Indeed he did. Churchill had two sides to him. On the one hand he was undeniably a great leader in war time - strong willed and tough. On the other hand he was an old school imperialist who had a nationalistic superiority complex. Perhaps its the latter that made him the perfect man for the job during WW2? It was a case of right time right place for Churchill but I can understand why they voted him out in peace time.
Winston Churchill was one of the greatest war-time leaders in history. He was a crap peace-time leader, which is why he was voted out after the war. If it wasn't for people like him, you almost certainly wouldn't be free to say what you like on a forum like this!
It's widely acknowledged that the Red Army would have crushed the fascists in the end with or without external help. Of course the world would be a very different place and of course the Soviet Union would have been too. As for saying what you like that is very relative. Who is the brainwashed, you or me?
Some historians also would say he was a bigot, a war criminal and responsible for the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children.......but of course that's their opinion, which they have every right to have.
I don't think there can be any doubt about that whatsoever. He was the perfect man to lead Britain through those awful years. There are similarities between him and Mrs Thatcher. Now I'd be no fan of Thatcher. I thought she tried to destroy the working class, fu*ked many parts of England and Wales and her policy on Northern Ireland was totally disastrous. However, like Churchill, I have a begrudging respect for her strong will and stoicism. Whatever else you might say about these two former PM's, they were tough nuts. Churchill had a dry sense of humour. When he and Michael Collins were alone together during the Anglo-Irish treaty talks Collins said "you put 10,000 pounds on my head". Churchill replied "you should be flattered" and proceeded to remove from a drawer a notice from the Boar War offering 25 pounds for the capture of Mr Churchill "dead or alive". Collins replied "ah but then you'd have to take inflation into account"! I thought about that after I'd posted it Oslo. You are correct. Also, some accents just make some people sound stupid. The American one is one and the Irish one is another.
So our collective response to Morgan's stance on the NRA's position on spree killings is? Mine is that guns and the NRA are irrelevant - as are gun toting security staff in schools. For me, the key to protecting innocent citizens from the nutters who crop up from time to time at any public location (schools, cinemas, holiday islands, urban streets etc.) is for the authorities to create and maintain central databases on people with personal issues (grudge freaks) with access to or at least a fascination with weapons. Once in place, the need then is to take effective action to remove or at least reduce the identified risk (sustained counselling, close monitoring, weapon searches etc., etc.). In just about all spree killing cases, the perpetrators have been found to have been on some sort of radar - and yet many have still also held licences to own guns, have had their bedroom walls covered in weird posters and/or been communicating their thoughts online, even to the extent of having their own websites for the purpose. If things like this are allowed to go by the by, NRA or no, we're still up **** creek without a paddle. It's the socio-psychological equivalent of a surgeon spotting cancer and doing nowt about it. If 1+1 doesn't always make 2, then we can apologise to those poor misguided ****ers that meant / posed no threat to anyone. As for the rest, certify and isolate them until such time as the perceived threat has been eradicated. Spree killings are a fairly recent phenomenon that need to be anticipated. Maybe many cases quietly are and lives have been saved but clearly every now and again (and anywhere in the world, not just America) one overflies the cuckoo's nest and needs to be contained a bit sharpish. Wonder what the dour Andy Murray's take would be, if he could bear recalling those moments as an 8 year old, under the table watching Hamilton blowing his school mates away in Dunblane? It isn't only the dead that suffer is it? We really need to stop pussy-footing around on this issue.
Here in the UK it's really only the ruling classes and Tory voting country folk who have gun licences in significant numbers. Give them a 12 month amnesty to hand in all firearms and then a 15 year sentence for anyone caught in possession. £50.00 compensation to encourage them.
A war criminal? What was he supposed to do? Lay down and surrender? (Probably what would happen today if we were in a similar position). Ok....I'm out of here!!
As far as I can remember, Staines' father/grandfather was f*cked over by Winnie. Its a personal thing for him.
It's not about numbers though is it Imaz? It's the mental stability of legit gun owners that correlates with spree killings. Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton and Derrick Bird all held gun licences as I understand it.
You...I'd say. Wasn't much free speech in the old Soviet Union was there? And there would have been no guarantee that the Nazis would have been overthrown by the red army, especially if Britain had fallen early on in the war. Something that was very much on the cards for quite a while.
The Red Army employed the age old "scorched earth" tactic (or a derivative of it), destroying everthing from land and bulidings to livestock and retreated right back into the belly of Russia drawing the Germans in further and further. The German supply lines became so stretched that the army began to semi-starve and the fierce Russian winter made it almost impossible for them to move and they half froze to death too. They drew them all the way to Stalingrad and formed a defensive line there and with the Nazi's almost dead on their feet, they sprung the trap and launched a counter-offensive. In the weeks and months that followed they practically destroyed the entire German eastern army. Would the Russians have come to Britain's aid if she had fallen? Haven't a clue.
Rubbish, the Red Army would have crushed all before it as various later war games have showed. The sacrifice of the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War is not to be sneered at, 20 million plus dead compared to less than half a million in the UK. Without it it you would be speaking German. Case Closed. [video=youtube;aCWVM5bUZmE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCWVM5bUZmE[/video]
Col, just cos we have differing opinions doesn't make either one of us right. My opinion is that Churchill ordered the indescriminate bombing of many German cities AFTER victory was more or less assured, thus costing the lives of many men, women and children needlessly. Also in his early years he was instrumental in the setting up of 'The Black & Tans' who I'm sure need no introduction to many on here. One if the most violent and brutal paramilitary organisations ever formed. I could go on but I'm at work.
Nice of you to close the case for other participants of this thread, Imaz. For me, the Red Army only became effective once they'd got their **** together. Having made a pact with Hitler, Stalin didn't expect the Germans to invade. The Russians were caught cold by Operation Barbarossa and the Wehrmacht practically reached the gates of Moscow. It is undoubtedly true that a challenge for the German Blitzkrieg was to maintain effective supply lines, but they were also buggered by the onset of winter. Hitler prevaricated too long before prosecuting war on the Russians and left insufficient time to take Moscow before winter set in, by which time it was the Wehrmacht that was the poorly equipped. Before Barbarossa it was the Russians that were ill equipped; Stalin never believing Hitler would renege on the pact. For example, much of their Air Force were still flying about in biplanes and the like. We should never forget too that the Royal Navy and Merchant Navy braved the arctic hell to supply Russia through Murmansk when it was practically on its knees. Of course, once it's army became better kitted out with winter clothing, rifles that didn't freeze and tanks that both outnumbered and technically matched the panzers, and with Mig aircraft to rival the Messerschmitts, they were in a position to push the Germans back. Overwhelmingly superior numbers against an opposition fighting war on too many fronts - the Yanks joined the fray - could only yield one outcome in the end.
Fair enough mate.........we'll agree to differ. Germany had to be hammered to ensure they couldn't inflict the incredible horror that they had inflicted on so many any longer. Innocent lives are a tragic consequence of war. If you don't want that, don't start a war I suppose. Also, I understand you have family reasons for disliking Churchill which is perfectly reasonable.
