Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Churchill sucked | |
Author: Aussie | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 08:42:46 01/13/05 Thu In reply to: Paddy (Scotland) 's message, "CBC archives..." on 22:34:39 01/09/05 Sun Churchill was personally responsible for the Gallipoli disaster, as first sea lord he ignored all strategic advice and pushed forth with a naval operation, it failed then he began a land operation, it failed, hundreds of thousands dead. He may have stood up for his own country against the nazis (not the world, USA did that, besdies only europe and africa were threatened), however he did no such thing against the Japanese. He never took the Defence of Singapore seriously, and when Japanese were bombing Australia and submarines getting in our harbours he still wouldnt release Aus troops from servive in Africa to defend their own country. Winston Churchill was no hero, he was a terrible leader of military operations, and a pigheaded and alcoholic leader of a nation. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: yeah, yeah. | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:17:59 01/13/05 Thu 'not the world, USA did that, besdies only europe and africa were threatened' Rubbish. So Hitler had no interest in dominating anywhere outside Europe and Africa, didn't he? And so the world would have been fine if 'only' Europe and Africa had become Nazi? Talk about insularity. And it is also a ridiculous re-writing of history to say that Britain didn't stand up for the world and the 'USA did that'. Crap. The British Empire was struggling to defend itself globally while fighting the Nazis in Europe and Africa. It was a classic case of overstretch, but that doesn't mean Britain made no attempt to defend the rest of the world or somehow was only acting in its own or 'Europe's' interest. Bollocks revisionism. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: What did Churchill suck? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:34:12 01/13/05 Thu I think you'll find that Britain, Canada, Australia and NZ joined the war when other countries were threatened and invaded: Poland, Belgium, France, Scandinavia, all that mob. On the other hand, the Americans didn't join until they were actually attacked. This, of course, is their prerogative and they can not seriously be criticised for wanting to stay out of other people's conflicts so soon after WWI. On the other hand, it does make it a bit rich to suggest that Churchill's Britain was only interested in Britain and not the destruction of national socialist tyranny. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Go back to the cricket, mate - you've been sold the anti-Brit myth | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:53:41 01/13/05 Thu Churchill stood up to Hitler when the rest of the world was quietly throwing in the towel. The man is certainly a hero of mine. I still get shivers when I read some of his great WWII speeches. When you say he "stood up for his own country", you have to remember that his country was the British Empire. Australia's own leaders were prepared to pull back to the Brisbane line and abandon the people in the northern half of the continent, so we can hardly claim the Churchill is the only one who felt the need to focus attention on one area. He tried to keep us all together, but Britain was ultimately so weakened by the war that even the core nations of the Empire drifted apart. I would like to reverse that and see us drift back together. There is no reason for ANZACS, Brits and Canucks to treat each other as foreigners: we are family. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: South Africa joined the war at the start also | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:17:19 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Churchill approved of SA concentration camps. nt | |
|
Author: Winnie [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:03:24 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Did he approve of the disease and deprivation, or just of the principle of detainment? A key issue, I think. | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:07:20 01/13/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Churchill did stand for the world... | |
|
Author: Frank (US) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:33:12 01/13/05 Thu I believe that we can all agree that Winston Churchill's military mind was ineffective at best, highly delustional at worst. However, the defense of Singapore was really not his fault. The actual design of the defenses of the port were outdated and couldn't even accomadate Britains largest Battleships/etc. Also, while Britain lost two battleships defending Singapore, it is important to point out that the original task force planned included an aircraft carrier, which very well may have prevented such a one sided outcome. However, the carrier broke down, and rather than wait for repairs, the fleet sailed for singapore and was sunk by the Japanese air force...it wasn't entirely Churchill's fault, just a combination of bad luck and the simple fact that the Royal Navy didnt have the resources to fight a World War. As for standing up to Hitler, Churchill did indeed stand for the world. Remember, if he makes peace and accepts Nazi domination of Europe, U-boats stop sinking American shipping and FDR has no way to persuade the USA into fighting Nazi Germany. Indeed, the US would have probably used Nazi Europe as a defense against Soviet aggression. So we can come to the conclusion that Winston Churchill was indeed a great man, he stood against Nazi Germany even when he realized victory would most likely mean the end of the British Empire, However he had many shortcoming, predominantly his terrible judgement in military affairs. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Churchill's Book | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:04:55 01/14/05 Fri I have just purchased Churhill's six volume "The Second World War" for 9.99 from the Folio Society - bargain! http://www.foliosoc.co.uk/offers/details.php?OfferCode=5Z37 [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |