History paints the picture of the winners and losers in that light. Churchill had the right men in the right place with the right ideas, he was an orator cerdited with the work done by others. to paraphrase a bit Never has more been done by so many to the glory of one man, he was a rude and inveterate drunk, which was part of the reason why the US didn't join earlier than they did. On the other hand I doubt Hitler was that unpleasant, it's a shame his good side isn't portrayed more, but it would be unpopular to paint him as anything other than evil, so we always remember, but we tend to forget how the world viewed him before 1936, he and Nazi Germany were considered a beacon of light, it was only in hindsight they were revealed to have been evil. There are countries today that are clearly of a fascistic bent, but because the picture painted of the Nazi's is so warped people don't realise what they are seeing.
That time he had his political enemies hung up alive on meat hooks and arranged for it to be filmed so he could watch it as many times as he liked - well he'd had a hard day.
How could he have taken any action before the war? He wasn't in power, Chamberlain was the PM. You and some Czech people have a poor sense of history. The Yalta conference didn't allow it to be carved up. The USSR were in control of Eastern Europe. The lying, murderous dictator Stalin promised free elections but of course reneged on that. What do you think we should have done? Declared war on the USSR? In any case not long after Churchill was out of power and Attlee was in.
He wasn't as bad as Lenin, Stalin, Mengele and Himmler, but he was definitely an unpleasant arsewipe.
http://asianhistory.about.com/od/Modern-India/ss/Bengal-Famine-1943.htm little known fact about Churchill and his 'role' in the death of millions of Indians in 1943
It's very difficult to refer to Churchill without bringing up politics. His speeches in the 2nd world war probably kept the country's spirits up. But if you look at his other decisions, actions and opinions, he was a distinctly flawed individual. He was an old style imperialist who was somewhat racist and his tactics in the first world war led many Australians to their death at Gallilipoli. He also ordered a warship down the Humber during the general strike in 1926. If the strike had continued would he have ordered them to fire rounds into the city?
I was just passing on the conversation i had at that time, and i am sorry if i came across as an apologist for Czechoslovakia , i am not.I realise that the Yalta conference Stalin was in charge of East Europe but these Czech lads genuinely felt they had been aggrieved.If anything at the Yalta conference Roosevelt was playing Churchill and Stalin against each other. I do find history fascinating and i apologise if it seems i have a poor grasp to you. City forever
He also wanted to end other strikes by the bullet too - the man was a grade one arse - Though it has to be said he was an arsehole amongst many arseholes - but this one was quintessentially British and banged the Empire drum so loud it deafened all other - also the term WTF hadn't yet been coined
how many were shot? None. Unlike the USSR beloved of so many anti Churchill lefties, the GDR, a place where Union leader Jack Jones said he felt at home but strikes and free trade unions were illegal, or Poland where 48 people were killed in the shipyards at the beginning of Solidarnosc. Scargill refused to back Solidarnosc as he said they were trying to bring the government down and that was not the task of a trade union. (Maybe he meant elected ones were OK to bring down but not communist dictatorships). The sheer hypocrisy and double standards of the left never fail to amaze.
Ahh i like this tactic so often used in a debate :/ - for the record i was remarking on Churchill , not Scargill Poland USSR , the Left the Right , the inbetweeners or Alan Partridge and wont be drawn int o arguing about that to swerve from the point made at least you didnt reply with the immortal salvo of " Thats just like saying . . . . . . "
I remember seeing or reading that he sused out Stalin for what he was ( more what he wanted ) but Roosevelt and Stalin became quite pally and treat Churchill as a bumbleing old fool. There was a plan after invading Italy and getting stopped by Jerry in the north to break out by going across the adriatic into the Balkans. This was blocked by Stalin with the support of Roosevelt, later it became clear why.
The point is he didn't end things with a bullet. The ones I mentioned did and were admired by people who denigrate Churchill. That isn't politics Lambo it is a historical fact.
What party politics? I mentioned lefties. There isn't a leftie party. Strange you don't pull people up for mentioning the Elite or Toffs, other generalisations, but do for this one.
