Churchill was a prick

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Churchill was a prick

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 18 of 22 < 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >

TheJudge 30 Jan 15 7.41pm
Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jan 2015 7.30pm Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 7.20pm Quote sydtheeagle at 30 Jan 2015 11.15am Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 10.52am Yes we can all second guess decision making from the past but it is a pointless pursuit. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. So what you're saying equates to "let's ignore a discussion of history because it can't teach us anything of use for the future." On the contrary, NOT pointless at all. Hindsight isn't the only by-product of re-examining such events. That's not what I'm saying. Learning from history is one thing. Vilifying someone after the event for his decision making, especially as the outcome was ultimately successful, is pointless. If we want to aim our bile at someone, aim it at Hitler. He was solely responsible for wrecking Europe and making us all poorer to the extent that it is still felt today. 'Solely responsible' hmmmmm. That one doesn't ring true. Do enlarge on that please.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

30 Jan 15 7.41pm

Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jan 2015 7.30pm

Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 7.20pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 30 Jan 2015 11.15am

Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 10.52am

Yes we can all second guess decision making from the past but it is a pointless pursuit. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

So what you're saying equates to "let's ignore a discussion of history because it can't teach us anything of use for the future."

On the contrary, NOT pointless at all. Hindsight isn't the only by-product of re-examining such events.

That's not what I'm saying.
Learning from history is one thing. Vilifying someone after the event for his decision making, especially as the outcome was ultimately successful, is pointless.
If we want to aim our bile at someone, aim it at Hitler. He was solely responsible for wrecking Europe and making us all poorer to the extent that it is still felt today.

'Solely responsible' hmmmmm. That one doesn't ring true.

Do enlarge on that please.

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 30 Jan 15 7.43pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jan 2015 11.29am Quote sydtheeagle at 30 Jan 2015 11.15am Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 10.52am Yes we can all second guess decision making from the past but it is a pointless pursuit. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. So what you're saying equates to "let's ignore a discussion of history because it can't teach us anything of use for the future." On the contrary, NOT pointless at all. Hindsight isn't the only by-product of re-examining such events. Worked quite well for Europe post 1945, remembering the horrors and instead of seeking dominance, seeking collaboration, interdependence and shared benefit has created a modern Europe that survived the cold war and has increasingly become driven as much by common cause, as direct competition. Not sure the Poles would agree.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

30 Jan 15 7.43pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jan 2015 11.29am

Quote sydtheeagle at 30 Jan 2015 11.15am

Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 10.52am

Yes we can all second guess decision making from the past but it is a pointless pursuit. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

So what you're saying equates to "let's ignore a discussion of history because it can't teach us anything of use for the future."

On the contrary, NOT pointless at all. Hindsight isn't the only by-product of re-examining such events.

Worked quite well for Europe post 1945, remembering the horrors and instead of seeking dominance, seeking collaboration, interdependence and shared benefit has created a modern Europe that survived the cold war and has increasingly become driven as much by common cause, as direct competition.

Not sure the Poles would agree.

Alert a moderator to this post

Bert the Head Epsom 30 Jan 15 9.03pm
Quote since1953 at 23 May 2013 8.28am "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits,slovenly systems of agriculture,sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement,the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine,must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.It has already spread throughout Central Africa , raising fearless warriors at every step;and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled,the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome ." Sir Winston Churchill; 1875 to 1965 (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London ). Churchill put the USA up to the overthrow of a secular and democratic government in Iran in 1953.
Alert a moderator to this post

Bert the Head

Epsom 30 Jan 15 9.03pm

Quote since1953 at 23 May 2013 8.28am

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits,slovenly systems of agriculture,sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement,the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine,must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.
Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.It has already spread throughout Central Africa , raising fearless warriors at every step;and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled,the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome ."

Sir Winston Churchill; 1875 to 1965
(Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250
London ).

Churchill put the USA up to the overthrow of a secular and democratic government in Iran in 1953.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kosowski Standing at the top of B Block 30 Jan 15 9.05pm
Quote legaleagle at 30 Jan 2015 7.38pm Quote Kosowski at 30 Jan 2015 5.25pm To General Anders (the victor of Monte Casino): "You can rest assured about the future of Poland..." In fairness I think he did what he could and genuinely respected the contribution of Poland to the Allied cause. Roosevelt was the f*ing idiot. I think realistically there wasn't much on the ground that could have been done about Poland in 1944-45 ,Stalin knew that and held all the cards. Edited by legaleagle (30 Jan 2015 7.41pm) Quite on the contrary, the US held the biggest card of them all - the bomb. Roosevelt was simply naive enough to fall for the good old Uncle Joe act and convince enough of congress and American public opinion to believe the same. Even after his death the US administration took its time to come to terms with the reality of Soviet intentions (with a few exceptions like George Patton). The Soviets were rightly s*ting themselves after Hiroshima/Nagasaki and there was a tremendous amount of wasted political leverage which could have been utilised with the atomic threat to see Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia possibly go the way of Austria and Finland. By 1949 and Korea it was too late. Block B comment of 2011/2012 Season: "That's better Palace, better...but still fucking shit!" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dann to Much, Much to Yong.
Alert a moderator to this post

Kosowski

Standing at the top of B Block 30 Jan 15 9.05pm

Quote legaleagle at 30 Jan 2015 7.38pm

Quote Kosowski at 30 Jan 2015 5.25pm

To General Anders (the victor of Monte Casino):

"You can rest assured about the future of Poland..."

In fairness I think he did what he could and genuinely respected the contribution of Poland to the Allied cause.

Roosevelt was the f***ing idiot.

I think realistically there wasn't much on the ground that could have been done about Poland in 1944-45 ,Stalin knew that and held all the cards.

Edited by legaleagle (30 Jan 2015 7.41pm)

Quite on the contrary, the US held the biggest card of them all - the bomb. Roosevelt was simply naive enough to fall for the good old Uncle Joe act and convince enough of congress and American public opinion to believe the same. Even after his death the US administration took its time to come to terms with the reality of Soviet intentions (with a few exceptions like George Patton). The Soviets were rightly s***ting themselves after Hiroshima/Nagasaki and there was a tremendous amount of wasted political leverage which could have been utilised with the atomic threat to see Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia possibly go the way of Austria and Finland. By 1949 and Korea it was too late.

Block B comment of 2011/2012 Season:

"That's better Palace, better...but still fucking shit!"

----------------------------------------------------------------

Dann to Much, Much to Yong.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kosowski Standing at the top of B Block 30 Jan 15 9.18pm
Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 7.43pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jan 2015 11.29am Quote sydtheeagle at 30 Jan 2015 11.15am Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 10.52am Yes we can all second guess decision making from the past but it is a pointless pursuit. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. So what you're saying equates to "let's ignore a discussion of history because it can't teach us anything of use for the future." On the contrary, NOT pointless at all. Hindsight isn't the only by-product of re-examining such events. Worked quite well for Europe post 1945, remembering the horrors and instead of seeking dominance, seeking collaboration, interdependence and shared benefit has created a modern Europe that survived the cold war and has increasingly become driven as much by common cause, as direct competition. Not sure the Poles would agree. Ditto the Czechoslovaks, Hungarians, Yugoslavs, Lithuanians etc etc.. Edited by Kosowski (30 Jan 2015 9.23pm) Block B comment of 2011/2012 Season: "That's better Palace, better...but still fucking shit!" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dann to Much, Much to Yong.
Alert a moderator to this post

Kosowski

Standing at the top of B Block 30 Jan 15 9.18pm

Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 7.43pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jan 2015 11.29am

Quote sydtheeagle at 30 Jan 2015 11.15am

Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 10.52am

Yes we can all second guess decision making from the past but it is a pointless pursuit. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

So what you're saying equates to "let's ignore a discussion of history because it can't teach us anything of use for the future."

On the contrary, NOT pointless at all. Hindsight isn't the only by-product of re-examining such events.

Not sure the Poles would agree.

Ditto the Czechoslovaks, Hungarians, Yugoslavs, Lithuanians etc etc..

Edited by Kosowski (30 Jan 2015 9.23pm)

Block B comment of 2011/2012 Season:

"That's better Palace, better...but still fucking shit!"

----------------------------------------------------------------

Dann to Much, Much to Yong.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 30 Jan 15 10.47pm
Quote Kosowski at 30 Jan 2015 9.05pm Quote legaleagle at 30 Jan 2015 7.38pm Quote Kosowski at 30 Jan 2015 5.25pm To General Anders (the victor of Monte Casino): "You can rest assured about the future of Poland..." In fairness I think he did what he could and genuinely respected the contribution of Poland to the Allied cause. Roosevelt was the f*ing idiot. I think realistically there wasn't much on the ground that could have been done about Poland in 1944-45 ,Stalin knew that and held all the cards. Edited by legaleagle (30 Jan 2015 7.41pm) Quite on the contrary, the US held the biggest card of them all - the bomb. Roosevelt was simply naive enough to fall for the good old Uncle Joe act and convince enough of congress and American public opinion to believe the same. Even after his death the US administration took its time to come to terms with the reality of Soviet intentions (with a few exceptions like George Patton). The Soviets were rightly s*ting themselves after Hiroshima/Nagasaki and there was a tremendous amount of wasted political leverage which could have been utilised with the atomic threat to see Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia possibly go the way of Austria and Finland. By 1949 and Korea it was too late. That's a fair point of view.But realistically, I don't think Roosevelt and then Truman were going to be using that card over Poland,Czechoslovakia and Hungary.A card is only going to work anyway if it is perceived by whoever it is being used against that it might actually be used (ie drop an atomic bomb) over the issue in question. The bomb hadn't even been successfully tested by the time Roosevelt died.Poland's fate (and changed borders) was sealed by the time of Yalta in February 1945 and by then Poland was occupied by the Red army,again before"the bomb" had even been tested. US domestic public opinion was weary after May 1945 about further conflict in Europe,at least until the Berlin Air Lift era.Roosevelt anyway was dead before the end of the war and I don't think anyone could say Truman was fooled by Stalin.I do think they maybe used the card to help get Austria out of the Soviet sphere;after the war it was jointly administered with a Soviet zone.I they also used the card in Manchuria which Stalin had his eyes on in late 1945. Yugoslavia was a different situation.It wasn't liberated by the Red Army and never occupied by it.Tito's partisans were in full control and Yugoslavia was never in the same kind of hole as the other counties you you referred to vis a vis the Soviet Union and Tito played a very clever,successful and long-term game of playing Stalin off against the West. Edited by legaleagle (31 Jan 2015 10.20am)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

30 Jan 15 10.47pm

Quote Kosowski at 30 Jan 2015 9.05pm

Quote legaleagle at 30 Jan 2015 7.38pm

Quote Kosowski at 30 Jan 2015 5.25pm

To General Anders (the victor of Monte Casino):

"You can rest assured about the future of Poland..."

In fairness I think he did what he could and genuinely respected the contribution of Poland to the Allied cause.

Roosevelt was the f***ing idiot.

I think realistically there wasn't much on the ground that could have been done about Poland in 1944-45 ,Stalin knew that and held all the cards.

Edited by legaleagle (30 Jan 2015 7.41pm)

That's a fair point of view.But realistically, I don't think Roosevelt and then Truman were going to be using that card over Poland,Czechoslovakia and Hungary.A card is only going to work anyway if it is perceived by whoever it is being used against that it might actually be used (ie drop an atomic bomb) over the issue in question.

The bomb hadn't even been successfully tested by the time Roosevelt died.Poland's fate (and changed borders) was sealed by the time of Yalta in February 1945 and by then Poland was occupied by the Red army,again before"the bomb" had even been tested. US domestic public opinion was weary after May 1945 about further conflict in Europe,at least until the Berlin Air Lift era.Roosevelt anyway was dead before the end of the war and I don't think anyone could say Truman was fooled by Stalin.I do think they maybe used the card to help get Austria out of the Soviet sphere;after the war it was jointly administered with a Soviet zone.I they also used the card in Manchuria which Stalin had his eyes on in late 1945.

Yugoslavia was a different situation.It wasn't liberated by the Red Army and never occupied by it.Tito's partisans were in full control and Yugoslavia was never in the same kind of hole as the other counties you you referred to vis a vis the Soviet Union and Tito played a very clever,successful and long-term game of playing Stalin off against the West.

Edited by legaleagle (31 Jan 2015 10.20am)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 30 Jan 15 10.54pm
Quote Kosowski at 30 Jan 2015 9.18pm Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 7.43pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jan 2015 11.29am Quote sydtheeagle at 30 Jan 2015 11.15am Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 10.52am Yes we can all second guess decision making from the past but it is a pointless pursuit. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. So what you're saying equates to "let's ignore a discussion of history because it can't teach us anything of use for the future." On the contrary, NOT pointless at all. Hindsight isn't the only by-product of re-examining such events. Worked quite well for Europe post 1945, remembering the horrors and instead of seeking dominance, seeking collaboration, interdependence and shared benefit has created a modern Europe that survived the cold war and has increasingly become driven as much by common cause, as direct competition. Not sure the Poles would agree. Ditto the Czechoslovaks, Hungarians, Yugoslavs, Lithuanians etc etc.. Edited by Kosowski (30 Jan 2015 9.23pm) I think many former Yugoslavs might now feel that Tito did quite a good job of keeping the really crazy nationalist zealots in the constituent republics under control and we all saw what happened in 1991-95 when that genie was let out of the bottle. Regarding the other countries you mention,I can't disagree with you. Edited by legaleagle (30 Jan 2015 10.56pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

30 Jan 15 10.54pm

Quote Kosowski at 30 Jan 2015 9.18pm

Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 7.43pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jan 2015 11.29am

Quote sydtheeagle at 30 Jan 2015 11.15am

Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 10.52am

Yes we can all second guess decision making from the past but it is a pointless pursuit. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

So what you're saying equates to "let's ignore a discussion of history because it can't teach us anything of use for the future."

On the contrary, NOT pointless at all. Hindsight isn't the only by-product of re-examining such events.

Not sure the Poles would agree.

Ditto the Czechoslovaks, Hungarians, Yugoslavs, Lithuanians etc etc..

Edited by Kosowski (30 Jan 2015 9.23pm)

I think many former Yugoslavs might now feel that Tito did quite a good job of keeping the really crazy nationalist zealots in the constituent republics under control and we all saw what happened in 1991-95 when that genie was let out of the bottle. Regarding the other countries you mention,I can't disagree with you.

Edited by legaleagle (30 Jan 2015 10.56pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Bert the Head Epsom 30 Jan 15 11.37pm
Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 7.43pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jan 2015 11.29am Quote sydtheeagle at 30 Jan 2015 11.15am Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 10.52am Yes we can all second guess decision making from the past but it is a pointless pursuit. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. So what you're saying equates to "let's ignore a discussion of history because it can't teach us anything of use for the future." On the contrary, NOT pointless at all. Hindsight isn't the only by-product of re-examining such events. Worked quite well for Europe post 1945, remembering the horrors and instead of seeking dominance, seeking collaboration, interdependence and shared benefit has created a modern Europe that survived the cold war and has increasingly become driven as much by common cause, as direct competition. Not sure the Poles would agree. The Marshall Plan is the key. Okay it favoured the USA but it was better than the "State is bad" nonsense that is screwing up Europe now
Alert a moderator to this post

Bert the Head

Epsom 30 Jan 15 11.37pm

Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 7.43pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jan 2015 11.29am

Quote sydtheeagle at 30 Jan 2015 11.15am

Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 10.52am

Yes we can all second guess decision making from the past but it is a pointless pursuit. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

So what you're saying equates to "let's ignore a discussion of history because it can't teach us anything of use for the future."

On the contrary, NOT pointless at all. Hindsight isn't the only by-product of re-examining such events.

Not sure the Poles would agree.

The Marshall Plan is the key. Okay it favoured the USA but it was better than the "State is bad" nonsense that is screwing up Europe now

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 31 Jan 15 9.45am
Quote Bert the Head at 30 Jan 2015 11.37pm Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 7.43pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jan 2015 11.29am Quote sydtheeagle at 30 Jan 2015 11.15am Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 10.52am Yes we can all second guess decision making from the past but it is a pointless pursuit. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. So what you're saying equates to "let's ignore a discussion of history because it can't teach us anything of use for the future." On the contrary, NOT pointless at all. Hindsight isn't the only by-product of re-examining such events. Worked quite well for Europe post 1945, remembering the horrors and instead of seeking dominance, seeking collaboration, interdependence and shared benefit has created a modern Europe that survived the cold war and has increasingly become driven as much by common cause, as direct competition. Not sure the Poles would agree. The Marshall Plan is the key. Okay it favoured the USA but it was better than the "State is bad" nonsense that is screwing up Europe now Not sure what you mean by that really. The main objection to Europe from Britain is the domination of policy by Germany and France and the perceived interference with law making in this country. As far as post War Europe is concerned.It was feared that the Russians might make peace with Germany which would have changed the whole picture. Surrendering Eastern Europe was to keep Stalin on side. It was inevitable that once the US joined the war Germany would be defeated but if Russia had pulled out or changed sides, the war would have been protracted or at in the worst scenario, lost. There was also development of the H bomb to consider. Had the war been extended, the Germans and indeed the Russians might have developed that technology and WW2 would have gone nucear.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

31 Jan 15 9.45am

Quote Bert the Head at 30 Jan 2015 11.37pm

Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 7.43pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jan 2015 11.29am

Quote sydtheeagle at 30 Jan 2015 11.15am

Quote TheJudge at 30 Jan 2015 10.52am

Yes we can all second guess decision making from the past but it is a pointless pursuit. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

So what you're saying equates to "let's ignore a discussion of history because it can't teach us anything of use for the future."

On the contrary, NOT pointless at all. Hindsight isn't the only by-product of re-examining such events.

Not sure the Poles would agree.

The Marshall Plan is the key. Okay it favoured the USA but it was better than the "State is bad" nonsense that is screwing up Europe now

Not sure what you mean by that really.
The main objection to Europe from Britain is the domination of policy by Germany and France and the perceived interference with law making in this country.
As far as post War Europe is concerned.It was feared that the Russians might make peace with Germany which would have changed the whole picture. Surrendering Eastern Europe was to keep Stalin on side. It was inevitable that once the US joined the war Germany would be defeated but if Russia had pulled out or changed sides, the war would have been protracted or at in the worst scenario, lost. There was also development of the H bomb to consider. Had the war been extended, the Germans and indeed the Russians might have developed that technology and WW2 would have gone nucear.

Alert a moderator to this post

Old Chap Orpington 02 Feb 15 10.04am
Quote Pinky at 23 May 2013 7.54am Also used armed troops to force miners back to work in the north-east during the General Strike. My grandad (miner, WW1 veteran) hated Churchill's guts. And a grateful nation kicked the nasty b****** out of office after they'd sorted out the mess and misery created by the crisis of capitalism in the 30s and 40s. Whilst he lost the election in 1945, he did win in 1951 & was re-elected as prime minister Trivial fact - Palace used to win 5-1 at least once a season, maybe next season?
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

Old Chap

Orpington 02 Feb 15 10.04am

Quote Pinky at 23 May 2013 7.54am

Also used armed troops to force miners back to work in the north-east during the General Strike. My grandad (miner, WW1 veteran) hated Churchill's guts. And a grateful nation kicked the nasty b****** out of office after they'd sorted out the mess and misery created by the crisis of capitalism in the 30s and 40s.

Whilst he lost the election in 1945, he did win in 1951 & was re-elected as prime minister

Trivial fact - Palace used to win 5-1 at least once a season, maybe next season?

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Kermit8 Hevon 02 Feb 15 10.16am
Quote Old Chap at 02 Feb 2015 10.04am Quote Pinky at 23 May 2013 7.54am Also used armed troops to force miners back to work in the north-east during the General Strike. My grandad (miner, WW1 veteran) hated Churchill's guts. And a grateful nation kicked the nasty b****** out of office after they'd sorted out the mess and misery created by the crisis of capitalism in the 30s and 40s. Whilst he lost the election in 1945, he did win in 1951 & was re-elected as prime minister He was re-elected but, unusually, with a million and a half votes less than The Labour Party. Victory in defeat. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 02 Feb 15 10.16am

Quote Old Chap at 02 Feb 2015 10.04am

Quote Pinky at 23 May 2013 7.54am

Whilst he lost the election in 1945, he did win in 1951 & was re-elected as prime minister

He was re-elected but, unusually, with a million and a half votes less than The Labour Party. Victory in defeat.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Feb 15 10.48am
Its worth remembering that Churchill wasn't actually very popular with the British troops (he was beloved of the officers, but among the rank and file, he was seen as being too 'war hungry'). Antony Burgess blames Churchill's post war crushing defeat largely on the vote from the solider vote, especially those of the 'civilian army' still in uniform post-VE day. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 02 Feb 15 10.48am

Its worth remembering that Churchill wasn't actually very popular with the British troops (he was beloved of the officers, but among the rank and file, he was seen as being too 'war hungry').

Antony Burgess blames Churchill's post war crushing defeat largely on the vote from the solider vote, especially those of the 'civilian army' still in uniform post-VE day.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 18 of 22 < 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Churchill was a prick

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors