NationStates Jolt Archive

Who would have known that Churchill already knew long ago what a lot of ignorant folks don't know today?

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50, London: Longmans, Green Co., 1899).

That was before the world was infected with the true Satan: Political Correctness

And...um.... the point is? Or is this just historically backed up flamebait?

Mmm... that's good flame.

Yep that's right. And when I think back to all the great female Popes the Western world has had and how both Catholics and Protestants supported Galieo and the heliocentric system, we can definately say that Christianity has always treated women and science better.

Would I question Winnie?

The thing that the PC crowd always forgets: to comfort the criminal is to be an accessory after the fact.

Therefore: tolerance of things you know to be wrong is a crime in itself. And to be tolerant of things you know to be right is... pointless.

Yep that's right. And when I think back to all the great female Popes the Western world has had and how both Catholics and Protestants supported Galieo and the heliocentric system, we can definately say that Christianity has always treated women and science better.
Not to mention the fact that no Muslim ever did anything worth-while for science. And all of their astronomy and medicine is just propaganda by the evul politically correct liberals.

Not to mention the fact that no Muslim ever did anything worth-while for science. And all of their astronomy and medicine is just propaganda by the evul politically correct liberals.


I'm by no means any type of scholar, but to me, it looks like their advances in science just stopped at some point. I may be wrong- Am I?

I'm by no means any type of scholar, but to me, it looks like their advances in science just stopped at some point. I may be wrong- Am I?


You have a PhD in Licking.....thats some sort of scholar.

I'm by no means any type of scholar, but to me, it looks like their advances in science just stopped at some point. I may be wrong- Am I?
To a degree; but they also did make those advances after all. It's not only Christians who have made advances in science and technology. :rolleyes:

You have a PhD in Licking.....thats some sort of scholar.


*L* You have no idea....

I'm by no means any type of scholar, but to me, it looks like their advances in science just stopped at some point. I may be wrong- Am I?

Well science and technology did sort of stop for a thousand years in Europe during the period called the middle ages so I don't really think Christians can hold any Islamic world stopages against them.

To a degree; but they also did make those advances after all. It's not only Christians who have made advances in science and technology. :rolleyes:

Yes- I am not taking that away from them. At one point in history, they were on the cutting edge. But then it seems like it just stopped.
I never said Christians are the only ones to have made advances, so dont pretend I did.
The last few college graduations at tech schools I've been to- probably the tope ten grads in each class with honors have been Bhuddists.

Dont be an eye-rolling punk with me, Czardas.

Well science and technology did sort of stop for a thousand years in Europe during the period called the middle ages so I don't really think Christians can hold any Islamic world stopages against them.


Yes, and whose influence helped to lift Europe out of those dark ages?

That's right, the Islamic world.

One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.



I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected... We cannot, in any circumstances acquiesce to the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier.



It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer of the type well-known in the East, now posing as a fakir, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor.


Yeah. Great chap.

I have to wonder though, if Churchill felt so strongly about this, why did he cut it out of the second (and subsquent) editions of his book?

It only appears in the 1st after all.

Yes- I am not taking that away from them. At one point in history, they were on the cutting edge. But then it seems like it just stopped.
I never said Christians are the only ones to have made advances, so dont pretend I did.
I know, that was our friend Winnie.

The last few college graduations at tech schools I've been to- probably the tope ten grads in each class with honors have been Bhuddists.
Not particularly surprising.

Babies do look like him.

I know, that was our friend Winnie.

Not particularly surprising.


I still admire Winston Churchill.

I still admire Winston Churchill.

Many Australians aren't too fond of him. Can't think why.

I'm by no means any type of scholar, but to me, it looks like their advances in science just stopped at some point. I may be wrong- Am I?
The pasty folks really didn't do all that much inventing and advances in sciences untill rather late in the game.
I might be wrong because I'm making a sweeping generalization.

Go winston! he like so rules and down with all P.C nonsense! back to the age of Imperialistic states!

Political correctness aside, he is right about most things there especially the hitler thing. You may or may not agree on what they felt about certain ethnic groups, but you have to admit that Mussolini and Hitler both did what chiefs of state have to do, make their people live better. Germany and Italy were never so great as under those two, except maybe the Roman empire.

I remember this study about how religion is a slower of progress in countries. It compared strictly catholic places like Spain (middle ages spain, that is) to countries that were a bit less strict about their religion, namely the protestant states like Germany and England (and to some extent France with the whole Nantes thing). France, Germany and England later became world powers, while Spain became a peice of shit. The same goes for the middle east. In the 1400~ the ottoman empire was at the height of it's power, owning the balkans, turkey, north africa and most of saudi arabia. Now compare that to who they were during WW1. The sideshow that kept Major Lawrence busy.

And whoever says that islam has not given back anything scientifically, please look up algebra, astronomy, chemistry...

In fact, one of the best reasons to become an islamophobe is algebra :p.

France, Germany and England later became world powers, while Spain became a peice of shit.
You must have missed the whole Armada thing.

You must have missed the whole Armada thing.

Indeed, and also Spain's enormous empire in the 17th century...



And I don't really like Churchill. He was rude and was too right-wing for me. I also dislike his anti-anyone who wasn't British attitude. And he was so wrong about Ghandi.

Who would have known that Churchill already knew long ago what a lot of ignorant folks don't know today?
Now there's a man who talked sense. If only we had someone with his guts as our leader now. We need somebody like Churchill who tells the truth about dangerous foreign ideologies like Islam regardless of what the politically correct liberal elite think about it. We need a man who will uncomprimisingly defend our country from Islam.

Winston Churchhill is a dick. I support the use of poison gas to forment a lively terror in his heart, bastard.

Now there's a man who talked sense. If only we had someone with his guts as our leader now. We need somebody like Churchill who tells the truth about dangerous foreign ideologies like Islam regardless of what the politically correct liberal elite think about it. We need a man who will uncomprimisingly defend our country from Islam.

Really? I'd rather have someone who will defend us from murderers and terrorists. I don't really think the U.K. is under a great deal of threat from faith, prayer, charity, fasting and pilgrimage. But if you feel that these things are more dangerous than mass murder, go right ahead and vote for the BNP or whoever promises to get tough on Islam.

Churchill has always been a favourite historical character of mine, not just for his tenacity and bravery, but also for his many flaws. It is true he said what is quoted in the Opening Post, but then he also said what DHomme thoughfully linked to. Churchill was a product of the late Victorian Era, and thus had all of its follies and viewpoints that these days would not exactly be suitable.

However, I fail to see the point of the OP. I'm guessing this is just historically-backed flamebait as has been said. One should not take quotes out of context or forget who said them. Churchill may have been the leader who ensured Britain faced tyranny alone and helped Europe eventually be liberated from the Nazi regime, but he was also a man who stated that India was no more a country than the equator.

Many Australians aren't too fond of him. Can't think why.

Winston - "Ohhhhh Gallipoli has a nice beach head! Lets take it...won't use too many Brits though, lets send the Aussies and Kiwis to do it!"

You must have missed the whole Armada thing.

Oh yea, I remember, the one that was completely defeated by the British fleet and then the remenants of the Armarda crashed into Ireland.

Indeed, and also Spain's enormous empire in the 17th century...

The one that they lost more than 50% of in five years?

You must have missed the whole Armada thing.


What did that get spain? Temporary wealth they threw away, incidentally, on religious excesses (mostly).
My point is, the more closed a religion is, the more detrimental the effect on science and anything that may oppose the doctrine, especially if it's defended to the teeth by the rulers and used as the justification for everything (like it was in Spain). In Germany, on the other hand, they threw out that whole catholicism BS and went with protestantism, a more open doctrine. And while the effects may not have been immediate (the holy roman empire fell, for example). In france the royalty didn't have much to do with religion anyway, and during that war they had with spain under Louis XIII they won basically by attacking whenever the spaniards were praying for victory.

Yes, they had a kickass navy, but that was just because of the fact that they had all the colonies etc in which to produce them and use them. Besides, who has the biggest armada now? England.

In Germany, on the other hand, they threw out that whole catholicism BS and went with protestantism, a more open doctrine. And while the effects may not have been immediate (the holy roman empire fell, for example).

The Germanic nations split. The north became Protestant and the South remaind Catholic, so it wasn't a complete over throw over Catholicism. In fact the populations of the various states had to conform to the religion of the ruler.


EDIT: Nice little link http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/WARS.HTM

Winston - "Ohhhhh Gallipoli has a nice beach head! Lets take it...won't use too many Brits though, lets send the Aussies and Kiwis to do it!"

Well duuuh... Like anyone cares about the aussies and kiwis? :P
Seriously though, considering that they were basically in the war as bootlickers (I mean come on, like there was a huuge 2nd reich/nazi threat in oceania?!... in ww2 I guess there was that whole jap thing, but japan and germany are pretty far apart...) it's only natural that their soldiers were used as little else than cannon fodder. Tell me, you being the leader of shinolanistan, and you have to take an offensive on somewhere but it's a bit risky... do you send your own soldiers, your citizens and kids or the ones of your allies?

Not saying it's right, just saying it makes sense...

Yes, they had a kickass navy, but that was just because of the fact that they had all the colonies etc in which to produce them and use them. Besides, who has the biggest armada now? England.
Actually, the USN is larger than the Royal Navy (281 vessels to something like ... 40?).

snip

I know why it was done, don't get me wrong. But quite frankly, the Kiwi's and Aussies were some of the best infantry troops in the Empire along with Canadians. And Churchill went and wasted them on the beaches of Gallipoli in an utterly pointless and strategically stupid move.

And besides, ailienating the countries who are your allies isn't a great move either.

The Germanic nations split. The north became Protestant and the South remaind Catholic, so it wasn't a complete over throw over Catholicism. In fact the populations of the various states had to conform to the religion of the ruler.


EDIT: Nice little link http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/WARS.HTM

Yes but the seed had been planted. They started thinking that you don't NEED to not work on sunday because the bible says so. And that those asshole priests who exploited the peasantry could go fuck themselves. In either case (protestant or quasi-catholic germany), neither were as extremist about it like spain was, or islamic states were.

Actually, the USN is larger than the Royal Navy (281 vessels to something like ... 40?).

I'm pretty sure it's bigger than just 40... last time I checked they had a pretty big presence in hong kong, india, australia and canada (yes, I know those are independent now :P). And I remember seeing a navy yard on a helicopter during a tour of london I took a few years back. Seemed to me like there were a lot more than just 40 ships there...

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they did have a bigger navy than the USA, as they don't really need to defend their land if they can secure naval and aerial superiority.

Don't underestimate the little island north of France...

Yes but the seed had been planted. They started thinking that you don't NEED to not work on sunday because the bible says so. And that those asshole priests who exploited the peasantry could go fuck themselves. In either case (protestant or quasi-catholic germany), neither were as extremist about it like spain was, or islamic states were.

Kinda, but old habits died hard. The not working on Sunday etc still remaind in effect for a long time, as well as a great many other old traditions. But the influence of the church, as you rightly said, changed.

-snip-

According to Wikipedia

Royal Navy - 90 ships Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Royal_Navy_ships)

USN - 281 ships Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USN)

Don't underestimate the little island north of France...


All in the past.

And don't underestimate that little island off Korea either. We all did at one point and that really came back to bite us on the arse.

Hey I know! Let's make 'em fight! Japan vs. the U.K.

It should be easy. All we have to do is stir both nests up with a stick...

Well science and technology did sort of stop for a thousand years in Europe during the period called the middle ages so I don't really think Christians can hold any Islamic world stopages against them.
Um, that's complete crap. Science and techology didn't "sort of stop for a thousand years"; the medieval period was as fruitful as most other periods of history in terms of intellectual development.

Not that I'm defending Churchill/the OP.

Who would have known that Churchill already knew long ago what a lot of ignorant folks don't know today?
Things haven't changed much in a hundred years, have they? Forget the bleeding heart histories, the fact is that modern day Muslims are about the most backward people on the face of the earth. And the fundamentalists want us all to be like that.

Winston Churchill was human.

He was equal parts charismatic leader and chauvanist. He came from a time when political correctness was not even heard of and to try to define him in modern terms is downright foolish. You can sit there and cherry pick his public statements or quote from his book all you like, but to not take into account the era in which he was raised in is giving short shrift to history.

He said/wrote some incredibly wise and smart things, he also said/wrote some damned foolish and arrogant things. He also was the right man to lead his nation through WWII. Like any human being, he was flawed and made some foolish decisions. I don't excuse him for some of his points of view.

But I do respect him and admire him. He was human and that humanity was almost always on full display. Not sawed off at the legs by political correctness. Rather refreshing considering the drone of useless drivel I hear these days.

This from a liberal.

Um, that's complete crap. Science and techology didn't "sort of stop for a thousand years"; the medieval period was as fruitful as most other periods of history in terms of intellectual development.

That's true. I have to stop fighting stereotypes with stereotypes.

Yes, and whose influence helped to lift Europe out of those dark ages?

That's right, the Islamic world.

Wrong, it was the Renaisance and the Enlightenment that lifted europe out of the middle ages, not influenced by islam at all.

Now there's a man who talked sense. If only we had someone with his guts as our leader now. We need somebody like Churchill who tells the truth about dangerous foreign ideologies like Islam regardless of what the politically correct liberal elite think about it. We need a man who will uncomprimisingly defend our country from Islam.A-FUCKING-MEN!!

Yep that's right. And when I think back to all the great female Popes the Western world has had and how both Catholics and Protestants supported Galieo and the heliocentric system, we can definately say that Christianity has always treated women and science better.


An intresting fact about Galileo... While most people believe he was just persicuted by the church, the truth was those who pushed and shoved for his persicution by the church was his fellow scientist.

Things haven't changed much in a hundred years, have they? Forget the bleeding heart histories, the fact is that modern day Muslims are about the most backward people on the face of the earth. And the fundamentalists want us all to be like that.


Well said...... Muslims used to embrace science and medicine during the middle ages. After thier decline of empires thier society has collapse and is stuck in the middle ages. "This is a War for Civilization"

So what's the moral of this story? Let me guess, "Churchill said Islam is evil and aggressive, so let's kill all the Muslims."

So what's the moral of this story? Let me guess, "Churchill said Islam is evil and aggressive, so let's kill all the Muslims."


um no.....

An intresting fact about Galileo... While most people believe he was just persicuted by the church, the truth was those who pushed and shoved for his persicution by the church was his fellow scientist.

I wouldn't call those dudes scientists. Philosophers maybe, but they weren't doing science. Like the dude who refused to look through a telescope because he had already decided that it was impossible for Jupiter to have moons?

So what's the moral of this story? Let me guess, "Churchill said Islam is evil and aggressive, so let's kill all the Muslims."

The only way Christianity can remain a force for good is by killing evil and agressive people. And their children. It's what Jesus would have wanted.

Yeah whatever. Deep Kimchi is the one who once said that shooting Muslims was better than orgasm.

I think all you anti-Islamic fanbois need to have a big circle jerk and quit posting your hatemongering trash.

Who would have known that Churchill already knew long ago what a lot of ignorant folks don't know today?

Still did not stop the fucker from colloborating with Jinnah and mastermind the partition and make a muslim state...that is arguably the biggest driver of the modern islamist movement.

In a letter to Jinnah , Churchill wrote that he ‘‘espoused the right of Moslems and the Depressed Classes to their fair share of life and power. I feel that it is most important that the British Army should not be used to dominate the Moslems, even though the caste Hindus might claim numerical majority in a constituent assembly’’.

I look forward to the day when the said British army would stop dominating British moslems and give them their Bradfordstan and Londonistan even though the Christians might claim numerical majority in a constituent assembly.:rolleyes:

Yes, and whose influence helped to lift Europe out of those dark ages?

That's right, the Islamic world.
Primarily in that glorious cure for the hangover: Coffee.

I'm not joking in the slightest. Europeans spent that entire time frame drinking booze constantly. The water wasn't safe to drink, and come nightfall, they continued to drink booze. Their mornings, as a result of the late night drinkery, turned out to be miserable hangovers...for a full millenia. Then Europeans discovered alcohol's glorious, glorious cousin: Caffeine, in the form of coffee. Coffee gave the Europeans their mornings back, and therefore their most creative part of the day. After that, European culture took off. Extremist strains took over Islam shortly thereafter, and the Middle East Stagnated (note: Islam in the Far East didn't stagnate, as a more moderate strain survives there.)

Wrong, it was the Renaisance and the Enlightenment that lifted europe out of the middle ages, not influenced by islam at all.
Fueled by...


coffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoff eecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffee in the morning...

...and...

...glorious booze at night

. . . even when he was wrong.

Wrong, it was the Renaisance and the Enlightenment that lifted europe out of the middle ages, not influenced by islam at all.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the scientific and technological advances of the medieval Islamic world constituted one of the major influences on the Renaissance in Europe.

Not to mention the fact that no Muslim ever did anything worth-while for science. And all of their astronomy and medicine is just propaganda by the evul politically correct liberals.

During the Middle Ages the Islamic World had a very significant impact upon Europe, which in turn cleared the way for the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. In the Medieval age, Islam and Muslims influenced Europe in a number of different ways. One of the most important of these subjects was Science.

Ever since Islam was born, Muslims had made immense leaps forward in the area of Science. Cities like Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo and Cordoba were the centers of civilization. These cities were flourishing and Muslim scientists made tremendous progress in applied as well as theoretical Science and Technology. In Europe, however, the situation was much different. Europe was in the Dark Ages. It had no infrastructure or central government. To the Muslims, Europe was backward, unorganized, carried no strategic importance and was essentially irrelevant. This considering the time period was in fact true. Nevertheless the Catholic Church (which at the time was the strongest institution in Europe) successfully convinced Christian Europe that the Muslims were infidels. This caused Europeans to think that Muslims were culturally inferior to Europe and thus Europe was unable to benefit from the new scientific discoveries being made in the Islamic lands before the 1100’s. By doing this Europe kept itself in the Dark Ages while from China to Spain Islamic Civilization prospered. During the Crusades there was limited contact between Muslims and Christians and not much was transferred. As A. Lewis explains, "The Crusaders were men of action, not men of learning". The real exchange of ideas which led to the Scientific revolution and to the renaissance occurred in Muslim Spain.

Cordoba was the capital of Muslim Spain. It soon became the center for all light and learning for the entire Europe. Scholars and students from various parts of the world and Europe came to Cordoba to study. The contrast in intellectual activity is demonstrated best by one example: ‘In the ninth century, the library of the monastery of St. Gall was the largest in Europe. It boasted 36 volumes. At the same time, that of Cordoba contained over 500,000!’.

The idea of the college was a concept which was borrowed from Muslims. The first colleges appeared in the Muslim world in the late 600's and early 700's. In Europe, some of the earliest colleges are those under the University of Paris and Oxford they were founded around the thirteenth century. These early European colleges were also funded by trusts similar to the Islamic ones and legal historians have traced them back to the Islamic system. The internal organization of these European colleges was strikingly similar to the Islamic ones, for example the idea of Graduate (Sahib) and undergraduate (mutafaqqih) is derived directly from Islamic terms.

In the field of Mathematics the number Zero (0) and the decimal system was introduced to Europe, which became the basis for the Scientific revolution. The Arabic numerals were also transferred to Europe, this made mathematical tasks much easier, problems that took days to solve could now be solved in minutes. The works of Al-Khwarizmi (Alghorismus) were translated into Latin. Alghorismus, from whom the mathematical term algorism was derived, wrote Sindhind, a compilation of astronomical tables. He, more importantly, laid the ground work for algebra and found methods to deal with complex mathematical problems, such as square roots and complex fractions. He conducted numerous experiments, measured the height of the earth's atmosphere and discovered the principle of the magnifying lens. Many of his books were translated into European languages. Trigonometric work by Alkirmani of Toledo was translated into Latin (from which we get the sine and cosine functions) along with the Greek knowledge of Geometry by Euclid. Along with mathematics, masses of other knowledge in the field of physical science was transferred.

Islamic contributions to Science were now rapidly being translated and transferred from Spain to the rest of Europe. Ibnul Hairham’s works on Optics, (in which he deals with 50 Optical questions put to Muslim Scholars by the Franks), was translated widely. The Muslims discovered the Principle of Pendulum, which was used to measure time. Many of the principles of Isaac Newton were derived from former Islamic scientific contributions. In the field of Chemistry numerous Islamic works were translated into Latin. One of the fields of study in this area was alchemy. The Muslims by exploring various elements, developed a good understanding of the constitution of matter. Jabir ibn-Hayyan (Geber) was the leading chemist in the Muslim world, some scholars link the introduction of the ‘scientific method’ back to him. A great number of terms used in Chemistry such as alchohol, alembic, alkali and elixir are of Islamic origin.

Medicine was a key science explored by Muslims. Al-Rhazes is one of the most famous Doctors and writers of Islamic History. Every major city had an hospital, the hospital at Cairo had over 8000 beds, with separate wards for fevers, ophthalmic, dysentery and surgical cases. He discovered the origin of smallpox and showed that one could only acquire it once in one's life, thus showing the existence of the immune system and how it worked. Muslim doctors were also aware of the contagious qualities of diseases. Hundreds of medical works were translated into Latin.

All of this knowledge transferred from the Muslims to the Europeans was the vital raw material for the Scientific Revolution. Muslims not only passed on Greek classical works but also introduced new scientific theories, without which the European Renaissance could not have occurred. Thus even though many of the Islamic contributions go unacknowledged, they played an integral role in the European transformation.

(Snipped)

*Waits for someone to say Muslims stole all that from Christians and other civilizations and that they are still backwards barbarians who need to be exterminated.*

Snip.

Any evidence, sources, statistics, anything!?

Any evidence, sources, statistics, anything!?

What I said was a copy and paste from a source. Feel free to google "muslim scientific discoveries" or "muslim technology" or "muslim scientists" or something of the sort.

That was before the world was infected with the true Satan: Political Correctness
Actually, it was already there, that's why the kicked Churchill out ofter the war.

And saying the islamic world is great and wonderful because it brought good things to the world a long fuckign time ago is stupid. Yes, when a civilization in the area that happened to have a form of your religion was around it made great strides in mathematics and science. Unfortunately you show none of the same traits. And haven't for quite awhile. So basically you've reverted to a barbarian societal state. Which is a bad thing.

Actually, it was already there, that's why the kicked Churchill out ofter the war.

Churchill was kicked out after the war because he was a popular war PM, but an awful peacetime one. He ignored the mood of the public, in that they wanted a more socialist period of reconstruction and a change in social and economic issues, as shown by the popularity of the Beveridge Report when it was released in 1942 and byelection results that largely favoured Labour candidates or Independent candidates that were loyal to Labour. Gallup polls also showed that, although Churchill was rated brilliantly as a war PM, very few wanted him as a PM during the peacetime.

Combine this with Conservative dominance in the 1930's and being blamed (perhaps unfairly) for the depression, a lack of reaction to the poverty it caused, and the failed policy of Appeasement that was blamed on Conservative politicians and their lack of ability to stand up to agressors (Also partially unfair, especially to Chamberlain), and the public were tired with Conservative government and the 'Status Quo'. Finally, add in a masterful campaign in 1945 by Labour that focued on things like 'Cradle To The Grave' and the formation of the NHS and better social insurance, against a lackluster Conservative campaign that suffered from losing their brilliant Campaign Manager, and a focus on Churchill as their candidate despite his lack of popularity in peacetime, and the fact that Churchill's speeches were heavy on rhetoric and personal attacks on Labour (The Gestapo Speech) and weak on actual content, and you have a recipe for an almost guaranteed victory for Labour, as it occured, even though most people, including Atlee himself, believed Churchill would sweep to victory.

Thus, to say Churchill was voted out because he was politically incorrect is massively incorrect. That did not matter, as political-incorrectness was still an integral part of society ; long-term Conservative dominance and a desire for social and economic change motivated the public, as well as the armed forces, who voted overwhelmingly for Labour.

So basically you've reverted to a barbarian societal state. Which is a bad thing.

Kind of like what hardcore christians are trying to do to the US...