|
Post by jonah77 on Jan 25, 2015 9:17:30 GMT
Rest assured , they will seek to do so .....the fact that they are at Liberty to do so will be lost on the people that engage in the ridicule of him . And yet if Germany had won the war your hero was ready to fcuk off and abandon us.... such a hero eh? The man was lucky to be in the right place at the right time. So you would've preferred Lord Halifax as PM? Who was willing to surrender to the nazis at the first available opportunity. Then you wouldn't be able to come out with such ill thought, bull shit comments but knowing your opinion on Muslim fascists you might approve.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 25, 2015 10:17:07 GMT
Rest assured , they will seek to do so .....the fact that they are at Liberty to do so will be lost on the people that engage in the ridicule of him . And yet if Germany had won the war your hero was ready to fcuk off and abandon us.... such a hero eh? The man was lucky to be in the right place at the right time. Actually, it was us (including you!) that were lucky that he was the man in the right place at the right time!
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Jan 25, 2015 11:14:10 GMT
Rest assured , they will seek to do so .....the fact that they are at Liberty to do so will be lost on the people that engage in the ridicule of him . And yet if Germany had won the war your hero was ready to fcuk off and abandon us.... such a hero eh? The man was lucky to be in the right place at the right time. War is a dirty business and people are going to get killed, hopefully for the greater good. Hence you need somebody in charge with the stomach to be able to carry the responsibility for that. By nature such a person will have a level of arrogance and may not be an ideal friend or peace time leader. Lord help us if we ever have to stand up for what is right with the likes of you at helm. There wouldn't be a Jew or a Pole left alive in Europe. It sticks in your throat because he was an a right wing aristocrat, and you cant bring yourself to acknowledge that anyone with that background might have done the country any good at any time. How small minded of you.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jan 25, 2015 12:27:09 GMT
Sending in soldiers to break up strikers. Shooting strikers. For that reason, I'm out. The riots of 1911 in Tonypandy in the Rhonnda which is what I think you are referring to, was not broken up by troops firing upon them but by extra police drafted in from various parts of the country. This myth was dispelled many years ago on the release of communication between Churchill, the Chief Constable of Glamorgan and the King at the time. Troops were sent but only kept in reserve if the police were unable to deal with the looting miners. Unfortunately some English press exaggerated this and it stuck for many decades even to the extent that in the 1960s it was reported that he had used tanks against the miners. A myth easily dispelled by the fact that tanks were not invented until WW1.
|
|
|
Post by kinetic on Jan 25, 2015 13:26:55 GMT
I'm not quite sure what to make of this remark. Is it the work of a narrow minded ultra left wing lunatic , or someone who is clinically insane ? Suffice to say , that if Churchill had been an homosexual or of Middle Eastern decent then you may have been more compassionate and respectful. The fact that he was without doubt our greatest Prime Minister of all time seems lost on the likes of yourself , purely on the grounds of his politics. You have once again revealed yourself to be someone who should be pitied and possibly ridiculed , but I'll leave that to others. I am quite simply astounded. "The man was lucky to be in the right place at the right time " May I suggest that your right place is in a mental institution. Mumf All true...check it if you like matey. Also check out his role at Galipoli...frightening stuff. All true Are you mental ? Course it's true what's you idea of winning ? Hitler rocks up and Downing Street "great fight Winston wasn't it fun, anyway im off home now carry on as you were".
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jan 25, 2015 15:57:29 GMT
I'm not quite sure what to make of this remark. Is it the work of a narrow minded ultra left wing lunatic , or someone who is clinically insane ? Suffice to say , that if Churchill had been an homosexual or of Middle Eastern decent then you may have been more compassionate and respectful. The fact that he was without doubt our greatest Prime Minister of all time seems lost on the likes of yourself , purely on the grounds of his politics. You have once again revealed yourself to be someone who should be pitied and possibly ridiculed , but I'll leave that to others. I am quite simply astounded. "The man was lucky to be in the right place at the right time " May I suggest that your right place is in a mental institution. Mumf All true...check it if you like matey. Also check out his role at Galipoli...frightening stuff. I have read much about Gallipoli Huddy because my Grandfather was wounded during the 3rd Battle of Krithia fighting with the Collingwood Battalion RND. Churchill opened up a second front in order to defeat Turkey thus forcing them onto the Allies side and by doing so allow the Bosphurous Sea to be used as a resupply route to Russia avoiding the arduous northern resupply route to Murmansk. The idea was sound but, as with all decisions made by politicians in war they rely on advice from the generals at the front. Unfortunately his General, Sir Ian Hamilton, having little tactical no-how continued to show blind optimism in the face of heavy defeat after defeat and on his advice Churchill continued to pour men and resources into the theatre with no success whatsoever. Churchill eventually replaced Hamilton with General Munroe who immediately advised an evacuation which the cabinet back home had been calling for but persuaded not to by the ever optimistic Hamilton. So a harsh lesson indeed for Churchill not to spread his forces thinly so early in a conflict and something he would not repeat again in WW2. War is frightening stuff but it is absurd to single out Gallipoli, as it was just one of many actions that could be described as you say as "frightening stuff".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 19:14:20 GMT
Rest assured , they will seek to do so .....the fact that they are at Liberty to do so will be lost on the people that engage in the ridicule of him . And yet if Germany had won the war your hero was ready to fcuk off and abandon us.... such a hero eh? The man was lucky to be in the right place at the right time. You are quite correct when you call Churchill my hero , he most definately is a hero of mine . I understand the fictitious point that you are trying to establish as well, you are referring to the plans that were in place in 1940 to evacuate the Royal Family ,Winston Churchill , the war cabinet and certain other V.I.P's to Canada should this country have fallen in light of a successful German Invasion. Should this have taken place , the idea was for Britain to try and further pursue the war against Germany from Canda with the aid of our colonial and dominion forces and ensure that the country could be liberated when the United States entered the war as it surely would have done at a later date . This was the obvious course of action for Churchill to take in this instance , I don't think that anyone would have disagreed that this was the better option rather than a complete and utter capitulation as had taken place elsewhere in Europe......there was never any suggestion that Churchill was going to " f " off and abandon this country and its inhabitants whilst " saving his own skin " ....the very point you try to make shows that you have no understanding of the make up and the character of the man you are ridiculing and further more have little or no understanding of the events that were taking place in that period of our history .
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 25, 2015 19:35:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 19:39:24 GMT
As with most ultimately successful wars, the politicians at the helm at the time are usually seen in a jingoistically favourable light.
Nearly always, the reality is much more complex. Thatcher's image changed almost overnight following the Falklands victory but history has since revealed several positives and just as many negatives of her premiership, not least the latest apparent cover-up of paedophiles in her government. Similarly with Blair, his desperation to win a war with Bush the Imbecile didn't do him much harm at the time but is looking increasingly dodgy and quite probably illegal as time goes by.
Churchill was considered a disastrous peace time politician, especially as chancellor in the 20s and mostly ignored during much of the 30s as a result. He also crossed the house twice. Probably why Attlee was given the job of actually running the UK during the War. He also was in favour of letting Gandhi starve to death if he went on hunger strike for Indian independence which Churchill vehemently opposed.
Not trying to ridicule his legacy, Bish, just saying a bit of balance, as always, makes for a better analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 19:39:51 GMT
No fucking surprise there then youd be all for the cunt chamberlain who wanted to suck Adolfs cock as long as he left us alone
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 19:44:05 GMT
Doubt it, Chamberlain was a Tory, you bell
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 25, 2015 19:45:14 GMT
No fucking surprise there then youd be all for the cunt chamberlain who wanted to suck Adolfs cock as long as he left us alone Not at all...I'm simply pointing out that he's not the squeaky clean hero that according to Mumf "singlehandedly saved us from Hitler" that some people on here believe him to be.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 25, 2015 19:46:24 GMT
As with most ultimately successful wars, the politicians at the helm at the time are usually seen in a jingoistically favourable light. Nearly always, the reality is much more complex. Thatcher's image changed almost overnight following the Falklands victory but history has since revealed several positives and just as many negatives of her premiership, not least the latest apparent cover-up of paedophiles in her government. Similarly with Blair, his desperation to win a war with Bush the Imbecile didn't do him much harm at the time but is looking increasingly dodgy and quite probably illegal as time goes by. Churchill was considered a disastrous peace time politician, especially as chancellor in the 20s and mostly ignored during much of the 30s as a result. He also crossed the house twice. Probably why Attlee was given the job of actually running the UK during the War. He also was in favour of letting Gandhi starve to death if he went on hunger strike for Indian independence which Churchill vehemently opposed. Not trying to ridicule his legacy, Bish, just saying a bit of balance, as always, makes for a better analysis. The foaming at the mouth right wingers on here don't do balance Luke...as you well know
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 25, 2015 19:50:07 GMT
And yet if Germany had won the war your hero was ready to fcuk off and abandon us.... such a hero eh? The man was lucky to be in the right place at the right time. So you would've preferred Lord Halifax as PM? Who was willing to surrender to the nazis at the first available opportunity. Then you wouldn't be able to come out with such ill thought, bull shit comments but knowing your opinion on Muslim fascists you might approve. You might need to explain what you mean by my "opinion on Muslim fascists" as I'm pretty sure I've never written in their favour.
|
|
|
Post by kinetic on Jan 25, 2015 19:56:56 GMT
I got as far as poison gas used on the Iraqis. Thought fuck me that's a bit harsh best have a google. Turns out you little article is bullshit. He sanctioned the use never got used though. I see it mentions about the striking miners as well never happened as another poster has explained in this thread. All ways good cross reference things before you make yourself look like a clown.
|
|
|
Post by lastoftheldk on Jan 25, 2015 20:02:49 GMT
He was going to join up/surrender to the Nazis, until the yanks squared him up
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 25, 2015 20:28:46 GMT
I got as far as poison gas used on the Iraqis. Thought fuck me that's a bit harsh best have a google. Turns out you little article is bullshit. He sanctioned the use never got used though. I see it mentions about the striking miners as well never happened as another poster has explained in this thread. All ways good cross reference things before you make yourself look like a clown. Or go with your perverted course of the truth? No thanks matey
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 21:11:31 GMT
No fucking surprise there then youd be all for the cunt chamberlain who wanted to suck Adolfs cock as long as he left us alone Not at all...I'm simply pointing out that he's not the squeaky clean hero that according to Mumf "singlehandedly saved us from Hitler" that some people on here believe him to be. I said " singlehandedly saved us from Hitler ".. He did. I am right. What happened before and after the war I have not commented on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 21:12:45 GMT
He was going to join up/surrender to the Nazis, until the yanks squared him up No....not true.
|
|
|
Post by lastoftheldk on Jan 25, 2015 21:17:38 GMT
He was going to join up/surrender to the Nazis, until the yanks squared him up No....not true. So what was R Hess , second in command to Hitler, doing , getting a free passage to land in Scotland for talks I know doesn't feel good does it
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 21:23:19 GMT
So what was R Hess , second in command to Hitler, doing , getting a free passage to land in Scotland for talks I know doesn't feel good does it He was saving his own neck ....that was all.
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Jan 25, 2015 21:30:57 GMT
I backed him yesterday and won me a few bob at Uttoxeter
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jan 25, 2015 21:35:21 GMT
Jesus wept Huddy I've seen left wing propaganda in my life but to be fair most writers at least try to back up their information with research or historical proof. But that is pure unsubstantiated clap trap that anybody but the most brainwashed would have anything but scorn for. Not a single shred of evidence for any of it other than anecdotal claptrap.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 21:45:32 GMT
As with most ultimately successful wars, the politicians at the helm at the time are usually seen in a jingoistically favourable light. Nearly always, the reality is much more complex. Thatcher's image changed almost overnight following the Falklands victory but history has since revealed several positives and just as many negatives of her premiership, not least the latest apparent cover-up of paedophiles in her government. Similarly with Blair, his desperation to win a war with Bush the Imbecile didn't do him much harm at the time but is looking increasingly dodgy and quite probably illegal as time goes by. Churchill was considered a disastrous peace time politician, especially as chancellor in the 20s and mostly ignored during much of the 30s as a result. He also crossed the house twice. Probably why Attlee was given the job of actually running the UK during the War. He also was in favour of letting Gandhi starve to death if he went on hunger strike for Indian independence which Churchill vehemently opposed. Not trying to ridicule his legacy, Bish, just saying a bit of balance, as always, makes for a better analysis. Churchill's peace time politics were not those that were up for debate Sif , it is his leadership of a country fighting for its very survival that is relevant here , he was inspirational in keeping moral at a high point in the days when things were looking extremely grim for Britain .....that he had faults is not something I'm disputing , he most certainly had them as do we all , I am aware of those low points in his political career during the 20's and 30's which were referred to as " The Wilderness Years " during which he did much to make the country take heed of the dangers that were prevalent regarding the re- armament of Germany and the rise to power of Hitler, certainly it was unfortunate that he was not more successful in this ....the appeasers won the day , if he had have been Britain would not have found herself in the precarious fight for survival that she did and he would not have found himself in the " Right place at the right time " as Huddy so ridiculously describes it , I'm all for balanced argument myself , it's the only logical way to go about things , but things have to be balanced from all angles don't they ?
|
|
|
Post by lastoftheldk on Jan 25, 2015 21:52:03 GMT
So what was R Hess , second in command to Hitler, doing , getting a free passage to land in Scotland for talks I know doesn't feel good does it He was saving his own neck ....that was all. Hess was there to do the deal, how else would he have got a free passage USA played a blinder in the last two world wars, got all the old super powers fighting each other to bankruptcy and destruction whilst financing it all (debts which are still been paid off to this day to the USA) , then joining the wars when these countries where battle weary and looking like the hero's, Hitler gave Britain the chance to do a deal, the yanks got wind of it and the rest is history
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 21:55:42 GMT
He was going to join up/surrender to the Nazis, until the yanks squared him up That's incorrect ldk I'm afraid .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 22:01:46 GMT
He was saving his own neck ....that was all. Hess was there to do the deal, how else would he have got a free passage USA played a blinder in the last two world wars, got all the old super powers fighting each other to bankruptcy and destruction whilst financing it all (debts which are still been paid off to this day to the USA) , then joining the wars when these countries where battle weary and looking like the hero's, Hitler gave Britain the chance to do a deal, the yanks got wind of it and the rest is history It was long thought that Hess was working on his own , but it's obvious that Hitler was aware of his plans , the idea was to come to an arrangement with Britain to end the war and enable Hitler to carry on with eradicating Russia as he always planned to do.Churchill was unaware of this and at no time did any negotiations or meetings take place between him an Hess or anyone else ....Hess was then after interrogation had established his motives sent into confinement where he stayed until his death in Spandau in 1988
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 22:04:02 GMT
As with most ultimately successful wars, the politicians at the helm at the time are usually seen in a jingoistically favourable light. Nearly always, the reality is much more complex. Thatcher's image changed almost overnight following the Falklands victory but history has since revealed several positives and just as many negatives of her premiership, not least the latest apparent cover-up of paedophiles in her government. Similarly with Blair, his desperation to win a war with Bush the Imbecile didn't do him much harm at the time but is looking increasingly dodgy and quite probably illegal as time goes by. Churchill was considered a disastrous peace time politician, especially as chancellor in the 20s and mostly ignored during much of the 30s as a result. He also crossed the house twice. Probably why Attlee was given the job of actually running the UK during the War. He also was in favour of letting Gandhi starve to death if he went on hunger strike for Indian independence which Churchill vehemently opposed. Not trying to ridicule his legacy, Bish, just saying a bit of balance, as always, makes for a better analysis. The foaming at the mouth right wingers on here don't do balance Luke...as you well know Most of the foaming at the mouth on here comes from the left wingers from what I've seen
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 22:05:06 GMT
Jesus wept Huddy I've seen left wing propaganda in my life but to be fair most writers at least try to back up their information with research or historical proof. But that is pure unsubstantiated clap trap that anybody but the most brainwashed would have anything but scorn for. Not a single shred of evidence for any of it other than anecdotal claptrap. As usual mate .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 22:05:36 GMT
He was saving his own neck ....that was all. Hess was there to do the deal, how else would he have got a free passage USA played a blinder in the last two world wars, got all the old super powers fighting each other to bankruptcy and destruction whilst financing it all (debts which are still been paid off to this day to the USA) , then joining the wars when these countries where battle weary and looking like the hero's, Hitler gave Britain the chance to do a deal, the yanks got wind of it and the rest is history Hess made a solo flight on the 10th May 1941 in the hope ...I stress in the hope to meet the Duke of Hamilton who he believed was a prominent speaker against the government at the time. He was immediately arrested and never made any talks with Churchill . You are barking up the wrong tree on a number of issues I'm afraid.
|
|