Log in

View Full Version : Winston Churchill: strong leader or talentless hack?


normalperson
November 20th, 2014, 06:30 PM
to start i have to mention that i am anti-Churchill and i do believe he is a talentless hack. anyways to start let me give you a little background into this cigar smoking drunk:
Winston Churchill was born on the 30th of November 1874 to a family of nobility and as so became the Justin Trudeau of Britain (always skipping from occupation to occupation using his parents influence because nothing was ever good enough). growing up sir Winston traveled around to the different flashpoints of the world as a war correspondent (after failing to join the infantry and being bored as a cavalry officer) from Cuba (fun fact: teddy Roosevelt fought in the Cuban war of independence and was quite the accomplished soldier leading the charge on kettle hill) to India to Africa. then in 1915 he used his parents influence to become an army officer and climbed to a high position from which he was the main designer/backer/leader of the Gallipoli campaign which caused the deaths of over 250,000 Australians and new Zealanders (side note: i am absolutely infuriated that it does not mention this anywhere on either the Gallipoli campaign or the Winston Churchill section of wikipedia) after the defeat in the 1929 general election (he was a major party hopper but since i don't know to much about this i will not talk out of my ass) he was cast out into the political wasteland but unfortunately this would not be the last time he was to throw other country's troops in the direction of death. when Germany invaded Poland on September 1 1939, two days later Winston Churchill was appointed as First Lord of the Admiralty and from there in 1940 he orchestrated the failed attack (again this frustratingly is not shown on wikipedia) on the neutral country of Norway (fun fact: Vidkun Quislings last name has become synonymous with traitor in Norway because of his coup d'état of the Norwegian government after the German army took over Norway) and after this attack failed he was ironically appointed to prime minister because the public had lost faith in Neville Chamberlain over the failure in Norway which was orchestrated by Winston Churchill. from 1940-1945 he 'ran' the country and it's war effort while making sure that as many soldiers of foreign countries died as possible. (i'm not getting into this because if you know who he is you probably know what he did) in the final months of the war he formed a plan called operation unthinkable that called for the allies to go to war with the Comintern powers and to drive the 7 million strong red army back to Moscow using only a lot less of their own troops(fun fact: US General George S Patton was a strong supporter of this plan too), so to shorten it down: do the impossible. needless to say the plan was shot down. after the war... it's not important and i am tired so I'll only add a few more important notes:

Churchill believed in the same "Jew conspiracy" as Hitler did and was an extreme racist like most Europeans.

Churchill was extremely against socialism and equal rights.

in 1919 Churchill sanctioned the use of tear gas on Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq.

Churchill was a supporter of banning Jewish immigration to Britain in the 1930's.

Churchill was a supporter of the Dresden bombing campaign. (13–15 February 1945)

anyways in all feel free post your own idea or to argue because i love a good debate, also feel free to ask questions and notify me if i missed anything thanks. :D

Stronk Serb
November 21st, 2014, 12:26 PM
Wot a fooken wanker. I think the UK would've been better off with the BUF. They tried to push for peace with Germany at the outbreak of the war. Pretty much isolate from Europe.

jordanhardy
November 21st, 2014, 01:11 PM
Like all political leaders, he was just a figurehead. 99% of decisions made would have come from others during the war not him. I think you opinion and what you have stated is very one sided and clearly written from someone of the opinion that he is a talentless hack. Britain needed a strong leader at the time and Neville Chamberlain was not the one for the job. Yes he did have some rather extreme political opinions, he was a liberal democrat which says it all. However he was a good public speaker and knew how to bring a nation together at their time of need. He managed to boost the morale of a country which was at rock bottom financially and mentally. Britain was a crumbling superpower since the end of the First World War, half the male population were wiped out in France and Britain was still recovering from that. He knew that we wouldn't be able to take on the Nazis head on, so he did call in other nations to fight for us. You have to remember and I'm sure you do being Canadian (I assuming you are due to you profile) that Britain is a commonwealth and still and maintains and empire which will call on the nations in the common wealth to fight and defend it if required. Yes unfortunately many men were killed in the battles leading up to the allied invasion, and the majority of the British forces were made up of those from the commonwealth nation. However Churchill would not have been those making the tactical decisions during the war. Yes there were many failed attempts at breaking into the European mainland during German occupation, but that's war, there are victories and losses on both sides. As for his opinions of Russia after the war, he wasn't the only one with those decisions. Most of Europe had that opinion. Russia was a threat to Europe, they refused to leave the countries that they had liberated from Germany, effectively taking control of them. All those nations would later become part of the soviet Union. This angered Europe and the western world and pretty much started the Cold War. He was against communism which is what Churchill and Hitler had in common.

Yes Churchill had some unpopular decisions, but he was a big part in the British defence and I would not call him talentless by any means. Anyone who was able to start at the bottom and make his way a leader of a nation, has some ability. He was and will always be one of my the greatest prime ministers in British history.

Don't get me wrong, I am well aware that he had his faults, he was a poor politician, hence why he got votes out before Neville Chamberlain was voted in. But Britain didn't need a politician in charge, they needed a strong leader, and he was the man.

As for your comment about most Europeans being racist, I don't know wether to be offended by that or quite where you got that from or what you based that opinion on.

Merged posts. Use the 'edit' button'. ~Typhlosion

phuckphace
November 21st, 2014, 01:36 PM
I don't feel that Churchill's alcohol and cigar habit is all that relevant, seems like petty knit-picking. he was undeniably a warmonger responsible for a lot of avoidable death, that much is certain. when spoiled brats wind up with power, things tend to get a little shooty down on the farm, which the brat doesn't give a fuck about because he's been insulated from the consequences of his actions all of his life.

just for fun I googled "Winston Churchill racist" to see what sort of lulz I could uncover, and found this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

The fact that we now live in a world where a free and independent India is a superpower eclipsing Britain, and a grandson of the Kikuyu "savages" is the most powerful man in the world, is a repudiation of Churchill at his ugliest – and a sweet, ironic victory for Churchill at his best.

ayyy lmao 2014 India is barely more than a landfill with a GDP. this is a country that has nuclear weapons, a space program AND half a billion people who shit and eat in the streets.

http://i.imgur.com/dduJtUa.jpg

if by "superpower" they mean "the most likely origin of a deadly pandemic of apocalyptic proportions" then, sure.

as for Obama, he's a plutocrat and an oppressor of millions, so there's some IRONY to ponder while we're on the topic. :lol3:

jordanhardy
November 21st, 2014, 01:52 PM
I don't feel that Churchill's alcohol and cigar habit is all that relevant, seems like petty knit-picking. he was undeniably a warmonger responsible for a lot of avoidable death, that much is certain. when spoiled brats wind up with power, things tend to get a little shooty down on the farm, which the brat doesn't give a fuck about because he's been insulated from the consequences of his actions all of his life.

True, but isn't that the case with all leaders when at war? It's easy to sit here now and say "that was a bad I idea, if he'd done that then those men wouldn't have died" but when you've got your back to the wall and a nation is demanding something done about it as well as the impending invasion of a military power like no other, then bad decisions will be made. Unfortunately back then, the only way to be somebody in a position of power was to come from a well educated background. The upper class have always been shielded from the problems, shit
Rolls down him unfortunately.

Horatio Nelson
November 21st, 2014, 03:17 PM
I don't feel that Churchill's alcohol and cigar habit is all that relevant, seems like petty knit-picking. he was undeniably a warmonger responsible for a lot of avoidable death, that much is certain. when spoiled brats wind up with power, things tend to get a little shooty down on the farm, which the brat doesn't give a fuck about because he's been insulated from the consequences of his actions all of his life.

just for fun I googled "Winston Churchill racist" to see what sort of lulz I could uncover, and found this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html



ayyy lmao 2014 India is barely more than a landfill with a GDP. this is a country that has nuclear weapons, a space program AND half a billion people who shit and eat in the streets.

image (http://i.imgur.com/dduJtUa.jpg)

if by "superpower" they mean "the most likely origin of a deadly pandemic of apocalyptic proportions" then, sure.

as for Obama, he's a plutocrat and an oppressor of millions, so there's some IRONY to ponder while we're on the topic. :lol3:

Agreed. I don't dislike Churchill, but I don't agree with his methods. Which pretty much goes for every military leader ever. lol