|
Post by shrewed46 on May 25, 2015 22:24:34 GMT 1
I hope Downie has managed to see BBC2 program, and now realises how Churchill was perceived, by the British Electorate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 22:48:37 GMT 1
Not only by the electorate but by most historians nowadays.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 9:41:57 GMT 1
I hope Downie has managed to see BBC2 program, and now realises how Churchill was perceived, by the British Electorate. sorry, i am in New Zealand working.... so not seen it....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 10:25:48 GMT 1
I hope Downie has managed to see BBC2 program, and now realises how Churchill was perceived, by the British Electorate. What did the program summarise.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 11:10:01 GMT 1
I hope Downie has managed to see BBC2 program, and now realises how Churchill was perceived, by the British Electorate. What did the program summarise..... Churchill perpetuated his wartime leadership by bigging it up himself when he wrote his own history using documents from Official Secrets which no one else had access to. Some of his most famous speeches were only made in the Commons and one was never heard until he recorded it years later.
Many people maintain he was drunk when he spoke over the radio. Only really Max Hastings almost wholeheartedly defended him. His biggest mistake was saying that if Labour won the election they would employ Gestapo like squads.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 26, 2015 11:30:10 GMT 1
His biggest mistake was saying that if Labour won the election they would employ Gestapo like squads.
The long and ignoble history of Tory scaremongering - and it still works, more fool us!
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on May 26, 2015 17:06:38 GMT 1
Churchill was a failure most of his political life, but he was a great wartime leader to whom much is owed.
My parents were no supporters of the Tories, but my Dad and his 3 brothers were inspired By Churchill to join up early as he (Churchill) had been warning of the Nazi threat and my Mum and her family gained solace listening to Churchill's broadcasts on a clandestine radio while living under Nazi occupation, (and having German soldiers billeted in their house which put them at great risk had they been discovered listening to the BBC).
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 26, 2015 17:49:30 GMT 1
Found him an absolutely fascinating subject to touch on, sadly far too briefly, during my History A level. Agree with the above comment about him being a crucial wartime leader to whom a lot is owed, but I also agree he was heavily flawed - issues like the bombing raids on Germany killing those attempting to flee with the war in Europe pretty much done tar his wartime legacy. Sadly, it seems to be a debate that largely polarises opinion - despite the fact that Churchill was to political parties what Steve Claridge was to football clubs!
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on May 26, 2015 19:49:10 GMT 1
Churchill was a failure most of his political life, but he was a great wartime leader to whom much is owed.
Yep, you're not wrong. As a politician, he hadn't got a clue. He'd have fitted in well today with the deadbeats who are/would run the country now. The trouble is, people judge his decisions as if he had access to all the modern day technology available to our leaders, and look what a balls up they've made of poking their nose in around the world in the last 50 years. Zimbabwe, Iraq, Syria, Libya. Are any of the people of those countries better off thanks to our intervention?
A great wartime leader who undoubtedly saved this country from Nazi occupation. Of course he had his faults, but was there any need for the BBC rubbish his reputation?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on May 26, 2015 20:22:20 GMT 1
Churchill was a failure most of his political life, but he was a great wartime leader to whom much is owed.
Yep, you're not wrong. As a politician, he hadn't got a clue. He'd have fitted in well today with the deadbeats who are/would run the country now. The trouble is, people judge his decisions as if he had access to all the modern day technology available to our leaders, and look what a balls up they've made of poking their nose in around the world in the last 50 years. Zimbabwe, Iraq, Syria, Libya. Are any of the people of those countries better off thanks to our intervention?
A great wartime leader who undoubtedly saved this country from Nazi occupation. Of course he had his faults, but was there any need for the BBC rubbish his reputation?
Harsh JT. He was well beaten in a massively important election and discussing why 70 years on is surely valid and interesting. I only caught the last part of the programme but Max Hastings was putting up a pretty strong defence too
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 20:49:47 GMT 1
The Roy Jenkins biography is as good a book on its subject as I've ever read.
I'll go with that rather than a couple of short sentences from the board's resident misery.
|
|
|
Post by RBA on May 26, 2015 21:19:54 GMT 1
Jenkins book is excellent of course and Boris Johnsons The Churchill factor is also an easy and interesting read , Of course Churchill was flawed we all are and i have no problem anyone pointing that out at all but he saved the country and without him there would have been no 1945 reforming Labour Government as there would have been no democracy in a Nazi controlled Britain
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 26, 2015 21:24:07 GMT 1
Oddly if the Germans had successfully occupied Britain Hitler would have set himself up in Bridgnorth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 22:04:44 GMT 1
It was interesting to hear the views of Allenbrooke. He maintained that Churchill was a nightmare to serve under as he lacked no real overall plan. Having said that, he did say that he would have served under no other.Also his advocacy of the Gallipoli landings in World War 1 led to a catastrophic failure. It was also interesting to note that one of the historians likened him to Boris Johnson.
The main point of the programme was as to why he was not elected in 1945. It was purely and simply that from his privileged background and his use of troops to try to break the unions, he was not a man of the people.He had never been on public transport save on one occasion where he went round and round in circles not knowing were to get off.
|
|
|
Post by siabod on May 26, 2015 22:12:25 GMT 1
Oddly if the Germans had successfully occupied Britain Hitler would have set himself up in Bridgnorth. I suspect the Germans would have had a bigger say in where he would have "set himself up" (or otherwise) had they been successful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 22:16:21 GMT 1
I'll go with that rather than a couple of short sentences from the board's resident misery. Hear hear. Utter poison.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on May 26, 2015 22:29:38 GMT 1
Surely this thread could do with an O/T?
Or perhaps even its own forum. Threads dedicated to certain members of the board singling out individuals of a different political persuasion and telling them 'YOU'RE WRONG!' in an overly condescending manner.
Shrewed46 is in for a shock when he works out how the history books will remember Labour's most electorally successful leader.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 22:42:11 GMT 1
Churchill headed a country who were stand alone the only opposition to a tyrant and a mass murderer.
The country needed a strong bullish leader and they had it in Churchill.
Imagine if we had a wet blanket like Ed Millaband back then. Von sproken ze deutche mein fruit, that would be our language right now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 5:17:59 GMT 1
Churchill headed a country who were stand alone the only opposition to a tyrant and a mass murderer.
The country needed a strong bullish leader and they had it in Churchill.
Imagine if we had a wet blanket like Ed Millaband back then. Von sproken ze deutche mein fruit, that would be our language right now. The programme really had nothing to do with his wartime leadership. It was, despite this, to do with why he was unelectable in 1945. There was no point in comparing his wartime leadership with anyone else past, present or future.
|
|
|
Post by RBA on May 27, 2015 7:04:06 GMT 1
The main point of the programme was as to why he was not elected in 1945. It was purely and simply that from his privileged background and his use of troops to try to break the unions, he was not a man of the people.He had never been on public transport save on one occasion where he went round and round in circles not knowing were to get off. Not sure I buy this theory. If he was not a man of the people how come he was re elected as Prime Minister in 1951 ?Clem Attlee said about Churchill " "he had an incredibly wide sympathy for ordinary people all over the world " and when he died 300,000 people filed past his coffin in just a few days..... I guess depends what people mean by "a man of the people "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 7:22:01 GMT 1
I didn't watch the programme.
However what was promised to the post-1945 electorate it was hardly surprising that Churchill was unelectable. Did this come across in the programme?
On a general point it is surprising that with all the historical evidence that the myth of Churchill still persists today. The idea that if wasn't for him we'd all be speaking Germany is nonsense. If Churchill hadn't won power and continued the war then the Lord Halifax faction would have sued for peace and Hitler would have turned East earlier. Hitler had no interest in invading Britain.
Also Germany was doomed as soon as they invaded the USSR. We could have had a monkey as a war leader and the outcome would have been the same militarily.
Of course his effect on people shouldn't be underestimated as suggested by Shropshire Tenor, so as a propaganda tool he was excellent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 7:26:33 GMT 1
Surely this thread could do with an O/T? Or perhaps even its own forum. Threads dedicated to certain members of the board singling out individuals of a different political persuasion and telling them 'YOU'RE WRONG!' in an overly condescending manner. Shrewed46 is in for a shock when he works out how the history books will remember Labour's most electorally successful leader. Would not worry to much about it, I am as thick skinned as him, difference is, i am not a hypocrite, I am a capitalist and believe that hard work earns rewards, Just wonder why Shrewed classes himself as a Labourite (man of the people) yet has relative good wealth (much less than his political idols though) but uses that to enjoy a lifestyle akin to a capitalist. Surely if he was a man of the people, he would share his wealth amogst his peers rather than swanning off enjoying himself.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 7:52:39 GMT 1
Hard work brings many rewards, not just financially.
Some of the hardest working people I know are on minimum wage, their reward is the knowledge that they are helping people.
Anyway, just saying.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 27, 2015 7:56:32 GMT 1
Would not worry to much about it, I am as thick skinned as him, difference is, i am not a hypocrite, I am a capitalist and believe that hard work earns rewards, Just wonder why Shrewed classes himself as a Labourite (man of the people) yet has relative good wealth (much less than his political idols though) but uses that to enjoy a lifestyle akin to a capitalist. Surely if he was a man of the people, he would share his wealth amogst his peers rather than swanning off enjoying himself..... Nothing wrong with being a capitalist Downie if that's your path in life but not sure about some of the other nonsense you put there. Why does voting Labour necessarily mean that you class yourself as 'a man of the people' whatever the hell that means. Why does someone who votes Labour, to follow your train of thought, have to be poor and work shy ? Socialists are allowed personal wealth and belongings if they want to, it's the bigger societal issue where the major differences exist and where capitalism fails so desperately.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 8:22:50 GMT 1
I didn't watch the programme. However what was promised to the post-1945 electorate it was hardly surprising that Churchill was unelectable. Did this come across in the programme? On a general point it is surprising that with all the historical evidence that the myth of Churchill still persists today. The idea that if wasn't for him we'd all be speaking Germany is nonsense. If Churchill hadn't won power and continued the war then the Lord Halifax faction would have sued for peace and Hitler would have turned East earlier. Hitler had no interest in invading Britain. Also Germany was doomed as soon as they invaded the USSR. We could have had a monkey as a war leader and the outcome would have been the same militarily. Of course his effect on people shouldn't be underestimated as suggested by Shropshire Tenor, so as a propaganda tool he was excellent. Can't agree on that. Hitler for starters agreed a deal with Stalin for peace but still invaded. Do you really think that he would left us alone having conquered most of western Europe. If we had appeased him in 1939 it could have left us open to occupation without even an nazi invasion in this case an unopposed peace keeping force from germany, ha ha. br]Look what happened when Neville chamberlain tried to negotiate. 'i have a piece of paper from chauncellor hitler' speech. That showed that peace was not on hitlers agenda, world domination was though.
|
|
|
Post by shrewed46 on May 27, 2015 11:00:33 GMT 1
Surely this thread could do with an O/T? Or perhaps even its own forum. Threads dedicated to certain members of the board singling out individuals of a different political persuasion and telling them 'YOU'RE WRONG!' in an overly condescending manner. Shrewed46 is in for a shock when he works out how the history books will remember Labour's most electorally successful leader. Would not worry to much about it, I am as thick skinned as him, difference is, i am not a hypocrite, I am a capitalist and believe that hard work earns rewards, Just wonder why Shrewed classes himself as a Labourite (man of the people) yet has relative good wealth (much less than his political idols though) but uses that to enjoy a lifestyle akin to a capitalist. Surely if he was a man of the people, he would share his wealth amogst his peers rather than swanning off enjoying himself..... Have you been talking to my bank manager, because he's told a fib. Relative is a strange concept of course I am wealthier than some and poorer than other. Equally to define capitalism by the size of your bank balance seems strange, how much do I have in my bank account to be a capitalist. The basis of my socialism dates back to 1926, when Churchills policies led to my maternal Grandfather being locked out of the ship yards on the Clyde and did not work again until 1939, my paternal grandfather was a local union leader during the General Strike. Once again you seem to be getting confused between hard work and capitalism. Many of the poorest in society, in my opinion, work the hardest because that is the only way they can survive not because they are capitalists
|
|
|
Post by shrewed46 on May 27, 2015 11:24:39 GMT 1
I wonder if Welshshrew, LSF, and KL8 actually watched the program referred to in the OP. I doubt it. Much easier to attack the messenger than addressing the issues raised in the program.
Just to give them an insight into the program I thought the Telegraph review might get a more acceptable response from the three of them.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on May 27, 2015 11:29:03 GMT 1
Oddly if the Germans had successfully occupied Britain Hitler would have set himself up in Bridgnorth. I suspect the Germans would have had a bigger say in where he would have "set himself up" (or otherwise) had they been successful. It would seem that Hitler applied for a council house in Sunderland but was turned down and was allocated to one in Newcastle!
See you tube!
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on May 27, 2015 12:49:45 GMT 1
I wonder if Welshshrew, LSF, and KL8 actually watched the program referred to in the OP. I doubt it. Much easier to attack the messenger than addressing the issues raised in the program. Just to give them an insight into the program I thought the Telegraph review might get a more acceptable response from the three of them. I can't say I saw the programme. Had other engagements over the bank holiday weekend. I don't think anyone has an issue with your opinion or even on the thread in question, just the lordly manner of how you used it as a direct attempt to try and convince Downie he's wrong, despite him being on the other side of the world it would seem. As someone who is a self-proclaimed Labourite and trade unionist, would you then accept that it was the influence of GMB and Unite through unlawful and immoral practices that elected Miliband as your leader and therefore proves trade unions are hideously out of touch with the electorate? Not to mention the Falkirk fiasco, signing unsuspecting members of the public up to the Labour party so Red Len can get his pal a seat in parliament. "We're in it together remember" And to think Limpit reckons there's no corruption in the unions. Dear me.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 27, 2015 14:54:22 GMT 1
Just to protect B&A against any potential legal issues its worth pointing out the no legal convictions against Unite over Millibands election as Labour leader have taken place.
I'm sure B&A moderators will be happy to make this clear to avoid confusion
|
|