[Misc] Churchill

Thunder Bolt · Jan 16, 2018

Martlet said:
All of this is absolutely correct. Between the wars he was a political disaster, he completely misjudged the people in 1945 and then returned as PM for all the wrong reasons in 1951.

That said, when it mattered, when we needed someone with his resolve, charisma and energy, he delivered - and delivered big. He was an excellent First Lord of the Admiralty in WW1 (such that when he was brought back into the War Cabinet under Chamberlain, the Navy semaphored "Winston is Back!"
The fact that when they came together in a wartime coalition government, Atlee and Labour insisted on serving under Churchill (and not Chamberlain) probably tells you all you need to know.

He wasn't just a great war leader, he was the great war leader. In my view, we would have been toast without him.

Although Gallipoli was a complete disaster.

Buzzer · Jan 16, 2018

Voroshilov said:
Actually by the standards of the time he was still pretty racist. I think this whole argument feeds in to a need for us to frame people in absolute terms. So Churchill led us through world war 2 therefore he is GOOD and we can't have anything bad said about him. But to use the cliche , Hiltler was apparently very good with children and animals. The truth is good people do bad things and vice versa. Churchill had a chequered career up until the war. There is good reason he was in the political wilderness in the 1930's. Churchill was imo the most important leader Britain had in the 20th century , but that doens't gloss over what a complex character he was nor that he did and said some terrrible things.

I can forgive him the racism but it's those adverts that I resent the most.

Oh - and ultimately being responsible for the existence of Nicholas Soames. Unforgiveable.

Thunder Bolt · Jan 16, 2018

daveinprague said:
Ive never seen an alternative version tbh Everything ive ever read about it says, it was the magazine.

There was a fire in an ammunition locker but that wasn't the death blow. She also keeled over to starboard rather than having her back broken.

http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/bismarck2.htm

daveinprague · Jan 16, 2018

Thunder Bolt said:
There was a fire in an ammunition locker but that wasn't the death blow. She also keeled over to starboard rather than having her back broken.

http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/bismarck2.htm

I dont know. Reading that doesnt change my mind really. If even says there that the stern of the ship swung vertically. and quickly sank. Still. we are takiiing thread somewhat off course :-D

cunning fergus · Jan 16, 2018

Hamilton said:
I enjoyed the film immensely, and Gary Oldman’s performance was excellent.

However, there are a few historical inaccuracies, from Churchill’s absence in the debate defending Chamberlain to the tired myth that Chamberlain was an appeaser who wanted peace with Hitler no matter what and to positioning Atlee as the rabble rouser in chief who demanded Chamberlain’s resignation in the Commons (he was in fact a ditherer who had to be cajoled into demanding the PM stand down.)

However, it was a enjoyable film. It’s just a shame that it has repositioned some of the truth for the convenience of entertainment.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In what way is it a tired myth that Chamberlain was an appeaser?

The facts are that Hitler played Chamberlain like a 2 penny flute, Chamberlain believing that Hitler was a man he could “do business with”. Chamberlain was not only an appeaser he was a naive fool.

Had Chamberlain been more assertive with Hitler it was possible that Hitler could have backed down, but instead his (and the French) policy of appeasing Hitler only projected weakness which was ruthlessly exploited by Hitler and set in motion the events that ultimately lead to war..

Hampster Gull · Jan 16, 2018

Won’t have allowed Brexit

Tony Towner's Fridge · Jan 16, 2018

Easy 10 said:
After seeing Darkest Hour this weekend, I've been listening to some of Churchill's speeches on YouTube. I wasn't fully aware of what a remarkable orator this man was, and thought I would bring it to the attention of the class. If you have the time and inclination, this half hour is a GREAT listen, especially towards the end...

[yt]jB5wZtV1MWM[/yt]

What General Vagon has called the Battle of France, is over. The Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions, and our empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island, or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all of Europe may be freed, and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age, made more sinister and perhaps more protracted by the likes of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty, and so bare ourselves, that if the British Empire and its commonwealths last for a thousand years, men will still say, this was their finest hour.

Can't see Theresa May coming out with something like that, can you ?

Not really sure this is a thread that should continue? He was by far and away the greatest Brit ever. Disregard all the Boer War and 1st World War nonsense that has been written; his contribution to your and my current being on this planet and our 'relative' democratic existence, is not up for question. I am seriously looking forward to seeing the film tomorrow.

Anyone remember Lee, the owner for the Crown and Anchor in Preston Village from the 70s? His Friday night , 'we will fight them on the beaches' speeches were superb. He also starred as Churchill in 'The Eagle has Landed' and severed his artery in the final scene.

Here's to Churchy....though his spell as the dog on the shirt at the South London Comedy Collective can be forgotten!

TNBA

TTF

GT49er · Jan 17, 2018

Hampster Gull said:
Won’t have allowed Brexit

Wouldn't have surrendered so much to the EU in the first place. Yes, he favoured greater union within Europe, but make no mistake about it, that would have been a Europe firmly lead by Britain, thank you very much! I doubt he'd have had much truck with the EU as it was, and he'd have creased himself laughing at Call-me-Dave's 'deal'.

Anyway, congratulations for getting in a Brexit moan on a non Brexit thread. Whatever, I'm looking forward to see this very interesting sounding film about the great man.

Thunder Bolt · Jan 17, 2018

cunning fergus said:
In what way is it a tired myth that Chamberlain was an appeaser?

The facts are that Hitler played Chamberlain like a 2 penny flute, Chamberlain believing that Hitler was a man he could “do business with”. Chamberlain was not only an appeaser he was a naive fool.

Had Chamberlain been more assertive with Hitler it was possible that Hitler could have backed down, but instead his (and the French) policy of appeasing Hitler only projected weakness which was ruthlessly exploited by Hitler and set in motion the events that ultimately lead to war..

If you've ever seen how many war memorials there are in France from WW1, in little tiny villages, as well as towns, you'd understand why the French gave in. Holland & Belgium were overrun very quickly, & Hitler threatened to flatten Paris.
The French Resistance were very brave & useful to us.

Brovion · Jan 17, 2018

DavidinSouthampton said:
...

And of course Churchill was a massive pro-european figure after the war.......... just saying.

Indeed he was. Something else he was wrong about!

cunning fergus · Jan 17, 2018

Thunder Bolt said:
If you've ever seen how many war memorials there are in France from WW1, in little tiny villages, as well as towns, you'd understand why the French gave in. Holland & Belgium were overrun very quickly, & Hitler threatened to flatten Paris.
The French Resistance were very brave & useful to us.

There’s no doubt that WW1 left a profound mark on both France and Britain, I am not doubting that, but the long burn of appeasement by both Govts in allowing Germany to re-arm and re-militarise the Rhineland in the 20s and 30s were the wrong decisions. Prevarication and avoiding difficult decisions is rarely the best option, but usually the easiest. It should not be contraversial to make that point.

As for France and it’s conduct in the war, I would go back as far as the “Dreyfus affaire” to understand what the volatile nature of French society was like, and what political fissures there were in the country. To some point extent these fissures didn’t buckle against a militaristic Germany in WW1 but they did before and after WW2.

It’s why one of France’s greatest heroes of WW1 jumped into bed with the anti communist Germans in WW2 and ran the Vichy regime. Yes there was a resistance movement but there was much greater collaboration and cooperation, particularly in the early part of occupation. You can’t just point to one and not the other, it’s why France still had a navy but even at the end of the war they took the option to scuttle rather than join the Allies cause.

You evidently have a good understanding of events, and I would recommend you take a look at this documentary produced by the French but was banned by the French Govt for years as it exposed to scale of cooperation and collaboration by the French.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_sorrow_and_the_pity_1970/reviews/

Hamilton · Jan 17, 2018

cunning fergus said:
In what way is it a tired myth that Chamberlain was an appeaser?

The facts are that Hitler played Chamberlain like a 2 penny flute, Chamberlain believing that Hitler was a man he could “do business with”. Chamberlain was not only an appeaser he was a naive fool.

Had Chamberlain been more assertive with Hitler it was possible that Hitler could have backed down, but instead his (and the French) policy of appeasing Hitler only projected weakness which was ruthlessly exploited by Hitler and set in motion the events that ultimately lead to war..

We had no army whatsoever. The British army was woefully under equipped and, had British policy been more aggressive then the likelihood is that the invasion of Britain would have come earlier than expected, and the American would have been negotiating with Hitler for peace.

Chamberlain was an appeaser through necessity.

Too much of our understanding of Chamberlain has been shaped by wartime and post war accounts like The Gathering Storm (by Churchill) which, written in the excitement of victory, tend to airbrush the past and conveniently paint certain characters as 'the bad guys'. It's also appalling that authors like Churchill did so when the protagonists were not around to defend themselves - Chamberlain had died during the war.

Churchill was a great leader when we needed him to be. The right man at the right time. He led the country brilliantly when it was needed. But let's polarise the characters.

Chamberlain's weakness was in not surrounding himself with enough driven and decisive characters. His cabinet was too wet in it's approach to arming the country from 1937 onwards. Even had he done so, it would still have been too late to do anything other than negotiate with Hitler over Czechoslovakia. We had no army or air power, so could do little.

After the failed Norway campaign - led by Churchill - and with our entire army defeated in France, the way was open for Hitler to invade, so Chamberlain was far from alone in thinking that a course of action was negotiation. The only thing that stopped Hitler invading was his inability to organise forces before the winter of 1940/41 and his concern with air superiority. Goerring was incensed that Hitler didn't strike faster and he was right. The Battle of Britain - had it gone on just a day or two more - would have resulted in the destruction of the RAF and a walk in the park for Germain forces.

In conclusion, Chamberlain did appease Hitler at the right time. But was he a naive fool as you state, and was he a died in the wool appeaser? No.

DavidinSouthampton · Jan 17, 2018

Brovion said:
Indeed he was. Something else he was wrong about!

Is it still Pantomime season......... "Oh no he wasn't!"

And on the basis of what he had to do for those war years, he presumably wanted to avoid it happening again.

Brovion · Jan 17, 2018

DavidinSouthampton said:
Is it still Pantomime season......... "Oh no he wasn't!"

And on the basis of what he had to do for those war years, he presumably wanted to avoid it happening again.

Yes, I'm sure Merkel's Panzer divisions are poised to sweep across the French border as soon as Brexit is completed. Get those Spitfires ready!

DJ NOBO · Jan 17, 2018

No-one has been treated more flatteringly by history than Churchill.

He was not a hero. He lived a highly privileged life and was not close to danger. The heroes were those who fought and died.

Also, he hung bomber command out to dry.

maltaseagull · Jan 17, 2018

5mins-from-amex said:
Indeed, if that clown was PM at the time the Hood would have been sailing around with no 15'' shells.

They would probably have had the shells but wouldn't be allowed to fire them

DavidinSouthampton · Jan 17, 2018

Brovion said:
Yes, I'm sure Merkel's Panzer divisions are poised to sweep across the French border as soon as Brexit is completed. Get those Spitfires ready!

It was a bit different in 1946.....

Tom Bombadil · Jan 17, 2018

Dale Jasper said:
No-one has been treated more flatteringly by history than Churchill.

He was not a hero. He lived a highly privileged life and was not close to danger. The heroes were those who fought and died.

Well that's rubbish. For all his faults Churchill didn't shy away from a battle, he took part in a cavalry charge in Sudan, went to South Africa to fight during the boer wars and reenlisted during the first world war ( though was kept away from the front)

5mins-from-amex · Jan 17, 2018

Hamilton said:
We had no army whatsoever. The British army was woefully under equipped and, had British policy been more aggressive then the likelihood is that the invasion of Britain would have come earlier than expected, and the American would have been negotiating with Hitler for peace.

Chamberlain was an appeaser through necessity.

Too much of our understanding of Chamberlain has been shaped by wartime and post war accounts like The Gathering Storm (by Churchill) which, written in the excitement of victory, tend to airbrush the past and conveniently paint certain characters as 'the bad guys'. It's also appalling that authors like Churchill did so when the protagonists were not around to defend themselves - Chamberlain had died during the war.

Churchill was a great leader when we needed him to be. The right man at the right time. He led the country brilliantly when it was needed. But let's polarise the characters.

Chamberlain's weakness was in not surrounding himself with enough driven and decisive characters. His cabinet was too wet in it's approach to arming the country from 1937 onwards. Even had he done so, it would still have been too late to do anything other than negotiate with Hitler over Czechoslovakia. We had no army or air power, so could do little.

After the failed Norway campaign - led by Churchill - and with our entire army defeated in France, the way was open for Hitler to invade, so Chamberlain was far from alone in thinking that a course of action was negotiation. The only thing that stopped Hitler invading was his inability to organise forces before the winter of 1940/41 and his concern with air superiority. Goerring was incensed that Hitler didn't strike faster and he was right. The Battle of Britain - had it gone on just a day or two more - would have resulted in the destruction of the RAF and a walk in the park for Germain forces.

In conclusion, Chamberlain did appease Hitler at the right time. But was he a naive fool as you state, and was he a died in the wool appeaser? No.

While I agree with most of what you say, the part I've underlined has always been a myth, at no point during the war did Germany have the capacity to transport the men, tanks, ect, and keep a supply going. the Kriegsmarine was no match for the Royal Navy, even with air superiority operation Sealion was nothing more than a dream for Hitler.

Hampster Gull · Jan 17, 2018

GT49er said:
Wouldn't have surrendered so much to the EU in the first place. Yes, he favoured greater union within Europe, but make no mistake about it, that would have been a Europe firmly lead by Britain, thank you very much! I doubt he'd have had much truck with the EU as it was, and he'd have creased himself laughing at Call-me-Dave's 'deal.

Could have been if we had a visionary and powerful leader, it would be us not Germany leading our pals :nono:

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Misc] Churchill

Silly old bat

Languidly Clinical

Silly old bat

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silly old bat

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Share this page