25 there was then the second strike, and the army/navy was put on standby. the threat was there but i'm not sure if they were ever sent in to the picket lines - in the end it wasn't needed

New British Glory - by all the accounts i've read the re-introduction of the Gold Standard artificially inflated the British economy and was a key part in the problems that followed as worker's pay was cut. not too sure in which ways that ranks as a success?

Cheers to the greatest man of the 20th century, and one of the greatest who has ever lived.
who would be considered a madman has a world war have not been preceding

who would be considered a madman has a world war have not been preceding

So I take it you'll be joining the Dance this year?

New British Glory - by all the accounts i've read the re-introduction of the Gold Standard artificially inflated the British economy and was a key part in the problems that followed as worker's pay was cut. not too sure in which ways that ranks as a success?
Damnit, I really should have commented on that.

It was a major factor in the General Strike (but not the only one)

Very well done, but I wonder, do you not think you gave him a litle to much credit?

Very well done, but I wonder, do you not think you gave him a litle to much credit?
He isn't worth a bucket of spit imo.

Winnie was a pretty good bloke. He should have been quicker to let the Aussies go home from the Med & defend Australia though.

who would be considered a madman has a world war have not been preceding

As quite a throughly well read Churchill historian I shall say this:

The Miners strike to which you refer was during 1910 when he was Home Secretary and brashly used the Army. However the incident has long been exaggerated by socialists and Labour officials. While foolhardy, it was a reaction from a relatively inexperienced cabinet official and quite possibly a relatively inexperienced man. He was only 36 and still had a lot to learn from life.

The Gold Standard being reintroduced is one of those issues that can be seen from many angles. The value of reintroducing the gold standard to currency had more than just economic benefits: it estbalished public faith in the pound and help it recover some strenght and stability during the period of international depression.

As for Churchill always hogging the camera - if that is something to be criticised for then most of humanity is also to be criticised. You can't take a camera anyway without desperate individuals trying to get on TV. Look at reality TV for example.

As for a mad man whose career was made by the 2nd World War, that claim is not only insulting but far from true. He was before the 2nd World War:

Under Secretary for the Colonies (Liberal)
President of the Board of Trade (Liberal)
Home Secretary (Liberal)
First Lord of the Admiralty (Liberal)
Minister for Munitions (Liberal)
Minister for the Airforce (Liberal)
Secretary for the Colonies (Liberal)
Chancellor of the Exchequer (Conservative)

Madmen generally dont do this well. Also his writing career made him just as famous. He wrote many, many history books all of which won him critical acclaim and are still being sold today. I myself just bought a copy of his masterpiece, A History of English Speaking Peoples. His only ficitional novel was so popular it has been reprinted several times. As already mentioned, he beat Ernest Hemmingway (Of To Kill a Mockingbird fame) when he won his Nobel Prize for Literature. He also wrote thousands of pieces for almost all of the British papers and some American ones.

To the mod: thank you. You could have left my thread alone. Instead you descend upon my tribute to a great man with your patronising spelling lesson. A fine example of all mods.

He isn't worth a bucket of spit imo.

I'd say you're being generous.

Sorry, I did not want to edit the title without checking which meaning you were looking for; I thought perhaps you would want it corrected as it is a fine article on Mr. Churchill. It's the English teacher in me -- I would not have bothered if I had not thought it well written.

I'll delete the post.

1910? Thanks, that explains why i found nothing specific in my research. Whetehr it was exagerated or not i dont know - all i know was that my great-grandfather was there and had very strong views on the subject.

However, Churchill definately did a lot of good for the country - especially during the Second World War - and that deserves to be recognised. Thanks for an interesting piece, if perhaps 'slightly' biased ;)

He isn't worth a bucket of spit imo.


What the hell is an "imo"? Is that english slang for something or a word?

Do not speak ill of the dead.
Does that mean you will never again curse at Hitler or Stalin? :D

<snip> As already mentioned, he beat Ernest Hemmingway (Of To Kill a Mockingbird fame) when he won his Nobel Prize for Literature. <snip>

Harper Lee wrote to To Kill a Mockingbird, not Hemmingway.

What the hell is an "imo"? Is that english slang for something or a word?
In my opinion.


Does that mean you will never again curse at Hitler or Stalin?

Well, not around Neo-Nazi or Stalinist thugs anyway. ;)

Churchill was a proponent of social welfare leading up to the second world war and in fact made a proposal for a NHS just before leaving office the first time.

Churchill's conduct as Prime Minister during the Second World War when his oratory did immeasurable ammounts to keep up the morale of the british people makes the complaints of bitter and small minded nit-pickers regarding unimportant issues like miners' strikes beneath contempt.

Recall as well that he is one of the better historical writers of all time.

Ah yes, how I admire Churchill...a great man...a great man.


He also has some of the greates quotes of all time.

Ah yes, how I admire Churchill...a great man...a great man.


He also has some of the greates quotes of all time.

Well personally I prefer ones like

"It's better to die on your knees , than live on your knees" - Emiliano Zapata

"To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated over, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighted, censored, ordered about by men who have neither right, nor knowledge, nor virtue. . . It is to be, on the pretext of the general interest, taxed, drilled, held to ransom, exploited, monopolised, extorted, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the least resistance, at the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, abused, annoyed, followed, bullied, beaten, disarmed, garrotted, imprisoned, machine-gunned, judged, condemned, deported, flayed, sold, betrayed and finally mocked, ridiculed, insulted, dishonoured. That is government, that is its justice, that is its morality.’
8. ‘the government of man by man, under whatever name it is disguised is oppression: the high perfection of society consists of the union of order and anarchy." - Proudon

As two examples.

"Never have so many owed so much to so few" - Sir Winston Churchill

To which one RAF pilot commented to his buddies, "He must be talking about our bar tab."

He also has some of the greates quotes of all time.

Such as:

on eugenics -
"The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate... I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed."

on gassing the Kurdish people -
"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."

on International Jewry -
""First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life, and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them...In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their fathers...This worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation..."

Winston Churchill - In Memorandum

IN MEMORIAM, shurely?

IN MEMORIAM, shurely?
Well Katganistan already noted that, but for some reason felt it prudent to delete the post.

:confused:

Do not speak ill of the dead. Especially not this one around this period.

It might be true, but some people would rather kick your head in rather then hear the truth.

I thought I was being circumspect! :)

As for the kicking in of the head...well I am a Leeds fan who is vehemently anti racist....! So used to that happening! LOL

Some of his best quotes:

"The Americans always do the right thing... once they run out of alternatives."

"Socialism is like a dream, at some point you wake up to reality."

Lady Astor: "Churchill, you're drunk."
Churchill: "In the morning I'll be sober, you'll be ugly for the rest of your life."

Lady Astor: "Churchill, if I was your wife, I'd put poison in your coffee."
Churchill: "Lady Astor, if I was your husband, I'd drink it!"


*I believe they are genuine, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!

Chruchill kicked ass! Hysterical man. My fave quote was some woman saying

I'd poision your tea if you were my husband to which the wonderful PM replied Madam if I were your husband I would drink it!!

Churchill was a criminal. Look at the way he treated Poland during and after the war. Anyone who sells out a major ally like that doesn't deserve respect.

Churchill was a criminal. Look at the way he treated Poland during and after the war. Anyone who sells out a major ally like that doesn't deserve respect.

How ill informed you are.

Churchill asked Stalin constantly to leave Poland alone as their many communiques show. During the conventions they had, Stalin and Churchill would always end up arguing over the fate of Poland. He did not rest until Stalin finally assured him he had every intention of setting up a democratic government - a deal that Stalin not Churchill broke. Churchill never forgave Stalin or the Soviet Union for it.

After the D-Day landing, Churchill urged the American generals to move faster so they could move into Poland and at least save half of it from the Soviets. However the American generals were entirely ignorant of European politics and so instead decided to go as slow as possible. So thanks to them Vienna and Berlin were lost and the Iron Curtain did descend.

And might I remind you that is for Poland's liberty that Britain entered the war in the first place, a war which we had no interest in fighting nor any pressing need to fight. Hitler was an anglophile and respected the British. It is doubtful he would have attacked them until he was much, much stronger. So don't go on about Britain abadoning Poland - we gave our blood and our Empire so we could save it. But due to our allies duplicity we failed.

Then he's stupid too, if he gave the fate of the nation to a monster like Stalin. Who said it was his to give anyway?

The original treaty was broken (there was supposed to be attacks on Germany within 2 weeks), And the only reason they put that treaty in place was to curb Germany's expansion.

This was the man who gave Britain the courage to sacrifice its Empire, its future, its prosperity, its people, its wealth, and almost even its soul, in order to save the world from the monster that was Hitler. He was, despite all socialist biases against him (I am one, I would know), one of the greatest men to walk this Earth - made ever the greater because of his failings; otherwise, how could he be human?

Today is a sad day in the history of mankind. We owe this man our lives, our freedoms, and our history.

This was the man who gave Britain the courage to sacrifice its Empire, its future, its prosperity, its people, its wealth, and almost even its soul, in order to save the world from the monster that was Hitler. He was, despite all socialist biases against him (I am one, I would know), one of the greatest men to walk this Earth - made ever the greater because of his failings; otherwise, how could he be human?

Today is a sad day in the history of mankind. We owe this man our lives, our freedoms, and our history.
We owe the people who fought day in day out, whether it be on the ground, at sea, or in the air our lives. We owe Churchill...a pat on the back for a few choice words.
If it weren't for the Second World War people would have forgot about one Winston S Churchill and would the world really be any the poorer of doing so...?

Then he's stupid too, if he gave the fate of the nation to a monster like Stalin. Who said it was his to give anyway?

The original treaty was broken (there was supposed to be attacks on Germany within 2 weeks), And the only reason they put that treaty in place was to curb Germany's expansion.

You know, if you read a tad about the end of the war in Europe, you'd realize that the 6 million man front of the Red Army had long swept through Poland; its not like Churchill or Roosevelt (well at that point Truman) could kindly ask Stalin to give Poland back. The Soviet arguement was along the lines of "we need a strong, friendly Poland (meaning one under total Soviet domination) in order to prevent any nation from rising to invade Russia again." Over 20 million dead Soviets was a pretty effective arguement of that princciple... so what were the Western Allies to do?

We owe the people who fought day in day out, whether it be on the ground, at sea, or in the air our lives. We owe Churchill...a pat on the back for a few choice words.
If it weren't for the Second World War people would have forgot about one Winston S Churchill and would the world really be any the poorer of doing so...?
You, good sir, are a Took.

Britain came THIS * * close to surrendering to Hitler after France fell. If Winnie hadn't managed to convince them to keep on fighting, chances are the Swastika would be flying over Buckingham Palace right now. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are only as good as the people who lead them.

And no, they would not. People have still not forgotten the whole Gallipoli campaign, orchestrated by one Winston Churchill. And yes, the world would be poorer, for it would have lost an orator and a leader the likes of which has yet to be matched.

Ahh, yes. They go to war to fight for poland, as one person says, and then when russia takes over they don't bother. Great logic.

You, good sir, are a Took.

Britain came THIS * * close to surrendering to Hitler after France fell. If Winnie hadn't managed to convince them to keep on fighting, chances are the Swastika would be flying over Buckingham Palace right now. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are only as good as the people who lead them.

And no, they would not. People have still not forgotten the whole Gallipoli campaign, orchestrated by one Winston Churchill. And yes, the world would be poorer, for it would have lost an orator and a leader the likes of which has yet to be matched.
Britain did indeed come close to surrender, but not as close as you would like to believe. There were other people who could have led Britain to victory, not just Churchill.
Yes, soldiers, sailors and airmen are only as good as the people who lead them so, as usual, rather than going for obvious results Churchill often went for personality. If it weren't for Hugh Dowding we would have been more likely to have lost to Germany because it was he who stopped Churchill sending needed fighters over to assist the during the Battle of France rather than securing the Home Front. It was Beaverbrook, not Churchill, who got this country on a war footing. It was Churchills generals and military advisors who got this country through the war. Churchill was there, yes, but he is not the Great Leader people remember.

Yes, most people have forgot about Gallipoli, sadly, the complete farce that it was. Were it not for his opportune timing at the start of the Second World War he would be remembered only as a politician who couldn't make up his mind where he stood on most ideals (switching between the Liberals and Conservatives). This is how he would have been remembered..."The Butcher of Gallipoli", instead (as I already accepted) he is remembered for his speeches, most of whom were written for him.

Churchill was a criminal. Look at the way he treated Poland during and after the war. Anyone who sells out a major ally like that doesn't deserve respect.


You ought perhaps to learn a bit about who you slander before you get on all fours and commence.

Churchill was of the strong belief that Poland ought to be protected and its autonomy kept intact, in fact it was because of Britain's treaty to defend poland that it declared war on germany.

We owe the people who fought day in day out, whether it be on the ground, at sea, or in the air our lives. We owe Churchill...a pat on the back for a few choice words.
If it weren't for the Second World War people would have forgot about one Winston S Churchill and would the world really be any the poorer of doing so...?


What sort of idiot judges a man on fantastic flights of imagination like "what if world war two never happened" ?

Gallipoli could have worked had the invasion begun right after the initial attempt to bombard the straits by the Navy failed. The Turks realized a landing was likely coming and I believe trippled the troops manning the peninsula.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is, the Western allies could NOT repeat could NOT dislodge the Red Army from Poland by any means; as for going to war for Poland, it was a matter of honor; however the main reason was to stop German expansion and domination over Europe, as it became clear that the policy of appeasement had failed so disastrously as to be discarded wholly.

What sort of idiot judges a man on fantastic flights of imagination like "what if world war two never happened" ?

Thats a very good point u can't just ignore 6 years of total war. Under that logic you could start arguig Hitler was a nice guy who drew pictures, no need to mention the third reich.

On the mater of Poland everyone was surprised at the speed Poland fell. The allies were preparing to attack but in reality there was no way britain and France could directly aid Poland. The only real reason we gave that guarantee was because chamberlaine was pissed off when Hitler broke his word and invaded the czech bit of czechoslavakia ( the sudeten land having already been taken). Many historians would argue if we hadn'yt got involved and hadn't guaranteed Poland Hitler would not have immediately turned on us and instaed continued his quest for Lebensraum and attack Russia.

Churchill was a great wartime leader who rallied a nation from near defeat. It was indeed dowding who was resonsible for reorgansiing the RAF and making it the fighting force it was but no leader can take sole responsibility for a war, they all have advisors or important figures taking care of important areas. No man is an Island

On the mater of Poland everyone was surprised at the speed Poland fell. The allies were preparing to attack but in reality there was no way britain and France could directly aid Poland. The only real reason we gave that guarantee was because chamberlaine was pissed off when Hitler broke his word and invaded the czech bit of czechoslavakia ( the sudeten land having already been taken). Many historians would argue if we hadn'yt got involved and hadn't guaranteed Poland Hitler would not have immediately turned on us and instaed continued his quest for Lebensraum and attack Russia.


Wrong. They estimated that Poland would fall in 2 weeks - That's why part of the treaty involved attacks BEFORE the 2 weeks. Did it happen? No. Also, he would've turned on you anyway. It's just delaying the inevitable.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is, the Western allies could NOT repeat could NOT dislodge the Red Army from Poland by any means; as for going to war for Poland, it was a matter of honor; however the main reason was to stop German expansion and domination over Europe, as it became clear that the policy of appeasement had failed so disastrously as to be discarded wholly.

Ahh, but they could dislodge them. The armies (including the second polish corps) were all very close to germany - it wouldv'e taken hardly any time to attack Russia over Poland.

I find it amusing that Britain, America and Russia were the only countries involved over where Poland belonged. They GAVE Poland to the Soviets.

You´ll need to mention his dark sides - the ones already mentioned by others. In fact, he´s probably a war criminal just like his buddy Bomber Harris. Of course, being on the victor´s side he´ll never be charged for it.

Otherwise, your little obituary is a piece of revisionism. Sorry.

Ahh, but they could dislodge them. The armies (including the second polish corps) were all very close to germany - it wouldv'e taken hardly any time to attack Russia over Poland.

I find it amusing that Britain, America and Russia were the only countries involved over where Poland belonged. They GAVE Poland to the Soviets.

So are u suggestuing that after Britain had fought for 6 hard years and when france had only just been liberated we should ahve gone and attacked the USSR? The public was sick of war and the armed forces were in deperate need of peace (not to mention the economy). The matter of Poland was a major issue and both the Yalta and Potsdam confreece. It was one of the key points they argued over. Every step of the way churchill was fighting for a free poland. I would hotly dispute we 'gave' Poland to anyone.

Also as for Churchill being considered a war criminal It was a world war. desperate times call for desperate measures. I can'ty think of a single country taht hasn't taken 'despearte' measures in a time of major crisis.

edit - O and while were talking about the Poland guarntee of 1939, in a churchill thread i'd like to point out that Churchill wasn't even PM then.

Britain did indeed come close to surrender, but not as close as you would like to believe. There were other people who could have led Britain to victory, not just Churchill.
Yes, soldiers, sailors and airmen are only as good as the people who lead them so, as usual, rather than going for obvious results Churchill often went for personality. If it weren't for Hugh Dowding we would have been more likely to have lost to Germany because it was he who stopped Churchill sending needed fighters over to assist the during the Battle of France rather than securing the Home Front. It was Beaverbrook, not Churchill, who got this country on a war footing. It was Churchills generals and military advisors who got this country through the war. Churchill was there, yes, but he is not the Great Leader people remember.

Yes, most people have forgot about Gallipoli, sadly, the complete farce that it was. Were it not for his opportune timing at the start of the Second World War he would be remembered only as a politician who couldn't make up his mind where he stood on most ideals (switching between the Liberals and Conservatives). This is how he would have been remembered..."The Butcher of Gallipoli", instead (as I already accepted) he is remembered for his speeches, most of whom were written for him.
That's what a leader does, listens to his people and if they are strong enough and convince him he changes his mind. Of course his generals etc had a lot to do with the success he had, he could hardly fight the might of Germany by himself.
And his best quote when he defected to the Tory party and was being critisised for it: 'It does not matter what nag you take out the stable as long as you win the race.'

Yes. You did give it to stalin. The talks about Postwar Poland were ONLY between Russia, Britain and America. Why wasn't Poland invited to discuss their own country? In the end, Churchill took the easy and cruel way out and gave Poland to the soviets. Churchill condemned Poland to communism and hardship under Stalin. That's why he's a criminal. You say it's a matter of honour that you fought for Poland. Why didn't you finish it? Nice sense of honour you've got...

Yes. You did give it to stalin. The talks about Postwar Poland were ONLY between Russia, Britain and America. Why wasn't Poland invited to discuss their own country? In the end, Churchill took the easy and cruel way out and gave Poland to the soviets. Churchill condemned Poland to communism and hardship under Stalin. That's why he's a criminal. You say it's a matter of honour that you fought for Poland. Why didn't you finish it? Nice sense of honour you've got...

Right....

Churchill says to Stalin - no you cannot have Poland.

Stalin says to Churchill - How many battle hardened divisions do YOU have in Poland?

Churchill - oh bugger

Yes. You did give it to stalin. The talks about Postwar Poland were ONLY between Russia, Britain and America. Why wasn't Poland invited to discuss their own country? In the end, Churchill took the easy and cruel way out and gave Poland to the soviets. Churchill condemned Poland to communism and hardship under Stalin. That's why he's a criminal. You say it's a matter of honour that you fought for Poland. Why didn't you finish it? Nice sense of honour you've got...
UK debts of the war...billions
US debts....weh hey made a profit
Polands debts...none
There were alot of factors in play.

Poland did have debts. They had heaps because of the second polish corps that were created in russia, to America and Britain.

Er. Britain could've threatened Russia with war, rather than chicken out. I love the whole British Honour system. "Help someone if you're honour bound, unless you don't want to."

Poland did have debts. They had heaps because of the second polish corps that were created in russia, to America and Britain.

Er. Britain could've threatened Russia with war, rather than chicken out. I love the whole British Honour system. "Help someone if you're honour bound, unless you don't want to."

errrr threaten with nothing to back that threat up :rolleyes:

hint - go read some history then come back and we'll start again

Ahh, yes, nice ad hominem.

Are you trying to tell me that there were no British forces anywhere? You don't just threaten someone with war. You move your forces into position first.

So you wanted Britain which by the end of the war was a relatively weak power, with a worn out army and depleted airforce to move troops into position and threaten what was becoming a world superpower.
Yer thats a good idea

If America and Britain challenged Russia, chances are there wouldn't be a cold war/a shorter one. It only really needed Britain to do it, because then America would get drawn in (close ties with Britain, + more money) and who knows, maybe even France wouldv'e joined (Poland and France had good ties).

Yes. You did give it to stalin. The talks about Postwar Poland were ONLY between Russia, Britain and America. Why wasn't Poland invited to discuss their own country? In the end, Churchill took the easy and cruel way out and gave Poland to the soviets. Churchill condemned Poland to communism and hardship under Stalin. That's why he's a criminal. You say it's a matter of honour that you fought for Poland. Why didn't you finish it? Nice sense of honour you've got...

O and about that Chrchill was voted out of power half way through the potsdam conference which would have beena bout July 1945 so he didnt have much of achance.

Poland was just one of amny countries taken over by the Russians. This was a meeting between the allie leadership they couldnt invite every m,inor country that had been invaded.

Minor?! It was the fourth largest allied army, if the Polish pilots hadn't fought in the BoB (battle of Britain) then there wouldn't be a Britain anymore (over 100 pilots added just because of Poland).

If America and Britain challenged Russia, chances are there wouldn't be a cold war/a shorter one. It only really needed Britain to do it, because then America would get drawn in (close ties with Britain, + more money) and who knows, maybe even France wouldv'e joined (Poland and France had good ties).
Yes the US would join in after the first three years or so.
And when did Poland pay the UK back it's dents?... never. The Uk pay the last war debts to our US 'friends' in 2006!

And why couldn't Poland pay it back? Because it was abandoned, hell, HANDED OVER ON A SILVER PLATTER to the communists.

Minor?! It was the fourth largest allied army, if the Polish pilots hadn't fought in the BoB (battle of Britain) then there wouldn't be a Britain anymore (over 100 pilots added just because of Poland).
Oh yes! So the whole war fought to defend Poland, the UK loses and empire, sells US stock to the US at 5 to 10 cents in the dollar (nice mates there!) and you want them to do more! Maybe the UK population could all walk to the coast and open thier wrists! Would that be enough for you!

Funny that you don't mention the fact that he supported Eugenics and pardoned nazi war criminals.

Funny that you don't mention the fact that he supported Eugenics and pardoned nazi war criminals.
We all make mistakes, but at least he did not whisk them off and offer them a new and well paid life in a free land, with new identities.

Dude, it doesn't stop the fact that Britain GAVE Poland to the soviets. And yes, they shoul've. They had a debt of honour to pay to the Poles, who fought so hard and were betrayed for the Allied cause and a restored Poland.

He didn't have to, he pardoned them. As in "Your free to go". Apparently crimes against Italians dont count :rolleyes:

Funny that you don't mention the fact that he supported Eugenics and pardoned nazi war criminals.
there is also a difference between thinking something in theory is a good idea and activley putting a program into place.

We all make mistakes, but at least he did not whisk them off and offer them a new and well paid life in a free land, with new identities.

A mistake? That's not a mistake.

He didn't have to, he pardoned them. As in "Your free to go". Apparently crimes against Italians dont count :rolleyes:
How about Italian crimes against Italians? Funny when you go there no ones' grandfather ever fought against the allies!

there is also a difference between thinking something in theory is a good idea and activley putting a program into place.
Actually he did try to get a Eugenics program in place in England.

A mistake? That's not a mistake. I think it was. I think all the people who commited war crimes should have faced trial, including the Chec people who paid for jews to be taken away, the French that helped round up jews, those that were british yet supported the Nazis, those IRA terrorist who helped the Nazis in thier war efforts etc... But then you have the expense of the investigations and the trials and then the prisons. Or you could just skip all that and set up a prison on Cuba!

Actually he did try to get a Eugenics program in place in England.
Evidence!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1568582587/qid=1106749299/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-7956642-6855330

I think it was. I think all the people who commited war crimes should have faced trial, including the Chec people who paid for jews to be taken away, the French that helped round up jews, those that were british yet supported the Nazis, those IRA terrorist who helped the Nazis in thier war efforts etc... But then you have the expense of the investigations and the trials and then the prisons.
First of all, did you just defend letting Nazi criminals go because of the cost of trying them? Rediculous. Second of all, this man was half way through the trial, Churchhill said he "fought honorably" and pardoned him. Unfortunately he wasn't on trial for that. Actively defending those who have commited war crimes...isn't that something you go to hell for?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1568582587/qid=1106749299/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-7956642-6855330
Have not read the book but since when was Churchill and American? And by proof I mean documentation not some historical fantasist making money from the past.

Have not read the book but since when was Churchill and American? And by proof I mean documentation not some historical fantasist making money from the past.
So your arguing that, because this source actually supports my argument, its a bad source. Using falacies like that I can prove anything never happened. :rolleyes:

Ahh, yes, nice ad hominem.

Are you trying to tell me that there were no British forces anywhere? You don't just threaten someone with war. You move your forces into position first.

oh purlease....telling someone to educate themselves on a subject they obviously know nothing about is not a personal attack! Grow a back bone :rolleyes:

I am telling you that after 6 years of war there was no chance that the British were in a position to take on the Soviet Army in Poland.

If you knew anything of the subject you would not even be persueing this line of questioning...hence go and read up on the subject and then come back.

But it was. I have read up on it. Nice second ad hominem, btw.

I've already said that America, and probably France would back them up, as well as the whole second Polish Corps.

So your arguing that, because this source actually supports my argument, its a bad source. Using falacies like that I can prove anything never happened. :rolleyes:
No what I am saying is that one book written clearly to point out some actions that may or may not have been planned in the US does not constitute evidence that Winston Churchill ever attempted to bring a program of that sort into play. References to house of commons statement, letters written etc, that would do.
So this book what are its quoted sourses of reference?

If America and Britain challenged Russia, chances are there wouldn't be a cold war/a shorter one. It only really needed Britain to do it, because then America would get drawn in (close ties with Britain, + more money) and who knows, maybe even France wouldv'e joined (Poland and France had good ties).

oh right...now its Britain AND America.....

good grief!

Actually Patton vigorously argued that they Should get the communists out of Europe. So americas involvement is certain if a conflict started. It should also be noted that 200,000 people fleeing the soviets in eastern europe were sent back by the English.

No what I am saying is that one book written clearly to point out some actions that may or may not have been planned in the US does not constitute evidence that Winston Churchill ever attempted to bring a program of that sort into play. References to house of commons statement, letters written etc, that would do.
So this book what are its quoted sourses of reference?
It has a hundred pages of references.

But it was. I have read up on it. Nice second ad hominem, btw.

I've already said that America, and probably France would back them up, as well as the whole second Polish Corps.
So you read up on how the Russian army swept what was left of the Germans before them, the millions of men and women they had to throw away, as that was how Stalin fought. You think France would stand up, why did they not do it first or the US? Because no one want the war to carry on, or for both sides to start using nuclear weapons etc. Great world that would have been.

So Britain and America want to get rid of a menace that kills people in the millions, yet they leave Stalin alone just because he helped for 3 years? How curious :)

It has a hundred pages of references. So name them!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So name them!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You want me....to transcribe...a hundred pages...to prove you are a dolt.

So you read up on how the Russian army swept what was left of the Germans before them, the millions of men and women they had to throw away, as that was how Stalin fought. You think France would stand up, why did they not do it first or the US? Because no one want the war to carry on, or for both sides to start using nuclear weapons etc. Great world that would have been.

Americans were the only ones with nukes. The fact is, that there were about 300,000 men that would've been fighting the russians. 300,000 well trained and equipped men + support vs the russian army, which had man power but next to no skill, and a leader who made sure that a certain percentage of the population were declared traitors every year. Russia was basically running on American military aid.

You want me....to transcribe...a hundred pages...to prove you are a dolt.
So you lose and argument and resort to insults, was that not what you were unhappy that Vonners was doing?
No Numpty, I want you to name one document or reference if your quoted book that states that Churchill was actively trying to introduce Eugenics into the UK. Not too hard for little old you is it? Can we read big books?
Show me the evidence and I am happy to change my stand on this, don't and shut the F up!

Anyone who thinks that Russia was in any condition to face America at the end of WWII is ignorant, a Stalinist or both.

But it was. I have read up on it. Nice second ad hominem, btw.

I've already said that America, and probably France would back them up, as well as the whole second Polish Corps.

Once again not a personal attack. But what the hell.

Patton suggested that the US take on the Soviets. He was quickly sidelined.

France....the french would never have gone for any kind of attack on the Russians. Just the fact that you mention this shows you have no knowledge of the subject. If you did you would have remember that many of the resistance groups were communist! DOH!

The whole of the Polish 2 Corp! Wow!!! Against what...30 or 40 Russian divisions.

Yeah right!

So you lose and argument and resort to insults, was that not what you were unhappy that Vonners was doing?
No, I never adressed Vonners...
No Numpty, I want you to name one document or reference if your quoted book that states that Churchill was actively trying to introduce Eugenics into the UK. Not too hard for little old you is it? Can we read big books?
Show me the evidence and I am happy to change my stand on this, don't and shut the F up!
I have shown you the evidence, you want evidence of the evidence, and probably even then, evidence of the evidence of the evidence. So fine lets see how you like this fallacy. I want you to prove to me WWII happened.

Anyone who thinks that Russia was in any condition to face America at the end of WWII is ignorant, a Stalinist or both.

This must be one of the most stupidest things I have ever read on this site.

Nearly as stupid as saying that the US would have taken on the Soviets on Pattons say so!

School kids.... :rolleyes:

I want you to prove to me WWII happened.

Ok I retract my previous post.

This is the most stupidest thing I have ever read on this site...and that includes the Patton thing.

This must be one of the most stupidest things I have ever read on this site.
Why? We had the Atomic bomb, they didn't. We had several times their industrial capacity. They had just lost 8 million soldiers, we had lost 300,000.

Nearly as stupid as saying that the US would have taken on the Soviets on Pattons say so!
Nicely misrepresenting my argument. I said that had a conflict broken out between the UK and U.S.S.R. we would have sided with the UK. But your to busty to adress what was actually said ;)

No, I never adressed Vonners...

I have shown you the evidence, you want evidence of the evidence, and probably even then, evidence of the evidence of the evidence. So fine lets see how you like this fallacy. I want you to prove to me WWII happened.
Can't be bothered don't argue with my own six year old so why should you be any different? Wasn't that the bell? Should you not be getting back? And pull those shorts up!

Ok I retract my previous post.

This is the most stupidest thing I have ever read on this site...and that includes the Patton thing.
See someone doesn't understand abstract concepts like "Rhetorical speaking"

Can't be bothered don't argue with my own six year old so why should you be any different? Wasn't that the bell? Should you not be getting back? And pull those shorts up!
So you just admitted your own tactic was bullshit. Nicely done.

So you just admitted your own tactic was bullshit. Nicely done.
NO I was simply saying when I ask a six year old to prove a wild statement I don't expect them to respond in an adult fashion, and you have proved that expectation to be correct.
If it is not too difficult for you to understand which it obviously is, I want to see one reference to a real document that supports your claims, not a book written years after the event. However if that book was a true study of history it would provide you with a list of the documentary evidence used!
So please go away TROLL !

But your to busty to adress what was actually said ;)

hey! Leave my bust out of this! LOL :)

NO I was simply saying when I ask a six year old to prove a wild statement I don't expect them to respond in an adult fashion, and you have proved that expectation to be correct.
If it is not too difficult for you to understand which it obviously is, I want to see one reference to a real document that supports your claims, not a book written years after the event. However if that book was a true study of history it would provide you with a list of the documentary evidence used!
So please go away!
I do not have the book on hand at the moment, but even assuming I did, what good would it do you? Are you seriously going to dig up the records to find what was said in parliment that day? If thats the case then fine, I'll call your bluff, look up the records of Parlimant, May 22nd 1906. Your splitting hairs trying to make some cheap defense. I have provided a source, now its your turn to provide some evidence that he was opposed to Eugenics.

I do not have the book on hand at the moment, but even assuming I did, what good would it do you? Are you seriously going to dig up the records to find what was said in parliment that day? If thats the case then fine, I'll call your bluff, look up the records of Parlimant, May 22nd 1906. Your splitting hairs trying to make some cheap defense. I have provided a source, now its your turn to provide some evidence that he was opposed to Eugenics.
Never said he was opposed to them, was simply asking you to show that he supported them, which you still have not. And there was alot of time between 1906 and when he came to power. you your self may change your views when you get older!

I do not have the book on hand at the moment, but even assuming I did, what good would it do you? Are you seriously going to dig up the records to find what was said in parliment that day? If thats the case then fine, I'll call your bluff, look up the records of Parlimant, May 22nd 1906. Your splitting hairs trying to make some cheap defense. I have provided a source, now its your turn to provide some evidence that he was opposed to Eugenics.
No I can find no record of any act re Eugenics being proposed during the 1906 sitting, no private members bills and no questions asked of the gov to introduce such a system. I will try to search his Biogs to see if there is any mention there in the many that have been written, I suggest you do the same and if you find one that has a mention of his support and participation let me know. Until then see ya!

Well do you have a transcript of that day? Untill then I have beaten your tactic of sticking your head in the sand.

Why? We had the Atomic bomb, they didn't. We had several times their industrial capacity. They had just lost 8 million soldiers, we had lost 300,000.


Nicely misrepresenting my argument. I said that had a conflict broken out between the UK and U.S.S.R. we would have sided with the UK. But your to busty to adress what was actually said ;)

Atom bomb yes....any chance of deployment...none. Why? Lack of air superiority. No chance of a mission over Soviet Airspace if there was a remotest chance of the bomb falling into Soviet hands.

Army size - the Soviet army was sitll massive compared to the US army directly after thewar

Industrial capacity - Was huge. Massive. The russians were churning out armaments on the same level as the US by the end of the war

IN MEMORIAM, shurely?
Well Katganistan already noted that, but for some reason felt it prudent to delete the post.

:confused:

I did in fact point that out and was treated to this:

To the mod: thank you. You could have left my thread alone. Instead you descend upon my tribute to a great man with your patronising spelling lesson. A fine example of all mods.

<snip> As already mentioned, he beat Ernest Hemmingway (Of To Kill a Mockingbird fame) when he won his Nobel Prize for Literature. <snip>

Harper Lee wrote to To Kill a Mockingbird, not Hemmingway.

I feel sure that you too, will be chastised for pointing this out. Please try to avoid confusing the issue with facts in the future. ;)

BTW, it's Hemingway.;) I hope that's not being too patronising?

I feel sure that you too, will be chastised for pointing this out. Please try to avoid confusing the issue with facts in the future. ;)

Sorry, must have missed that post.

Yes. You did give it to stalin. The talks about Postwar Poland were ONLY between Russia, Britain and America. Why wasn't Poland invited to discuss their own country? In the end, Churchill took the easy and cruel way out and gave Poland to the soviets. Churchill condemned Poland to communism and hardship under Stalin. That's why he's a criminal. You say it's a matter of honour that you fought for Poland. Why didn't you finish it? Nice sense of honour you've got...

That is simply and patently false.

Control of poland was determined by one factor: the soviet armies in poland.

I wonder indeed how many of churchills bitter slanderers here have even the vaguest idea of when he was PM.

For instance, directly after world war two ended, he was replaced as PM.

Also, in 1906 (35 years before he became prime minister), he was not in a position of power nor of the same social and political ideals which would motivate him in his years as PM.

Any serious student of history would dismiss out of hand an assertion so preposterous and based in fantasy as "churchill is a criminal because the soviets took control of poland."

General Patton was not President Patton.

Britain was in no place militarily to challange the soviets' control of poland, perhaps the american were, but they had no desire to. (culpability with those most or least able?)


Many people seem unaware the over churchills life he had ideas which he later changed his mind about. Many are unaware that he was a long time believer in social welfare, and shortly before the election which replaced him as PM proposed something similar to the NHS.

Whatever minor sins were committed by churchill in his relative youth are genuinely unimportant when compared to his singular greatness during the second world war and his genius at historical literature.

The contrarian nihilists who endlessly spread the mud of their lives onto his memory should be given no real consideration, they are either genuinely historically ignorant or incapable of coming to reasonable conclusions.

To those who critise Churchill:

You have attacked a memorial to a great man, made all the greater for his faults. There is not a person on this board who can claim to have achieved 1/10 of what he achieved in his lifetime. Once again I am compelled to go through a list for those so ignorant that they cannot pick up a half decent history book:

1. His list of ministerial positions is truly staggering: I don't think there has been any British statesman to hold so many Cabinet offices and excel at all of them. The only one he failed at was First Lord of the Admiralty because of the failed Gallipoli landings for which he must take the blame.

2. His two Prime Ministerships - the first being the most famous. A nation flagging from defeat looked up to their leadership and saw a noble and brave man. A man who they knew would never fail them, a man who would never turn his back on them, a man who would fight beside them until victory or death took him. They saw in him their salvation and so decided not to simply die. They did not sacrifice 1000 years of noble history to the Nazi aggressors. They fought and kicked and screamed their defiance and in doing so helped win the war. In history, those who raise morale are often more valued than numerical advatnage. Consider Wellington's well known motto: he would have preferred 50,000 extra French troops than having to fight against Napoleon himself. Consider the Battle of Assaye where 100,000 Indian troops were defeated by 10,000 British troops simply because of good morale. Consider the Battle of Britain where an out numbered and out gunned RAF beat back the Luftwaffe because they knew that they were fighting for all they loved and held dear. Churchill inspired that within them. He inspired their defiance. Without him Britain would have fell victim to the Nazi hordes and with Britain would have collapsed any American advantage.
In his second term he still showed the people what he was capable of. He predicted the fall of the Iron Curtain and began the fledging alliances of European defence.

3. The other day I bought the reprint of Churchill's History of English Speaking Peoples. A reprint after nearly 40 years of reprint. His novel is still well read. His histories of Marlborough, World War 1 and World War 2 are still highly valued historical sources. He won the Nobel Prize for Literature.

4. He has remarkable personnal bravery. He took part in the Battle of Omdurman in the Sudan. He fought in the Boer War where he valiantly defended the train he was travelling on and directed the staff on how to place it back on the rails. He was captured and then escaped running across the barren wastes of enemy Boer territory with little more than his wits. He joined the Western Front in 1915 and saw action there. He was one of the defenders of Brussells in 1914 before it fell to German occupation.

5. He was a family man of great proportions. He had close relations to his brother, cousin ('Sunny' Duke of Marlborough) and mother. He remained devoted to his wife Clementine throughout the entire length of his marriage and loved her not with a fierce passion but with a sincere depth - the sort of love that endeared him to the British people. He had several children and grandchildren, all of whom he did his best for.

6. Abadoning allies is a slanderous lie upon his noble reputation. To save Poland, he spent countless hours of diplomacy with both the Soviets and the Americans and risked favourable relations between himself and Stalin which were crucial to the war effort. He never abadoned Poland but when the entire 2 million of the Soviet Army invaded it, I sincerly doubt that even he could have performed the miracle of managing to turn his 1 million British army into an effective threat against Soviet occupation. Churchill did everything in his power to save Poland but alas even he could not prevent the duplicity if his allies and the sheer size of the Soviet occupation. He never abadoned France - he risked British lifes and British equipment to save as many French troops as possible at Dunkirk. He only needed to save the British but he stuck by his allies and helped as many of them escape as possible.

7. The points about eugenics and gassing Kurds are both ture: he did indeed make these speeches. However they are completely uncharacteristic if compared to his personality and the practices employed while he was in power. At a meeting between him, Roosevelt, Roosevelt's son and Stalin, Stalin suggested gassing 50,000 German prisoners of war as a joke. Roosevelt's son joked that it should only be 49000. Churchill replied that he and the British people would not stand for such an outrage and got up to leave the discussion. My point is that Churchill was human and prone to human mistakes. He was quite brash in some circumstances and often maded ill advised comments in moments of passion or frustration. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And we are guilty of the sin of being human.

To me, Churchill is a hero and I know that the majority of the British public believe this. History has condemned his mistakes but this has not dimmed the bright star of his successes. His contribution to World War 2 gave victory when the darkness of defeat swarmed around. In the heart of the shadows he stood alone, a knight dressed in armour of light to which all flocked and all found hope. With that hope they found the courage to fight on for their homes, for their families, for their countries and for their freedoms. These brave men knew the debt that they owed to Churchill, a debt they repaid with their love and their respect. If they saw some of the criticism being levelled at him in this post, they would wonder why they gave their lives when all the generation they saved can do is spit vile insults at a man who they revered as their leader. History has given him a greater place than Stalin or Roosevelt. He was no cynical opportunist like Roosevelt nor a murderous tyrant like Stalin. He was a lover of liberty, a man of courageous spirit and noble soul. He made his mistakes but he redeemed himself like the thief next to Jesus upon the cross who had faith and so was forgiven of his sins. I am not a religious person but I look upon the Bible and see lessons to be learnt about human goodness and the fact that no matter how deep our evil, there is always the chance for redemption and forgiveness.

My great grandad hated him with a passion for bringing in the army to break the miner's strike in the 20s. And he was a tory.

Did a lot of good things for the country, and made some excellent speeches. But was he the greatest Briton of the century? I'm not too sure.

Yeah, a great war leader, defender against fascism, but pants as a peacetime leader, which the British people knew.

Yeah, a great war leader, defender against fascism, but pants as a peacetime leader, which the British people knew.
Well it took them long enough to realise it.

To those who critise Churchill:

You have attacked a memorial to a great man, made all the greater for his faults. There is not a person on this board who can claim to have achieved 1/10 of what he achieved in his lifetime. Once again I am compelled to go through a list for those so ignorant that they cannot pick up a half decent history book:

Well, considering I'm only 20, it would be bit scary if I had achieved more then him.

But that is neigther here nor there. Attila the Hun also achieved a lot, but I have no wish to emulate him.

1. His list of ministerial positions is truly staggering: I don't think there has been any British statesman to hold so many Cabinet offices and excel at all of them. The only one he failed at was First Lord of the Admiralty because of the failed Gallipoli landings for which he must take the blame.

He did have a significant advantage though, he was from one of the most powerful families in Britian at the time. And I hardly think that allowing innocents to die in a burning building is a glowing pro. Neigther is putting forward plans to machine gun strikers.

2. His two Prime Ministerships - the first being the most famous. A nation flagging from defeat looked up to their leadership and saw a noble and brave man. A man who they knew would never fail them, a man who would never turn his back on them, a man who would fight beside them until victory or death took him. They saw in him their salvation and so decided not to simply die. They did not sacrifice 1000 years of noble history to the Nazi aggressors. They fought and kicked and screamed their defiance and in doing so helped win the war. In history, those who raise morale are often more valued than numerical advatnage. Consider Wellington's well known motto: he would have preferred 50,000 extra French troops than having to fight against Napoleon himself. Consider the Battle of Assaye where 100,000 Indian troops were defeated by 10,000 British troops simply because of good morale. Consider the Battle of Britain where an out numbered and out gunned RAF beat back the Luftwaffe because they knew that they were fighting for all they loved and held dear. Churchill inspired that within them. He inspired their defiance. Without him Britain would have fell victim to the Nazi hordes and with Britain would have collapsed any American advantage.
In his second term he still showed the people what he was capable of. He predicted the fall of the Iron Curtain and began the fledging alliances of European defence.

Sorry switched off after the sixth line of emotional ramblings

3. The other day I bought the reprint of Churchill's History of English Speaking Peoples. A reprint after nearly 40 years of reprint. His novel is still well read. His histories of Marlborough, World War 1 and World War 2 are still highly valued historical sources. He won the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Last year I bought Frankenstein (again, someone nicked my original copy), since we're talking shelf life Shelley pwns > Churchill.

4. He has remarkable personnal bravery. He took part in the Battle of Omdurman in the Sudan. He fought in the Boer War where he valiantly defended the train he was travelling on and directed the staff on how to place it back on the rails. He was captured and then escaped running across the barren wastes of enemy Boer territory with little more than his wits. He joined the Western Front in 1915 and saw action there. He was one of the defenders of Brussells in 1914 before it fell to German occupation.

Great, but there have been many soldiers who have done more. But have gone unrecorded.

5. He was a family man of great proportions. He had close relations to his brother, cousin ('Sunny' Duke of Marlborough) and mother. He remained devoted to his wife Clementine throughout the entire length of his marriage and loved her not with a fierce passion but with a sincere depth - the sort of love that endeared him to the British people. He had several children and grandchildren, all of whom he did his best for.

Great, but doing something that was expected is hardly exceptional.


7. The points about eugenics and gassing Kurds are both ture: he did indeed make these speeches. However they are completely uncharacteristic if compared to his personality and the practices employed while he was in power. At a meeting between him, Roosevelt, Roosevelt's son and Stalin, Stalin suggested gassing 50,000 German prisoners of war as a joke. Roosevelt's son joked that it should only be 49000. Churchill replied that he and the British people would not stand for such an outrage and got up to leave the discussion. My point is that Churchill was human and prone to human mistakes. He was quite brash in some circumstances and often maded ill advised comments in moments of passion or frustration. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And we are guilty of the sin of being human.

Or does it just mean that he valued European lives more then Kurds and more then the other two valued german lives?

Well, considering I'm only 20, it would be bit scary if I had achieved more then him.

But that is neigther here nor there. Attila the Hun also achieved a lot, but I have no wish to emulate him.



He did have a significant advantage though, he was from one of the most powerful families in Britian at the time. And I hardly think that allowing innocents to die in a burning building is a glowing pro. Neigther is putting forward plans to machine gun strikers.



Sorry switched off after the sixth line of emotional ramblings



Last year I bought Frankenstein (again, someone nicked my original copy), since we're talking shelf life Shelley pwns > Churchill.



Great, but there have been many soldiers who have done more. But have gone unrecorded.



Great, but doing something that was expected is hardly exceptional.




Or does it just mean that he valued European lives more then Kurds and more then the other two valued german lives?

1. When you become Prime Minister twice during the greatest war ever known to man let me know. And even then you won't have achieved half of what Churchill achieved.

2. Your reference to Atillia the Hun is irrelevant, much like the rest of your posts.

3. You have a misconception about British politics at the turn of the 20th Century and a misconception about the worth of the Marlborough duchy. You will note that during the 1800s and 1900s that virtually none of the Prime Ministers belonged to the peerage or any families of repute: note Gladstone, Peel, Disraeli, Balfour, Asquith and Llyod George. The aristocracy had very little say in parliamentary workings by the dawn of the 20th Century and also had very little respect just because they happened to belong to a certain family. The Marlborough family has only three notables: John Churchill (the First Duke), Randolph Churchill and Winston. All the others were, shall we say, less than diplomatic in their conduct. The duchu of Marlborough commanded very little respect. Alao the British system does not function on political families like the American one - in Britain virtually anyone with the training of a barrister can become a senior cabinet official unlike in America where you have to be a Kennedy or a Bush.

4. As I suspected you lack any notion of glory which is why it makes it so difficult for you to believe in anything other than your own petty self.

5. Irrelevant - at what point did I compare Churchill to any novelists? You've just chosen a random example out of the blue.

6. And at what point did I compare Churchill's actions to those who had done more? I was merely demonstrating his personal bravery with examples, not comparing him to others. Once again, irrevelant comment.

7. An immense family life ontop of all his political duties is truly amazing and difficult to sustain

8. No, it shows that his out burst in the Kurdish matter was uncharacterisitc and never backed up with any action. He probably spoke out of frustration, considering his policies were getting no where in particular. Which is nothing new when we look at modern day policies towards Iraq.

Consider the Battle of Britain where an out numbered and out gunned RAF beat back the Luftwaffe because they knew that they were fighting for all they loved and held dear

Yes. over 100 Polish pilots fighting for a free Poland. Did they get it? No. Damn Brits.

Yes. over 100 Polish pilots fighting for a free Poland. Did they get it? No. Damn Brits.

And how do you suppose Britain would have got this free Poland? Do you honestly believe that Britain was in any state in 1944/45 to challenge the Soviet Union's supremacy? Do you seriously believe that Britain's army could have staved off 2 million Russian troops? If you do you are deluded.

Once again I would remind you that Britain put all the diplomatic pressure on the USSR it could to leave Poland alone. Britain put pressure on the American army to move faster so they could try and save at least some of Poland from Soviet occupation. However neither responded: the Soviets were adamant that a communist Poland was vital to their security and the Americans refused to move any faster.