|
Dtesmoac -> RE: I just heard Churchhill for the first time (11/14/2006 5:02:48 AM)
|
NG
Political historians will tell you that Churchill held no real principles for the reason laid out above and he changed sides twice for personal gain. The man was a career politician of the first order. There is no way in the world this can be construed as a man learning from his mistakes. Genuinely, do some reading around his defection to both parties and you'll understand what this man was all about. Only some poliitical historians - do you mean only read those items that NG agrees with ??
Actually Dtes, you're the one who is being ridiculous based on the facts outlined below:
1) Recent studies at Warwick University have uncovered recently released documents suggesting Churchill twice made peace overtures towards Germany (you'll be able to find a link on the net).
There is a difference between peace overtures and surrender. That is why they came to nothing.
2) How many soldiers do you know (outside of your own family) who fought and died in WW2? Yet, we all know this career politician who didn't even lift a gun. In the UK forces no fat old balding alcoholics were allowed in the forces it was in Germany, Russia, China etc that children and the old had to fight. But of course when younger he fought in other wars....to quote an e mail friend "do some reading round the subject."
3) Churchill's speeches did not help to change history. If you're going to pass this off as fact you would have to be able to measure an intangible fighting spirit derived from a speech - which is blatantly impossible. Also, you are ignoring military historians who argue that the Germans could never have invaded England due to a lack of naval strength, logistics and the necessary depth of fighter aircraft and trained pilots. If peace had been agree in 1940 Hitler would later have invade Russia with better preperation and the initial offensive succes would have continued. Russia would not have received the material support from USA and GB and would have lost. Man power alone was insufficent, there ability to produce armements occured because of US support. WWII won with Russian Blood, US Manufacturing & UK Money - and because it didn't stop in 1940 - Halifax et al would have sued for peace at / before Batte of Brittain. No one at the time assumed Germany would not be able to build up the resources necessary to defeat a single small island after their success in Continental Europe.
Galipole
Not at all. In typical British style, Churchill and the Government completely underestimated the Turkish fighting ability. They didn't envisage having to send any troops ashore on the Gallipoli peninsula - they thought the navy would just blast the Turks into submission. Once they realised this wasn't going to happen they sent the troops ashore to walk straight into a series of mines and machine guns. It was pretty much like The Somme. Serious bad planning and arrogance. They ended up pinned down on the beach before retreating. - check the inital weeks on the campaigne and notice failure to continue to advance etc, when opportunity arose. Cautious generals and inadequate follow up. But as I say concept correct.
He was a politician who did nothing except act like a politician. I'm scratching my head here wondering why a such a man would be held in high esteem - for being human and still achieving something rather than being a saint and doing crap all.
He could be king fucking kong for all I care, the fact remains he is revered for being a career politician. Nail on the head when you say reality is stranger than fiction. - no he is revered by those alive at the time and others who were not because he allowed a defeated nation to not surrender and in typical british manner bluff a bigger oponent into thinking they could not win and allowing the time for other bigger nations without the bollocks to take on Hitler to eventually be forced into the war. Remember neither Russia or USA entered war voluntarily, without GB the timecale would have been - Invade Russia and win, USA would not have supported Russia, consolidate Europe & use resources for greater Germany. Then force GB to satalite status of Greater Germany by economic means. & the USA would have had two big evil empires on each side of it.
|
|
|
|
