|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 23:36:10 GMT
I'm not sure he does either....he's not all there ,there's something missing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 9:43:31 GMT
That's a bit embarrassing, Bish, not like you at all. I'm not sure many people were questioning his achievement in leading one of the Allies to victory in WWII, just wanting to consider the bloke in the round. To quote you from earlier in this thread, "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 ? " Isn't that what was being done, looking at the bloke's history in its entirety and not just concentrating on the ultimate success of WWII? I would say I have been pretty fair in my assessment, I never mentioned his borderline alcoholism or the massive role of the Americans in helping to turn the tide of the War. It's fine for you to love the bloke but I'd say you're not looking at him from all angles. In my first post I said a politician's victory in a war ultimately colours people's judgment of him or her largely as a result of jingoistic patriotism. And that's really what you're doing here. Well I'm not embarrassed in the slightest , from what I've seen on here there has been more than enough assesment of the man's perceived faults and failings than of the ultimate success in World War II , what has his borderline alcoholism got to do with it ? , the effect the Americans had on the outcome of the war is beyond doubt and indisputable., yet if we had not survived alone for two years alone largely thanks to Churchill's leadership their contribution would have been immaterial wouldn't it ?. I don't need reminding in any way of the man's faults and failings ,I'm perfectly well aware of them having studied him and this period of history over many years , he was an inspirational leader, yet he had many failings as a strategist , and had he not been reeled in by his chief of Sir Allan Brooke , he could quite easily have presided over a couple of major military blunders during the war , my judgement of him is not clouded by as you suggest " jingoistic patriotism " but by an understanding of what he achieved under circumstances that would have caused lesser men to have cracked and thrown in the towel , which would have ultimately lead to the defeat of Britain , so I look at him from the angle that I feel is the most relevant and important one . However you are more than entitled to express your opinions on the subject , obviously and unsurprisingly we differ to a wide degree , no problem with that at all. Jingoistic I am certainly not , Patriotic I certainly am . Ok fair enough, you seem to be conceding that you're allowing his war leadership to override all other considerations and choosing to look at him through that one angle (that's what you say above anyway). I prefer to make a more rounded assessment but as you say each to their own.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 11:40:42 GMT
Well I'm not embarrassed in the slightest , from what I've seen on here there has been more than enough assesment of the man's perceived faults and failings than of the ultimate success in World War II , what has his borderline alcoholism got to do with it ? , the effect the Americans had on the outcome of the war is beyond doubt and indisputable., yet if we had not survived alone for two years alone largely thanks to Churchill's leadership their contribution would have been immaterial wouldn't it ?. I don't need reminding in any way of the man's faults and failings ,I'm perfectly well aware of them having studied him and this period of history over many years , he was an inspirational leader, yet he had many failings as a strategist , and had he not been reeled in by his chief of Sir Allan Brooke , he could quite easily have presided over a couple of major military blunders during the war , my judgement of him is not clouded by as you suggest " jingoistic patriotism " but by an understanding of what he achieved under circumstances that would have caused lesser men to have cracked and thrown in the towel , which would have ultimately lead to the defeat of Britain , so I look at him from the angle that I feel is the most relevant and important one . However you are more than entitled to express your opinions on the subject , obviously and unsurprisingly we differ to a wide degree , no problem with that at all. Jingoistic I am certainly not , Patriotic I certainly am . Ok fair enough, you seem to be conceding that you're allowing his war leadership to override all other considerations and choosing to look at him through that one angle (that's what you say above anyway). I prefer to make a more rounded assessment but as you say each to their own. I could carry on trying to make my point but it's obvious that I would be wasting my time as we both seem to have vastly differing opinions of the man and it would ultimately result in a series of repetitive posts which would achieve nothing ....lets just leave it at that shall we .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 16:34:45 GMT
Bish, I understand your point entirely. You consider his war efforts to override everything else. Fair enough, if that's the one angle you choose to examine the man by.
I prefer to consider the bloke's entire life, public and otherwise, including his wartime achievements. I think that gives a more rounded assessment.
But yes, let's leave it be.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Feb 2, 2015 0:36:53 GMT
Bish, I understand your point entirely. You consider his war efforts to override everything else. Fair enough, if that's the one angle you choose to examine the man by. I prefer to consider the bloke's entire life, public and otherwise, including his wartime achievements. I think that gives a more rounded assessment. But yes, let's leave it be. But really, his war efforts do override everything. Everything. It's not even in the balance. Not even close. I've seen earlier in this thread that he was lucky to lead us during the war. Really? Imagine every day having to make decisions that can and will cost thousands of lives. Decisions that will affect if your country and way of life will continue. It was an incredibly heavy burden to carry. He did it, and lead the country through it's darkest hour. What he did during the war years outweighs everything else, by many magnitudes. We also need to recognise that the type of character you need to lead the country in wartime will be the type of character who may not be the most popular the rest of the time. Leaders in war need to be focused and make the best long term decisions regardless of short term pain. What would have happened with the like of Foot or the Greens in charge during the war? I am genuinely shocked how some on here don't value Churchill's contribution in defeating the Nazis. Shocked.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Feb 2, 2015 0:56:43 GMT
If you ever find yourself down South, go to Chartwell. Unnerving sense of fate about the place.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 1:08:22 GMT
If you ever find yourself down South, go to Chartwell. Unnerving sense of fate about the place. I have visited Chartwell , it's a marvelous experience if you are interested in Churchill , you are correct in that there is an amazing underlying feeling around the place ....a sense of the past meeting the present , but I for one do expierience this kind of thing whenever I visit historical sites that have an important connection with our history . if you visit Chartwell , then you should also visit Biggin Hill which is just a few miles down the road .....the former Fighter Command airfield that was central to the defence of London and the Southern Counties during the Battle of Britain , that also incurs a similar sense of what has gone before us
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 2, 2015 19:50:05 GMT
In an overly-simplified evaluation of his life - a great war leader, a pretty poor peace-time leader.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Feb 2, 2015 20:16:14 GMT
Churchill had a very mixed Political career...starting off in the Liberal Party...toying with the idea of joining Labour before moving over to the Conservatives.
Had a pretty awful time during the Gallipoli Campaign. Not a great success to put it mildly.
Was a disastrous Chancellor in the early 1920s putting Britain back on the Gold Standard against all Economic advice. This had the effect of making exports prohibitively expensive & imports very cheap...chucking millions out of work.
People never forgot this and that's why despite Churchills Heroic War Effort & Inspirational Leadership. .he was voted out of Office in the post war General Election. People remembered what they went through in the 1920s and never wanted to experience it again.
A Great War Leader without doubt but not a great peace time record.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 23:18:34 GMT
Churchill had a very mixed Political career...starting off in the Liberal Party...toying with the idea of joining Labour before moving over to the Conservatives. Had a pretty awful time during the Gallipoli Campaign. Not a great success to put it mildly. Was a disastrous Chancellor in the early 1920s putting Britain back on the Gold Standard against all Economic advice. This had the effect of making exports prohibitively expensive & imports very cheap...chucking millions out of work. People never forgot this and that's why despite Churchills Heroic War Effort & Inspirational Leadership. .he was voted out of Office in the post war General Election. People remembered what they went through in the 1920s and never wanted to experience it again. A Great War Leader without doubt but not a great peace time record. They voted him out in 1945 not because of dislike , but despite their gratitude , after six years of war and deprivation , the people of this country were promised change and understandably they voted for it .....however they then preceded to re-elect him in October 1951 at the age of 76 ! People must have forgotten 1920 by then or have had a forgiving nature
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 22:51:49 GMT
Bish, I understand your point entirely. You consider his war efforts to override everything else. Fair enough, if that's the one angle you choose to examine the man by. I prefer to consider the bloke's entire life, public and otherwise, including his wartime achievements. I think that gives a more rounded assessment. But yes, let's leave it be. But really, his war efforts do override everything. Everything. It's not even in the balance. Not even close. I've seen earlier in this thread that he was lucky to lead us during the war. Really? Imagine every day having to make decisions that can and will cost thousands of lives. Decisions that will affect if your country and way of life will continue. It was an incredibly heavy burden to carry. He did it, and lead the country through it's darkest hour. What he did during the war years outweighs everything else, by many magnitudes. We also need to recognise that the type of character you need to lead the country in wartime will be the type of character who may not be the most popular the rest of the time. Leaders in war need to be focused and make the best long term decisions regardless of short term pain. What would have happened with the like of Foot or the Greens in charge during the war? I am genuinely shocked how some on here don't value Churchill's contribution in defeating the Nazis. Shocked. In some people's eyes clearly the war overrides everything and they can forget about everything else associated with the man. These folk no doubt would have voted Tory in 1945. In mine and others eyes a more rounded assessment is made. No doubt we would have voted for Attlee along with almost half the population, Churchill getting about 36%. That doesn't mean we're not grateful for his wartime efforts as some weirdly seem to think. Just that overall there's much more to consider. Unless you like things simple A bit of distance in time and jingoism about the war and all else tends to be forgotten. Not the right way to make a balanced assessment imo.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 22:57:05 GMT
Luke ....sfances carer here...
Critical thinking....
Churchill....
Second World War.
Saviour.
The end.
Mumf
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 1:10:16 GMT
But really, his war efforts do override everything. Everything. It's not even in the balance. Not even close. I've seen earlier in this thread that he was lucky to lead us during the war. Really? Imagine every day having to make decisions that can and will cost thousands of lives. Decisions that will affect if your country and way of life will continue. It was an incredibly heavy burden to carry. He did it, and lead the country through it's darkest hour. What he did during the war years outweighs everything else, by many magnitudes. We also need to recognise that the type of character you need to lead the country in wartime will be the type of character who may not be the most popular the rest of the time. Leaders in war need to be focused and make the best long term decisions regardless of short term pain. What would have happened with the like of Foot or the Greens in charge during the war? I am genuinely shocked how some on here don't value Churchill's contribution in defeating the Nazis. Shocked. In some people's eyes clearly the war overrides everything and they can forget about everything else associated with the man. These folk no doubt would have voted Tory in 1945. In mine and others eyes a more rounded assessment is made. No doubt we would have voted for Attlee along with almost half the population, Churchill getting about 36%. That doesn't mean we're not grateful for his wartime efforts as some weirdly seem to think. Just that overall there's much more to consider. Unless you like things simple A bit of distance in time and jingoism about the war and all else tends to be forgotten. Not the right way to make a balanced assessment imo. I know we both agreed to call time on this one Sif ......but I would be disapointed if you were considering me to be a simpleton .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 7:51:23 GMT
Not at all, just that it's a bit of a simplistic treatment to adopt your self admitted approach of considering his achievement in the war and little else. Just my opinion obviously. Bringing it closer to home, will we also be beatifying Margaret Thatcher in 50 years time when we forget most aspects of her premiership and just remember the successful Falklands? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it but that's what you've done here.
wizardofdribble has the right idea (as did 47% of the electorate in 1945). Much more balanced and accurate. Time and a bit of jingoism has effectively airbrushed out the 'warts' from the 'warts and all' balanced appraisal.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 9:49:20 GMT
Not at all, just that it's a bit of a simplistic treatment to adopt your self admitted approach of considering his achievement in the war and little else. Just my opinion obviously. Bringing it closer to home, will we also be beatifying Margaret Thatcher in 50 years time when we forget most aspects of her premiership and just remember the successful Falklands? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it but that's what you've done here. wizardofdribble has the right idea (as did 47% of the electorate in 1945). Much more balanced and accurate. Time and a bit of jingoism has effectively airbrushed out the 'warts' from the 'warts and all' balanced appraisal. I find its best to keep things as simple as you can ....
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Feb 4, 2015 11:27:58 GMT
Churchill had a very mixed Political career...starting off in the Liberal Party...toying with the idea of joining Labour before moving over to the Conservatives. Had a pretty awful time during the Gallipoli Campaign. Not a great success to put it mildly.Was a disastrous Chancellor in the early 1920s putting Britain back on the Gold Standard against all Economic advice. This had the effect of making exports prohibitively expensive & imports very cheap...chucking millions out of work. People never forgot this and that's why despite Churchills Heroic War Effort & Inspirational Leadership. .he was voted out of Office in the post war General Election. People remembered what they went through in the 1920s and never wanted to experience it again. A Great War Leader without doubt but not a great peace time record. As I said in an earlier post, Gallipoli was a disaster there is no doubt, but the main miscreant wasn't Churchill. General Sir Ian Hamilton shoulders most of the blame because of is inept tactical know how, and his insistence that the Campaign could be won by pumping more man power and resources into the campaign that floundered from the start. Churchill, as Lord of the Admiralty, relied heavily on the generals advice and optimistic view that Gallipoli could eventually be taken. It wasn't until October 1915, when Hamilton was replaced by General Munroe, that the full implications of Hamiltons bungling tactics were revealed and Munroe advised an immediate withdrawal from the peninsular which was achieved by Jan 1916. Churchill became the political scapegoat for military incompetence and resigned his position. However he learned a harsh lesson by opening up a second front at Gallipoli and never made the same mistake again.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 14:15:54 GMT
Churchill had a very mixed Political career...starting off in the Liberal Party...toying with the idea of joining Labour before moving over to the Conservatives. Had a pretty awful time during the Gallipoli Campaign. Not a great success to put it mildly.Was a disastrous Chancellor in the early 1920s putting Britain back on the Gold Standard against all Economic advice. This had the effect of making exports prohibitively expensive & imports very cheap...chucking millions out of work. People never forgot this and that's why despite Churchills Heroic War Effort & Inspirational Leadership. .he was voted out of Office in the post war General Election. People remembered what they went through in the 1920s and never wanted to experience it again. A Great War Leader without doubt but not a great peace time record. As I said in an earlier post, Gallipoli was a disaster there is no doubt, but the main miscreant wasn't Churchill. General Sir Ian Hamilton shoulders most of the blame because of is inept tactical know how, and his insistence that the Campaign could be won by pumping more man power and resources into the campaign that floundered from the start. Churchill, as Lord of the Admiralty, relied heavily on the generals advice and optimistic view that Gallipoli could eventually be taken. It wasn't until October 1915, when Hamilton was replaced by General Munroe, that the full implications of Hamiltons bungling tactics were revealed and Munroe advised an immediate withdrawal from the peninsular which was achieved by Jan 1916. Churchill became the political scapegoat for military incompetence and resigned his position. However he learned a harsh lesson by opening up a second front at Gallipoli and never made the same mistake again. Exactly !
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 14:23:49 GMT
Just shows how many old bastuurds frequent this message board. Some must be well over 100... I'm struggling to remember the Falklands ....
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Feb 4, 2015 15:41:52 GMT
Just shows how many old bastuurds frequent this message board. Some must be well over 100... I'm struggling to remember the Falklands .... Dementia does that to your more recent memory mumf.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Feb 4, 2015 20:40:54 GMT
Churchill had a very mixed Political career...starting off in the Liberal Party...toying with the idea of joining Labour before moving over to the Conservatives. Had a pretty awful time during the Gallipoli Campaign. Not a great success to put it mildly. Was a disastrous Chancellor in the early 1920s putting Britain back on the Gold Standard against all Economic advice. This had the effect of making exports prohibitively expensive & imports very cheap...chucking millions out of work. People never forgot this and that's why despite Churchills Heroic War Effort & Inspirational Leadership. .he was voted out of Office in the post war General Election. People remembered what they went through in the 1920s and never wanted to experience it again. A Great War Leader without doubt but not a great peace time record. They voted him out in 1945 not because of dislike , but despite their gratitude , after six years of war and deprivation , the people of this country were promised change and understandably they voted for it .....however they then preceded to re-elect him in October 1951 at the age of 76 ! People must have forgotten 1920 by then or have had a forgiving nature Yes, that is a good point. But as far as single handedly winning World War 2....I think the families of 20 million dead Soviets might disagree. Because the reality is that without their involvement we could have been destroyed by Germany. And you might go on to argue to say although we won the war militarily. .we lost the economic war to Germany. Whilst we piled billions & billions into the atomic bomb and 'defence' they piled the same amount into economic reconstruction. Whilst our economy remained antiquated Germanys economy was completely rebuilt. Productivity in Germany soared as manufacturing industry was transformed. Ours was left in terminal decline. This sowed the economic seeds of destruction for generations to come. The true cost of World War 2.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Feb 4, 2015 20:47:08 GMT
Not at all, just that it's a bit of a simplistic treatment to adopt your self admitted approach of considering his achievement in the war and little else. Just my opinion obviously. Bringing it closer to home, will we also be beatifying Margaret Thatcher in 50 years time when we forget most aspects of her premiership and just remember the successful Falklands? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it but that's what you've done here. wizardofdribble has the right idea (as did 47% of the electorate in 1945). Much more balanced and accurate. Time and a bit of jingoism has effectively airbrushed out the 'warts' from the 'warts and all' balanced appraisal. Are you really trying to compare The Falklands with World War II?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 21:10:04 GMT
They voted him out in 1945 not because of dislike , but despite their gratitude , after six years of war and deprivation , the people of this country were promised change and understandably they voted for it .....however they then preceded to re-elect him in October 1951 at the age of 76 ! People must have forgotten 1920 by then or have had a forgiving nature Yes, that is a good point. But as far as single handedly winning World War 2....I think the families of 20 million dead Soviets might disagree. Because the reality is that without their involvement we would have been destroyed by Germany. I have never stated that Churchill single handedly won the war , in fact I have never stated that he won the war at all .....What I have said is that his inspired leadership was very instrumental in us winning the war , also it's quite obvious that without the aid of the United States and the Soviet Union we could not in all probability have won at all , I don't think I have argued against that point either have I ? It's been suggested that I have adopted a blinkered and jingoistic argument concerning his war record , well not at all and certainly not ....I have only suggested that regardless of the remainder of his time in office , the Second World War to use the words of the man himself or similar " Was his finest hour ! "
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Feb 4, 2015 21:30:06 GMT
Just to clarify...The tone of my post wasn't aimed specifically at you Bispham but more generally at the notion behind the thread.
Churchill was absolutely inspirational at a time when we most needed to be inspired. There is no doubt about that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 21:33:11 GMT
Just to clarify...The tone of my post wasn't aimed specifically at you Bispham but more generally at the notion behind the thread. Churchill was absolutely inspirational at a time when we most needed to be inspired. Clarified Wiz
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 21:40:30 GMT
They voted him out in 1945 not because of dislike , but despite their gratitude , after six years of war and deprivation , the people of this country were promised change and understandably they voted for it .....however they then preceded to re-elect him in October 1951 at the age of 76 ! People must have forgotten 1920 by then or have had a forgiving nature Yes, that is a good point. But as far as single handedly winning World War 2....I think the families of 20 million dead Soviets might disagree. Because the reality is that without their involvement we could have been destroyed by Germany. And you might go on to argue to say although we won the war militarily. .we lost the economic war to Germany. Whilst we piled billions & billions into the atomic bomb and 'defence' they piled the same amount into economic reconstruction. Whilst our economy remained antiquated Germanys economy was completely rebuilt. Productivity in Germany soared as manufacturing industry was transformed. Ours was left in terminal decline. This sowed the economic seeds of destruction for generations to come. The true cost of World War 2. The latter part of your post is spot on regarding the economy .....however I would suggest that the seeds of this were initially sown following the end of the First World War , running throughout the twenties and thirties and ending in World War 2 , a series of cataclysmic events that Britain could never hope to recover from .
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Feb 4, 2015 21:43:55 GMT
Yes Bispham I agree...and the seminal word we are looking at is 'Reparations'.
By forcing Germany to pay us 'in kind' (reparations) during the inter-war years, we inadvertently strengthened young Adolfs hand...
And neglected our own mining & steelbuilding investment. ..given that most reparations were German coal & steel.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 21:52:17 GMT
Yes Bispham I agree...and the seminal word we are looking at is 'Reparations'. By forcing Germany to pay us 'in kind' (reparations) during the inter-war years, we inadvertently strengthened young Adolfs hand... Very very bad move :-( Yes I agree , much of the blame for those extremely harsh reparations , must be laid at the door of France , they really did want to humiliate Germany and destroy it as a leading European power , probably in retribution for the Franco -Prussian War of 1868 as well as the First World War ....Gaullic pride I'm afraid was responsible
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Feb 4, 2015 22:05:16 GMT
That's right and it only goes to show how Global politics can affect a domestic economy. Although France's desire to punish Germany eventually had the opposite effect.
Because Germany & Japan were not allowed to build up armies & armaments post world war 2 (about 6% of GDP).That money was then pumped into their manufacturing industries..along with a lot more year after year.. It's no coincidence that Germany & Japan became so strong economically.
We just could not compete with them and the rest as they say, is history
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 10:50:37 GMT
Not at all, just that it's a bit of a simplistic treatment to adopt your self admitted approach of considering his achievement in the war and little else. Just my opinion obviously. Bringing it closer to home, will we also be beatifying Margaret Thatcher in 50 years time when we forget most aspects of her premiership and just remember the successful Falklands? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it but that's what you've done here. wizardofdribble has the right idea (as did 47% of the electorate in 1945). Much more balanced and accurate. Time and a bit of jingoism has effectively airbrushed out the 'warts' from the 'warts and all' balanced appraisal. Are you really trying to compare The Falklands with World War II? No, the point is the effect a successful war has on a leader's standing in the eyes of many people, as I said in an earlier post. Lots of folk on this thread are ignoring (for the most part) Churchill's political life pre and post WWII. For the same impact at the time look at Thatcher's approval ratings pre and post Falklands. It was also mentioned numerous times on this board when she died as a signal reason for considering her one of Britain's greatest ever PMs. Hence my comment that successful wars (especially if you're not the aggressor - take note Blair!) blind people somewhat to a more rounded consideration of politicians. So it's valid to ask whether the same will happen to Thatcher if there is some retrospective about her in 2063.
|
|
|
Post by lastoftheldk on Feb 7, 2015 19:52:52 GMT
Not at all, just that it's a bit of a simplistic treatment to adopt your self admitted approach of considering his achievement in the war and little else. Just my opinion obviously. Bringing it closer to home, will we also be beatifying Margaret Thatcher in 50 years time when we forget most aspects of her premiership and just remember the successful Falklands? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it but that's what you've done here. wizardofdribble has the right idea (as did 47% of the electorate in 1945). Much more balanced and accurate. Time and a bit of jingoism has effectively airbrushed out the 'warts' from the 'warts and all' balanced appraisal. Are you really trying to compare The Falklands with World War II? Torys do
|
|