Was Churchill overrated?

Was Churchill over-rated? Anyone who has read a few volumes of his autobiography would know the answer is "No". A VERY intelligent man who had his pulse of ALL the aspects of society and the war.

 

Hitler was dead right about him too.

 

I must say Macca your thread has certainly come along way . Did you expect it to take the direction it has ? It seems to have taken on a life all of its own, so many twists ,turns and convolutions its a real snake pit. As I said before it has bought out some hidden national characteristics. Good Thread Everybody.

 

We Scots would rather you didn't.

 

Hello Drucius,

now come on you albans!!, we are Europeans we are citizens of the EU, we are thriving for a greater Europe and are all one happy bunch and family, sharing a European Parliament,-so why be so picky about tribal issues?

BTW I am desperatly trying to find out, who is Scotlands head of state?? Maybe you can kindly help me out on this one?

Just imagine, a German being head of state in BAVARIA unthinkable. In that case I would probably pilgrim to the USA.

Regards
Kruska

 

EVERT great man of history has his flaws. This is something people don't often understand. The point is that despite their flaws--what person is flawless?--they managed to make a great contribution to mankind.

MLK, Gandhi, Roosevelt, Lincoln, Churchill,et all had "sins". We should all be aware of them so when people with agendas use them to tarnish their great accompishments we can be ready.That is what a good historian does. He tells the whole story so people can properly understand events and the decisions behind them.

Most great men are great because their particular skills and personal attributes are what the crisis they faced called for. They were at the right place at the right time. Churchill is the ultimate example of this. His tenacity and his defiance in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds would in another time be seen as arrogance and obstinance.

Who else could match his grasp of the English language? Read or listen to his "never has so much been owed to so few by so many" speech and try not to be moved. The man was as eloquent of a Statesmen as the world as ever known.

I deeply admire Churchill because of these traits. He combined superior intellectual powers with never say die attitude. I love that.

Those who question his reverence for the US are in error. Churchill without a doubt admired the US. He may have had some misconceptions about the US--as did Roosevelt about the English--but there is no doubting that he felt a deep affinity. The US has reciprocated that affection.

There is currently a US Naval ship called the "USS Churchill"--the only ship ever to be named after a foreign statesmen. On that ship there is always a Royal Navy officer stationed. That should give you an idea of how much appreciation the US has of one Sir Winston Spencer Churchill.

 

Slipdigit if that was aimed at my post you have read something in it that was not there.

Starting from the first quite simple question I have avidly read this thread finding it both enlightening, puzzling and a source for further reading.The posts have shown a great many angles to the subject which I have never before considered.

I truly wish I could raise a subject that so many members would want to discuss and in such depth......rhs

 

Thank you Slipdigit. I did not want you to think I was treating the forum with disrespect.
" Two Nations separated by a common language" came to mind. regards rhs.

 

I admit I'm ignorant on item one, agree with you on the second, but the third .... the "Ems telegram" of 1870 was a deliberate provocation and Napoleon III falling for it and declaring war is only half the story.

My opinion of Chuchill is mostly based on reading his own books and some other ones by Roskill and other naval historians.
Definetly not a nice man but the right man for Britain at a critical time and a great man, leader and key figure of the XX century however you look at it.

On the other hand the British showing him the door in the 1945 elections is one of the things that makes me believe in democracy .

 

Hello T.O.S.,

That Bismarck tricked Napoleon III via the Ems telegram is true, however both sides played their multiple tricks via. diplomatic matches were sometimes Nap.III almost got "his" way - but in the end Bismarck prevailed as the more cunning politican.

These two gentleman Bismarck and Churchill were both masters in diplomacy and cunningness in order to make their beloved country emerge as the winner.

Regards
Kruska

 

Hello rhs,

come on that is about the easiest thing don't you think so? especially the banning part at the end

Example:

1. (a real killer) Monty was just lucky
2. (second to none) Hitler did not want war

I have seen these discussions many times and I would be willing to offer guarantees

Oh well, nothing to do with the thread Churchill. Mods please feel free to remove this post

Regards
Kruska

 

Kruska,I admit when I saw the first post I thought it was prime Troll material, but the many members who have posted here have made this an incredibly interesting thread.
For the first time I have seen posters from all over the world give their views and opinions which show Churchill in a different light for various reasons. I may not agree or understand their reasoning but I will not reject their ideas outright.
My favourite subject, but not very well read on, is how the smaller nations caught between Germany and Russia reacted. Some difficult and trajic choices were made.
Back on track. I have no wish to stir the pot or get banned but a really cracking , well thought out thread to my name would be a feather in my cap.
Your academic sparring with RedCoat has given me much food for thought. Its why I like this forum

regards rhs.

 

Hello rhs,

thanks for the compliments to redcoat (I still think he is English) and me and the others who contibuted so far in keeping this thread from being closed.

Regards
Kruska

 

Queen Elizabeth. The First Minister is Alex Salmond.

She's only an eighth German, you know.

 

I could be both, or I could just be British

If you write ' Belgium get themselves' this implies in English that the problem that the Belgians found themselves in was of their own making. I don't really think that being invaded, just because it suited Prussia's war plans, can be classed as 'their fault'.

So according to this early 20th century author, an alliance between Britain and Prussia was the sensible thing to do, if we couldn't have a policy of 'Splendid Isolation'.
When he wrote that I doubt he would have had much of an argument from his fellow Brits, but something happened to change that, what was it ?
The answer is quite simple. Prussia decided to build a navy that was strong enough to threaten Britain's Royal Navy.
Britain would probably have ignored Prussia's growing industrial might, and she might have looked the other way while Prussia built up her other armed forces, and started to throw her growing power around.
But get all these factors together, Prussia threatening to dominate mainland Europe through military aggression, and industrial muscle, plus a Navy that can challenge Britains command of the Sea, and Britain will not stand around and let it happen

That Prussian humour is working overtime again.
Prussia had already declared war on France and Russia and invaded two neutral nations before Britain got involved...

 

If its any help, I looked in my passport, and my nationality is classed as... British

 

Sooo.. you actually had to doublecheck on your passport to assure your identity towards your real feelings, interesting

Regards
Kruska

 

redcoat, would you please be so kind as to forward an occasion between 1900 and before 28th July 1914 , were Prussia threatend any country in Europe by military aggression so as to dominate!!

Regarding the armsrace between Europe and Germany "threatening" British and other European army and naval power from 1904 - 1913 in average per/year:

Germany 12.84 Reichsmark per / head of population on the army
UK 12.78 Reichsmark per / head of population on the army

Germany 5.49 Reichsmark per / head of population on the navy
UK 17.20 Reichsmark per / head of population on the navy

The UK spend as much per head as Germany on the army.
The UK spend 3times more per head as Germany on the navy

Germany had to stand up against Russia and France in the case of a war - the spendings per head of those two countries are not even included into the above comparrison.

Now with that kind of numerical military spendings in total favour for the "maybe enemies" of Germany you are actually forwarding that Germany: threatened to dominate mainland Europe through military aggression

Redcoat, so far in our posting dispute Prussia - UK you have absolutly not provided a single proof or document or reference that supports your claims besides forwarding your unsupported personal opinions and trival comments!!

As I stated already before, this posting is getting meaningless and absurd, so if you want to continue come up with documents or reference.

Regards
Kruska