dust1n
Zindīq
I didn't understand what you meant, but now I realize you were talking specifically about pilots and the campaign to simply prevent invasion. So, in that respect, I would be wrong.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Winston Churchill was a monster
- Thread starter MD
- Start date
I didn't understand what you meant, but now I realize you were talking specifically about pilots and the campaign to simply prevent invasion. So, in that respect, I would be wrong.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Cool.......... no probs.
A lot of folks from other parts of the World don't realise that the Churchill that we Brits love was the Churchill who kept us going in 1940/early41.
Our defeat and fortunate evacuation from Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, and then the Blitz's upon our cities was what we describe as our darkest-hour. Apart from our own and brave young fliers from allied countries (including the neutral USA) we were quite alone.
Our History recognises three very special names for holding out against the enemy.
Churchill held us together.
Air Marshal Dowding's policies left us with an Air Force to fight with.
Vice Air Marshal Parks' squadrons took the brunt of the battle.
There were many many heroes, but those three names come high up on the list.
Churchill was an un-nice, unsuccessful, inept politician up until that time.
But he was the right person, in the right place, at the right time.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
How was Churchill not a monster? Every politician involved in WWII had the blood of innocents on their hands, they committed mass-murders, and wide-spread needless destruction. The Germans may have been more efficient and systematic in their killings, but the Russians (the ones who did actually defeat Hitler) were horrible (they especially terrorized Berlin) and the Americans massacred thousands upon thousands of innocents in Japan with relentless bombings.
I think it's easy to conclude that all involved in that war sucked, and rather than being viewed as glorious saviors WWII should serve as a constant reminder of the horrors and suffering of war.
I think it's easy to conclude that all involved in that war sucked, and rather than being viewed as glorious saviors WWII should serve as a constant reminder of the horrors and suffering of war.
dust1n
Zindīq
Churchill was an un-nice, unsuccessful, inept politician up until that time.
But he was the right person, in the right place, at the right time.
That's basically how I imagined. A war politician in short. Necessary for war, and probably not great at so much else besides hilarious banter.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Strangely (to me) Churchill was not a good war politician. His strategies and ideas in the First World War cost many thousands of lives and losses, and such was his failure that it is almost unbelievable that he did not crawl away and hide his face and name... in shame..... forever.
That's the 'thing' about Churchill....... he must have had some inner fire in his character, and some iron hard skin which allowed him to carry on...... I think it was just raw guts....
I tell you this..... we were all but finished and washed up, and our pilots were dying faster than we could train new ones, and it would have been easy for a country to falter .......... but not with that hard old dog leading. And when our Bombers dropped a few bombs on Berlin, and Hitler went crazy mad, redirecting his mighty Luftwafte to bomb our cities to annihilation, our fighter bases had a chance to survive and rebuild. Those bomber pilots did the thing which redirected the battle, which saved us, yet they are never mentioned in our hero-lists.
Churchill.......... one couldn't make his story up! It wouldn't be believed!
dust1n
Zindīq
Good point. More fiery rhetoric war politician than amazing strategy rhetoric. Got to have a good spokesperson.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I'm sure they would, but they would be obviously wrong, as Hitler was not fighting for all Germans. He was only fighting for certain races in Germany to the detriment of other Germans. In short, it cannot be reasonably substantiated that Hitler was fighting for Germany, but, with Churchill, it most certainly can.
Wirey
Fartist
Blood of innocents? Please. Own anything made in Malaysia or Bangladesh? Churchill was faced with a relentless, ruthless enemy who had just finished invading three major neutral countries (Norway, Holland, Belgium), and appeared to be poised to invade England. The world had already witnessed what the Germans would do to their own (Night of the Long Knives, Kristalnacht) and he had to keep them from English soil. Are you honestly suggesting the moral thing to do would have been to lay down and allow the Nazis free reign?
It's a mistake to confuse personal morality with national morality. Nations aren't just people.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
And no one cared.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Ah........ a sneaky little post there!
No......... rhetoric is for folks like you.......... and me.
There was nothing insincere about Churchill........ he was a straight talker.
He had also proved his backbone and guts as a young war-reporter in South Africa.
He escaped from captivity and was hunted 'dead or alive' by the Boers.
Churchill's speeches were full-on sincerity.
Now if you had writ 'Fiery War Politician' you'd have got it right.
Pity....
Wirey
Fartist
A few did, but no, not many.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Not at all. However, caution should be advised to avoid carpet bombing entire city blocks occupied by civilians. Rape should not happen to anyone, soldier or civilian. If you have a problem with a leader, take it up with the party; leave those who aren't fighting or willing to fight out of it.
Wirey
Fartist
The Germans were willing to fight. The technology of the time suggested that carpet bombing was probably the only viable method (although this was later shown to be incorrect), and from a national point of view, dehousing and killing workers was a legitimate war aim.. And countries don't rape, individuals do. You can't really hang that one on Churchill.
He was an imperfect man who showed up at exactly the right time to save civilization from ending up in the dark age of the technocrat (for a while). I've read enough history to know that makes him singular.
Mequa
Neo-Epicurean
As for wartime atrocities, I've heard the argument that that is essentially what war is: Committing atrocious acts in order to smash one's enemy into submission. By necessity, there is going to be collateral damage, innocent people are going to be killed, maimed and traumatised. The only difference is the sliding scale as to how far this goes. Given this, it really is no surprise that Winston Churchill was a bit of a monster.
War is hideous, but unfortunately is often a necessary evil. The likes of ISIS today give otherwise peace-loving nations little choice but to fight them, which itself is quite atrocious of them.
War is hideous, but unfortunately is often a necessary evil. The likes of ISIS today give otherwise peace-loving nations little choice but to fight them, which itself is quite atrocious of them.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I am not sure the british were racist during and after the war.
large numbers of soldiers from the Empire fought and died side by side in our regiments with us. There was no colour bar. After the war many were invited to come over and work here. They had the right to british citizenship. To day people from the commonwealth no longer have the right.
It is true that the USA had black regiments but they also had segregation, some thing the british did not understand. And which they totally ignored when they associated with black american soldiers and invited them into their homes.
large numbers of soldiers from the Empire fought and died side by side in our regiments with us. There was no colour bar. After the war many were invited to come over and work here. They had the right to british citizenship. To day people from the commonwealth no longer have the right.
It is true that the USA had black regiments but they also had segregation, some thing the british did not understand. And which they totally ignored when they associated with black american soldiers and invited them into their homes.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Some were, many were not. Yet many who did not even support Hitler or the Axis suffered at the hands of the Allies.
I was thinking of Russia, who had a very terrible problem with their soldiers who came as a wave of terror, terrors and horrors that included mass-rapes in their wake of destruction.
Wirey
Fartist
If you were Russian, and saw what they saw, you'd probably want to hand out a little street justice, too.
My point is that Churchill doesn't meet the qualification of monster.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
*insert the pictures of all those black soldiers of the Wehrmacht here*
Wirey
Fartist
Yeah, I don't think people know how many Indian and Arab soldiers joined the Wehrmacht. Especially Indian.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I have no idea if any black soldiers fought on the German side, but they did have interests in Africa, as did the Italians, so it is possible.
However huge numbers fought with the British.