Churchill Great War Leader Or Wartime Figurehead. (ancient, 1950's, economic)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have always considered Churchill one who, at one of his nation's least promising hours, when finally his predecessors' mistakes had come home to roost, took the reins and dared. It mystifies me that some modern Britons deprecate him. A perfect man? Surely not. A ruthless defender of his country's interests? Certainly, and what other form of leader would one wish in wartime? Capable of petulance? Indeed. Full of ideas, some featherbrained and some excellent? I'd say so. One of his nation's greatest? Let's see. Led nation through a period where it stood alone, took great punishment, recovered from disasters? Led it ultimately to an important role in victory? Yes on both counts. Were I an Englishman, I would be proud to count him a countryman. As he was half American, on some level I suppose I already can, especially as he is one of the few to be made an honorary US citizen.
Some ill-mannered and well-known (if not respected) forum participants, of course, will spike the ball in the endzone here, showing a customary lack of grace and surplus of bombast (such are the SOPs of the petty chauvinist, by and large), washing any convenient face in something or other. I don't care; Churchill taught us to rise above pettifoggery when greater matters were at hand. The truth is the truth, and I see no way to avoid the just conclusion that Churchill stood for much that represented the very best of his country in its darkest days. Even were he not one whose use of the English language I gape at in wonder, I would call him one of his country's giants. If I one day return to UK soil, one of my destinations is the green marble stone in Westminster Abbey dedicated by the same Queen whose security I once, for a short time, helped to guard.
Remember Winston Churchill, indeed.
wonderful post ! I am an American and I have read the speeches and listened to them and they never fail to thrill and inspire me. Winston Churchill was a man of many faults and weaknesses but he was the man of the hour for a period of time.
wonderful post ! I am an American and I have read the speeches and listened to them and they never fail to thrill and inspire me. Winston Churchill was a man of many faults and weaknesses but he was the man of the hour for a period of time.
He was not the prime minister when WW2 started and was not when it finished. He was voted by the people of the UK out before the fall of Japan. They knew he was more of a wartime leader.
Surely Churchill was a very prescient fellow when it came to gauging post-war history.
The alliance with the USSR was an enemy of my enemy is my friend. Churchill trusted the Soviets a little more than the Nazis. A pity Roosevelt was naïve towards the end in dealing with the Soviets.
The alliance with the USSR was an enemy of my enemy is my friend. Churchill
trusted the Soviets a little more than the Nazis. A pity Roosevelt was naïve
towards the end in dealing with the Soviets.
Just wondering if deep within he might have come to a conclusion on Stalin like Labour party leader Attlee. Stalin meeting him for the first time after Churchhill was ousted in elections noted that he 'does not look like a greedy man'. And correspondingly Attlee also came to an incisive description about him: '..reminded me of the Renaissance despots , no principles, any methods but no flowery language, always YES or NO, though you could only count it if it was NO'.
The empire was the largest ever in the world with about a quarter of the world's population. Please do a google.
Dont matter the Empire had nowhere near 45 million troops. India was most likely the largest of the Empire with 2 million in their armed forces. Britian itself had a peak of 4.6 million. I cant think of any other country in the empire with over a million troops. Where are the 45 million troops ?? Unless you mean they would try to mobilize that many which is still hard to believe as I dont think any of the countries had the econmy to support any large amount of forces. Ron
Dont matter the Empire had nowhere near 45 million troops.
A quarter of the world's population could easily raise 45 million troops. It is just simple maths. The problem was raising such an army - the supply side. Forget the cost of such an undertaking, it is the shear production to equip and feed them and then the logistics involved in supplying them and then the armies internal logistics in getting them around. That is before one shot is fired.
Last edited by John-UK; 06-12-2014 at 08:25 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.