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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

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

suicideatselhurst crawley 02 Feb 15 11.08am
Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history. I think I may have brought this up on here before but I've always held the view that Churchill is viewed as a great leader because he won. Had he lost, I believe a lot of questionable stuff the British did would have come out, but instead it's wiped under the carpet and we continue to moan about those nasty Germans with their concentration camps (an idea they knicked off us) and anti-Semitism (which was thriving in Britain in the 30s). The clearest example of this for me is the Bengal Famine. Churchill, fearful that the Japs might invade northern India, decided rather than evacuate the natives, he would just stop sending them food and shelter (in the middle of a famine) leading to millions of deaths, some claim on a similar scale as the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. When asked about this, Churchill blamed them for 'breeding like rabbits'. He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics. So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation. Now who does that remind me of... Anyone willing to defend him? Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm) Yep.. one thing only matters, if it wasn't for him we would be talking german...dont care about the rest of the s***..dont judge a historical figure by todays values never works Theres someone in my head ... But its not me X/Box game Tag bazcpfc1961, clan (HMS)
Alert a moderator to this post

suicideatselhurst

crawley 02 Feb 15 11.08am

Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm

Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history.

I think I may have brought this up on here before but I've always held the view that Churchill is viewed as a great leader because he won. Had he lost, I believe a lot of questionable stuff the British did would have come out, but instead it's wiped under the carpet and we continue to moan about those nasty Germans with their concentration camps (an idea they knicked off us) and anti-Semitism (which was thriving in Britain in the 30s).

The clearest example of this for me is the Bengal Famine. Churchill, fearful that the Japs might invade northern India, decided rather than evacuate the natives, he would just stop sending them food and shelter (in the middle of a famine) leading to millions of deaths, some claim on a similar scale as the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. When asked about this, Churchill blamed them for 'breeding like rabbits'.

He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics.

So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation.

Now who does that remind me of...

Anyone willing to defend him?

Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm)

Yep.. one thing only matters, if it wasn't for him we would be talking german...dont care about the rest of the s***..dont judge a historical figure by todays values never works

Theres someone in my head ... But its not me

X/Box game Tag bazcpfc1961, clan (HMS)

Alert a moderator to this post

NI_palace_fan Newtownards 02 Feb 15 1.31pm
Quote suicideatselhurst at 02 Feb 2015 11.08am Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history. I think I may have brought this up on here before but I've always held the view that Churchill is viewed as a great leader because he won. Had he lost, I believe a lot of questionable stuff the British did would have come out, but instead it's wiped under the carpet and we continue to moan about those nasty Germans with their concentration camps (an idea they knicked off us) and anti-Semitism (which was thriving in Britain in the 30s). The clearest example of this for me is the Bengal Famine. Churchill, fearful that the Japs might invade northern India, decided rather than evacuate the natives, he would just stop sending them food and shelter (in the middle of a famine) leading to millions of deaths, some claim on a similar scale as the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. When asked about this, Churchill blamed them for 'breeding like rabbits'. He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics. So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation. Now who does that remind me of... Anyone willing to defend him? Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm) Yep.. one thing only matters, if it wasn't for him we would be talking german...dont care about the rest of the s***..dont judge a historical figure by todays values never works That last part about not judging the past by current values. I agree totally. Churchill was a strong and brave man that had some extreme views and actions but that's what the nation and empire needed at the time in war. Churchill certainly was not a prick!!! Possibly the leaders of today could learn not to back down so easy for fearing to offend someone somewhere. Edited by NI_palace_fan (02 Feb 2015 1.32pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

NI_palace_fan

Newtownards 02 Feb 15 1.31pm

Quote suicideatselhurst at 02 Feb 2015 11.08am

Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm

Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history.

He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics.

So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation.

Now who does that remind me of...

Anyone willing to defend him?

Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm)

Yep.. one thing only matters, if it wasn't for him we would be talking german...dont care about the rest of the s***..dont judge a historical figure by todays values never works

That last part about not judging the past by current values. I agree totally. Churchill was a strong and brave man that had some extreme views and actions but that's what the nation and empire needed at the time in war.

Churchill certainly was not a prick!!!

Possibly the leaders of today could learn not to back down so easy for fearing to offend someone somewhere.

Edited by NI_palace_fan (02 Feb 2015 1.32pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Feb 15 2.51pm
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. Well they did at least get to retain a country called Poland, which was progress By Europe I of course mean Western Europe. "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 2.51pm

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.

Well they did at least get to retain a country called Poland, which was progress By Europe I of course mean Western Europe.

"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 2.57pm
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. They had three of them. Using them in Europe was never an option, and using them in Europe wasn't an option. To be effective those bombs would have to have been deployed in Europe. The consequences politically for the US relationship with Europe, and restructuring via the Marshall Plans would have been catastrophic. Plus it would result in another world war, which would have bankrupted the US and UK in months, and seen uprisings across Europe from the assorted Communist cells and sympathisers that had been operating throughout the war. "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 2.57pm

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.

They had three of them. Using them in Europe was never an option, and using them in Europe wasn't an option. To be effective those bombs would have to have been deployed in Europe. The consequences politically for the US relationship with Europe, and restructuring via the Marshall Plans would have been catastrophic.

Plus it would result in another world war, which would have bankrupted the US and UK in months, and seen uprisings across Europe from the assorted Communist cells and sympathisers that had been operating throughout the war.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Superfly The sun always shines in Catford 02 Feb 15 3.09pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Feb 2015 2.57pm 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 sting 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. They had three of them. Using them in Europe was never an option, and using them in Europe wasn't an option.* To be effective those bombs would have to have been deployed in Europe. The consequences politically for the US relationship with Europe, and restructuring via the Marshall Plans would have been catastrophic. Plus it would result in another world war, which would have bankrupted the US and UK in months, and seen uprisings across Europe from the assorted Communist cells and sympathisers that had been operating throughout the war. Agree with the first part but unsure on the 2nd Lend me a Tenor 31 May to 3 June 2017 John McIntosh Arts Centre London Oratory School SW6 1RX with Superfly in the chorus [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Superfly

The sun always shines in Catford 02 Feb 15 3.09pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Feb 2015 2.57pm

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)

They had three of them. Using them in Europe was never an option, and using them in Europe wasn't an option. To be effective those bombs would have to have been deployed in Europe. The consequences politically for the US relationship with Europe, and restructuring via the Marshall Plans would have been catastrophic.

Agree with the first part but unsure on the 2nd

Lend me a Tenor

31 May to 3 June 2017

John McIntosh Arts Centre
London Oratory School
SW6 1RX

with Superfly in the chorus
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

the_mcanuff_stuff Caterham 02 Feb 15 3.37pm
Quote suicideatselhurst at 02 Feb 2015 11.08am Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history. I think I may have brought this up on here before but I've always held the view that Churchill is viewed as a great leader because he won. Had he lost, I believe a lot of questionable stuff the British did would have come out, but instead it's wiped under the carpet and we continue to moan about those nasty Germans with their concentration camps (an idea they knicked off us) and anti-Semitism (which was thriving in Britain in the 30s). The clearest example of this for me is the Bengal Famine. Churchill, fearful that the Japs might invade northern India, decided rather than evacuate the natives, he would just stop sending them food and shelter (in the middle of a famine) leading to millions of deaths, some claim on a similar scale as the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. When asked about this, Churchill blamed them for 'breeding like rabbits'. He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics. So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation. Now who does that remind me of... Anyone willing to defend him? Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm) Yep.. one thing only matters, if it wasn't for him we would be talking german...dont care about the rest of the s***..dont judge a historical figure by todays values never works I just love the way that for Brits, the worst thing about a prospective Nazi occupied Britain is the thought of having to learn a foreign language I can think of a few worse things about such a scenario! And BTW, the Nazi's didn't plan to have the populace learn German in Britain post-(planned) invasion and indeed had no such programme or planned in occupied France. They did of course have a plan to set up an oppressive puppet dictatorship
Alert a moderator to this post

the_mcanuff_stuff

Caterham 02 Feb 15 3.37pm

Send a Private Message to the_mcanuff_stuff

Quote suicideatselhurst at 02 Feb 2015 11.08am

Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm

Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history.

He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics.

So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation.

Now who does that remind me of...

Anyone willing to defend him?

Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm)

Yep.. one thing only matters, if it wasn't for him we would be talking german...dont care about the rest of the s***..dont judge a historical figure by todays values never works

I just love the way that for Brits, the worst thing about a prospective Nazi occupied Britain is the thought of having to learn a foreign language I can think of a few worse things about such a scenario! And BTW, the Nazi's didn't plan to have the populace learn German in Britain post-(planned) invasion and indeed had no such programme or planned in occupied France.

They did of course have a plan to set up an oppressive puppet dictatorship

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 02 Feb 15 4.02pm
Quote the_mcanuff_stuff at 02 Feb 2015 3.37pm Quote suicideatselhurst at 02 Feb 2015 11.08am Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history. I think I may have brought this up on here before but I've always held the view that Churchill is viewed as a great leader because he won. Had he lost, I believe a lot of questionable stuff the British did would have come out, but instead it's wiped under the carpet and we continue to moan about those nasty Germans with their concentration camps (an idea they knicked off us) and anti-Semitism (which was thriving in Britain in the 30s). The clearest example of this for me is the Bengal Famine. Churchill, fearful that the Japs might invade northern India, decided rather than evacuate the natives, he would just stop sending them food and shelter (in the middle of a famine) leading to millions of deaths, some claim on a similar scale as the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. When asked about this, Churchill blamed them for 'breeding like rabbits'. He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics. So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation. Now who does that remind me of... Anyone willing to defend him? Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm) Yep.. one thing only matters, if it wasn't for him we would be talking german...dont care about the rest of the s***..dont judge a historical figure by todays values never works I just love the way that for Brits, the worst thing about a prospective Nazi occupied Britain is the thought of having to learn a foreign language I can think of a few worse things about such a scenario! And BTW, the Nazi's didn't plan to have the populace learn German in Britain post-(planned) invasion and indeed had no such programme or planned in occupied France. They did of course have a plan to set up an oppressive puppet dictatorship They have that now with the EU. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 02 Feb 15 4.02pm

Quote the_mcanuff_stuff at 02 Feb 2015 3.37pm

Quote suicideatselhurst at 02 Feb 2015 11.08am

Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm

Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history.

He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics.

So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation.

Now who does that remind me of...

Anyone willing to defend him?

Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm)

Yep.. one thing only matters, if it wasn't for him we would be talking german...dont care about the rest of the s***..dont judge a historical figure by todays values never works

They did of course have a plan to set up an oppressive puppet dictatorship

They have that now with the EU.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000 02 Feb 15 4.43pm
Quote the_mcanuff_stuff at 02 Feb 2015 3.37pm Quote suicideatselhurst at 02 Feb 2015 11.08am Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history. I think I may have brought this up on here before but I've always held the view that Churchill is viewed as a great leader because he won. Had he lost, I believe a lot of questionable stuff the British did would have come out, but instead it's wiped under the carpet and we continue to moan about those nasty Germans with their concentration camps (an idea they knicked off us) and anti-Semitism (which was thriving in Britain in the 30s). The clearest example of this for me is the Bengal Famine. Churchill, fearful that the Japs might invade northern India, decided rather than evacuate the natives, he would just stop sending them food and shelter (in the middle of a famine) leading to millions of deaths, some claim on a similar scale as the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. When asked about this, Churchill blamed them for 'breeding like rabbits'. He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics. So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation. Now who does that remind me of... Anyone willing to defend him? Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm) Yep.. one thing only matters, if it wasn't for him we would be talking german...dont care about the rest of the s*..dont judge a historical figure by todays values never works I just love the way that for Brits, the worst thing about a prospective Nazi occupied Britain is the thought of having to learn a foreign language I can think of a few worse things about such a scenario! And BTW, the Nazi's didn't plan to have the populace learn German in Britain post-(planned) invasion and indeed had no such programme or planned in occupied France. They did of course have a plan to set up an oppressive puppet dictatorship Edited by johnno42000 (02 Feb 2015 4.44pm) Edited by johnno42000 (02 Feb 2015 4.45pm) Attachment**: max_papeschi_nazifuckingmouse.jpg (37.50Kb) 'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'
Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000

02 Feb 15 4.43pm

Quote the_mcanuff_stuff at 02 Feb 2015 3.37pm

Quote suicideatselhurst at 02 Feb 2015 11.08am

Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm

Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history.

He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics.

So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation.

Now who does that remind me of...

Anyone willing to defend him?

Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm)

Yep.. one thing only matters, if it wasn't for him we would be talking german...dont care about the rest of the s***..dont judge a historical figure by todays values never works

They did of course have a plan to set up an oppressive puppet dictatorship

Edited by johnno42000 (02 Feb 2015 4.44pm)

Edited by johnno42000 (02 Feb 2015 4.45pm)

Attachment: max_papeschi_nazifuckingmouse.jpg (37.50Kb)

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

Alert a moderator to this post

suicideatselhurst crawley 02 Feb 15 4.46pm
Quote the_mcanuff_stuff at 02 Feb 2015 3.37pm Quote suicideatselhurst at 02 Feb 2015 11.08am Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history. I think I may have brought this up on here before but I've always held the view that Churchill is viewed as a great leader because he won. Had he lost, I believe a lot of questionable stuff the British did would have come out, but instead it's wiped under the carpet and we continue to moan about those nasty Germans with their concentration camps (an idea they knicked off us) and anti-Semitism (which was thriving in Britain in the 30s). The clearest example of this for me is the Bengal Famine. Churchill, fearful that the Japs might invade northern India, decided rather than evacuate the natives, he would just stop sending them food and shelter (in the middle of a famine) leading to millions of deaths, some claim on a similar scale as the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. When asked about this, Churchill blamed them for 'breeding like rabbits'. He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics. So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation. Now who does that remind me of... Anyone willing to defend him? Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm) Yep.. one thing only matters, if it wasn't for him we would be talking german...dont care about the rest of the s***..dont judge a historical figure by todays values never works I just love the way that for Brits, the worst thing about a prospective Nazi occupied Britain is the thought of having to learn a foreign language I can think of a few worse things about such a scenario! And BTW, the Nazi's didn't plan to have the populace learn German in Britain post-(planned) invasion and indeed had no such programme or planned in occupied France. They did of course have a plan to set up an oppressive puppet dictatorship I was being candidly layman in general terms, Hitler was a great admirer of us and our empire, no doubt we would of not had to speak german but it would have been our second langauge taught in schools, instead of say french, Mosley would have been the puppet, and I think the worst thing about being invaded would be the image of cattle trucks full of victims of the latest round up at Victoria on their way to the nearest death camp, and for that Churchill can be forgiven anything Theres someone in my head ... But its not me X/Box game Tag bazcpfc1961, clan (HMS)
Alert a moderator to this post

suicideatselhurst

crawley 02 Feb 15 4.46pm

Quote the_mcanuff_stuff at 02 Feb 2015 3.37pm

Quote suicideatselhurst at 02 Feb 2015 11.08am

Quote serial thriller at 22 May 2013 8.18pm

Had quite an intense with a mate of mine today about one of the great celebrated figures of this nation's political history.

He also supported a Bill to sterilise the mentally disabled (I'm not making this up! [Link] a form of, err, eugenics.

So let's look at the evidence: a mass-murderer, who supported racial purification, but won a lot of people over because he was a good public speaker and adopted the role as figurehead of a nation.

Now who does that remind me of...

Anyone willing to defend him?

Edited by serial thriller (22 May 2013 8.18pm)

Yep.. one thing only matters, if it wasn't for him we would be talking german...dont care about the rest of the s***..dont judge a historical figure by todays values never works

They did of course have a plan to set up an oppressive puppet dictatorship

I was being candidly layman in general terms, Hitler was a great admirer of us and our empire, no doubt we would of not had to speak german but it would have been our second langauge taught in schools, instead of say french, Mosley would have been the puppet, and I think the worst thing about being invaded would be the image of cattle trucks full of victims of the latest round up at Victoria on their way to the nearest death camp, and for that Churchill can be forgiven anything

Theres someone in my head ... But its not me

X/Box game Tag bazcpfc1961, clan (HMS)

Alert a moderator to this post

ParchmoreEagle Belair 07 Feb 15 1.30am
[Link] [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

ParchmoreEagle

Belair 07 Feb 15 1.30am

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Seth On a pale blue dot 07 Feb 15 2.14am
Quote ParchmoreEagle at 07 Feb 2015 1.30am [Link] Have you been taking large amounts of LSD and crack cocaine recently? "You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16
Alert a moderator to this post

Seth