41 Years ago today (24/1/1965) Winston Churchill dies

[Kaleun]

God rest, he was a fine war leader!

[Kapitan]

here here :cry:

[The Avon Lady]

The Churchill Centre (http://www.winstonchurchill.org/). Bookmark. :yep:

[tycho102]

It just came to my attention, the other day, that we've a boat named after him.

What the F*CK are we doing with a destroyer named after a BRITT?!! :rotfl:

[Kapitan]

1) i have no idea

2) as mark of respect one RN person is assigned to this ship permanantly from commission to decommission.

[SUBMAN1]

One of his quotes:

"What is popular cannot be good because not enough people are qualified to judge."

[The Avon Lady]

One of his quotes:

"What is popular cannot be good because not enough people are qualified to judge."
Can you substantiate that Churchill is the source of that quote?

[SUBMAN1]

One of his quotes:

"What is popular cannot be good because not enough people are qualified to judge."
Can you substantiate that Churchill is the source of that quote?

What is this, a trial? I was reading up on a Churchill site and pulled it off the site. What else do you want?

-S

[The Avon Lady]

One of his quotes:

"What is popular cannot be good because not enough people are qualified to judge."
Can you substantiate that Churchill is the source of that quote?

What is this, a trial?
Yes. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect 200 dollars. :roll:
I was reading up on a Churchill site and pulled it off the site. What else do you want?
Um................................................ .... a link. :88)

[micky1up]

winston was leaving after a busy days work slightly drunk after a few drinks a woman came up to him and said "you sir are drunk!" and he replied " yes i am but in the morning i will be sober and you will still be ugly" :lol: fab

[SUBMAN1]

One of his quotes:

"What is popular cannot be good because not enough people are qualified to judge."
Can you substantiate that Churchill is the source of that quote?

I'm sure you can find your own

[The Avon Lady]

One of his quotes:

"What is popular cannot be good because not enough people are qualified to judge."
Can you substantiate that Churchill is the source of that quote?
I'm sure you can find your own
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="What+is+popular+cannot+be+good+because+not+enough+ people+are+qualified+to+judge"

Not really, which is precisely why I asked. :roll:

[SUBMAN1]

I just put that in exactly to google as you have it listed out and Google came up with a page that says this exactly:

"What is popular cannot be good because not enough people are qualified to judge."
The foregoing idea may be attributed to Alkibiades, Heinlein or Winston Churchill, depending upon your choice of philosopher.

So I think you can

-S

[The Avon Lady]

I just put that in exactly to google as you have it listed out and Google came up with a page that says this exactly:

"What is popular cannot be good because not enough people are qualified to judge."
The foregoing idea may be attributed to Alkibiades, Heinlein or Winston Churchill, depending upon your choice of philosopher.

So I think you can
I saw that, too.

That is my point. Is that your idea of substantiation?!

BTW, I'm not nitpicking. I don't think it's the kind of thing Churchill would have stated, unless it's taken out of context.

[SUBMAN1]

I just put that in exactly to google as you have it listed out and Google came up with a page that says this exactly:

"What is popular cannot be good because not enough people are qualified to judge."
The foregoing idea may be attributed to Alkibiades, Heinlein or Winston Churchill, depending upon your choice of philosopher.

So I think you can
I saw that, too.

That is my point. Is that your idea of substantiation?!

BTW, I'm not nitpicking. I don't think it's the kind of thing Churchill would have stated, unless it's taken out of context.

Thank you in that you provide a reason now instead of just saying - you care to substantiate that? Why?

Anyway, no. I heard that before somehwere which is why I wrote it. The idea that I am not the only one and you could find it in a search even should start to give you an idea that it must have been said somewhere at some point. There is always the possibility that he never said that, but that is not what I understand.

-S

[Camaero]

Churchill was always my favorite speech writer. He inspires me even today!

[CCIP]

Personally, I've always been a fan of Churchill's public image. A real leader, to be sure.

But there was a compellingly interesting argument about him that I've heard from a professor of mine last year - which is essentially that from a purely 'real-political' perspective, Churchill is to a large part to blame for the loss of British dominance in world affairs subsequent to WWII - because by refusing to make a deal with Hitler in 1940, he had doomed the British Empire to a five-year committment which it really could not afford and for which it had basically paid with its empire. In other words, although Churchill acted with a tremendous benefit to the free world - he did so contrary to the interest of his own nation.

An interesting view, if anything. Perhaps somewhat stretched, but still :hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Personally, I've always been a fan of Churchill's public image. A real leader, to be sure.

But there was a compellingly interesting argument about him that I've heard from a professor of mine last year - which is essentially that from a purely 'real-political' perspective, Churchill is to a large part to blame for the loss of British dominance in world affairs subsequent to WWII - because by refusing to make a deal with Hitler in 1940, he had doomed the British Empire to a five-year committment which it really could not afford and for which it had basically paid with its empire. In other words, although Churchill acted with a tremendous benefit to the free world - he did so contrary to the interest of his own nation.

An interesting view, if anything. Perhaps somewhat stretched, but still :hmm:

He made the right decision allright because to sign a deal with Hitler was to lose ones empire anyway.

-S

[CCIP]

He made the right decision allright because to sign a deal with Hitler was to lose ones empire anyway.

-S

Well, I do believe one of stipulations of Hitler's proposals, especially as things drew into 1941, was that he WOULD let Britain keep their empire, as long as he could have his way.

I'm sure noone would argue that Churchill and the British people did anything but good thing for the world - but perhaps not for themselves in the 'realpolitik' sense. I never did believe that an invasion of Britain, let alone a conquest of the empire, was something Hitler would really be able to do.

[SUBMAN1]

He made the right decision allright because to sign a deal with Hitler was to lose ones empire anyway.

-S

Well, I do believe one of stipulations of Hitler's proposals, especially as things drew into 1941, was that he WOULD let Britain keep their empire, as long as he could have his way.

I'm sure noone would argue that Churchill and the British people did anything but good thing for the world - but perhaps not for themselves in the 'realpolitik' sense. I never did believe that an invasion of Britain, let alone a conquest of the empire, was something Hitler would really be able to do.

I don't think they would ever have made any other decision. I cannot imagine the pride of the English allowing for Hitler to call the shots. Can you imagine the English taking orders from another country? I can't. The have far to rich a history to fade into history (exactly what would happen) like that.

-S

[horsa]

An interesting view, if anything. Perhaps somewhat stretched,

Not at all

Churchill was probably one of history’s greatest political orators and certainly one of its most erratic and interesting characters.

But ask yourself this …. “what did he think he was doing in June 1940 by choosing to fight on ????????? “

Consider the the real world in 1940 and not the romantic fantasy we have grown up with, simply because he pulled off one of the greatest Houdini escape acts History has ever seen.

Military Situation
At this point Germany had annexed sizeable parts of Europe by political means, defeated Poland in a matter of weeks, invaded and occupied much of Scandinavia , torn through and defeated the French and British armies in six weeks, - something that four years of bloody attrition in 1914-18 had failed to achieve.. Despite its reputation and numbers the Royal Navy consisted of far too many older warships – she had for example no modern battleships and an inadequate number of destroyers for wartime convoy protection. The rampant German Army supported by a formidable Luftwaffe stood barely 21 miles across the channel. A British army effectively did not exist and what there was of it had been thoroughly beaten leaving most of its equipment behind in France. What Hitler didn't achieve in 1940 could and should have happened sometime in 1941

Geo-political Situation
Russia currently had a non-aggression pact with Germany. Roosevelt’s America had no intention of entering the war on Britain or anybody’s behalf. Indeed ,the so called “special relationship” was distinctly cool at the time. Italy had joined the war on the Axis side and threatened to roll over the tottering British Empire in the Mediterranean, Middle East and Africa. Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania, and Finland were for various reasons pro-German. In the Far East an expansionist Japan was a threat to Britain’s position there.Apart from her own dominions and colonies Britain could not muster a single ally anywhere.

Home Position
Churchill had been a compromise choice for PM and had occupied the position for barely two months. For the previous 25 years or so he had been out of mainstream politics. He was regarded as a political maverick by many of his government colleagues, some of whom did not have a great deal of faith in him, regarding him as little more than a showman. His cabinet were divided and his hold on office was tenuous.

Against this background Hitler offered peace terms …… what did Churchill do ? ….. rejected them out of hand and committed Britain to a catastrophic losing war.

With hindsight, we know that Churchill and Britain ended up on the "winning side" ... but not ( importantly) as a victor … however at the time, he had no army , no allies, no cards to play and no reason to believe the New Germany wouldn’t continue on its hitherto unstoppable progress.

Seriously ask yourself … what did he think he was doing ??????

[The Avon Lady]

Seriously ask yourself … what did he think he was doing ??????
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last."

Seriously, I've never seen so much historical revisionist hogwash like I sometimes encounter on this forum. :down:

Those of you in England, go speak to your grandparents or visit an old age home and chat with everyone that was around then (who can still recollect, of course).

[SmokinTep]

Fitting that just the other day the USS Winston Churchill boarded this ship off the coast of Somalia that had been pirated.

[Konovalov]

Seriously ask yourself … what did he think he was doing ??????
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last."

Seriously, I've never seen so much historical revisionist hogwash like I sometimes encounter on this forum. :down:

Those of you in England, go speak to your grandparents or visit an old age home and chat with everyone that was around then (who can still recollect, of course).

How about simply addressing this persons points of view rather than simply labelling it as "revisionist hogwash"?

[CCIP]

Indeed. Nor am I making a claim on my own behalf, nor does that viewpoint "demean" Winston in any way. A man with a global mind, perhaps.

[joea]

I'll addresss them tonight.

[Dan D]

Why not blame Germany for speeding up the decline of the British Empire and for the loss of Britain’s status as a global power which is a direct consequence of WW I and WW II?
This would be more obvious (the abstract play of thought of the professor was not meant seriosly, i guess) :
(Excerpt from http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/empire/g3/overview.htm
“Historians disagree about how and why Britain's empire declined and ended. However, most would agree that factors like war and a changing world economy played a key role in the decline of the British empire. Before the Great War (1914-18) Britain was one of the richest countries of the world. Its strongest industry was the banking and finance trade - everyone owed Britain money! After 4 years of fighting, Britain's wealth was virtually all gone. Most of Britain's debts were with the USA. Britain was greatly weakened by the war.
Although Britain recovered some of its strength after the Great War, it was completely bankrupted by the end of the Second World War. Its debts were even greater and it needed huge loans and grants from the USA to get back on its feet. The empire and its peoples played a crucial role in Britain's survival and victory in both world wars. However, by the end of the Second World War, most British people felt that rebuilding their own country was more important than holding on to distant lands. At the same time, Britain's economy was changing. Its trade with Europe and America became far more important than its trade with the empire”.)

While everyone was exhausted because of the war, Churchill in 1946 was already thinking ahead and had a vision of a “United States of Europe” and -leaving several options open- Britain’s relation to it.
His Zurich speech adressing "the tragedy of Europe" is indeed astonishing:
http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html
He was hoping to preserve Britain’s role as a world power, but there were the superpowers USA and CCCP. Britain became a regional power instead and an not overly enthusiastic EU member. The decline of the empire which was depending on the markets of the colonies to a large degree, was inevitable.
If Britain does not want to be an EU member anymore, it still has the option to group up with the “English-speaking world” and try revive the Commonwealth of British Nations in some way.

Europe did not become the “United States of Europe” by creating a new sovereign state but a union of states that transfer part of the sovereignty to the EU bodies if it is to share common interests (defense etc.) Whatever, the centuries of bloody European wars have ended.

What strikes me most about this great man, was his sense of humour.
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9268/tommygun0no.jpg
tommygun

He did not win the Nobel Prize for Peace but the one for Literature for his monumental history of WW II (6 volumes). Fantastic read, he has a feel for language.

[horsa]

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last."

Seriously, I've never seen so much historical revisionist hogwash like I sometimes encounter on this forum.

No, no no no no !!!!

You disappoint me. I expected better from posters such as you. Read the post more carefully.

There IS an arguement to answer. Not a palatable one, certainly not the only one, and arguably not the right one ……but an arguement nevertheless.

My argument is that setting aside any altruistic motives that Britain and Churchill MAY have had for the good of mankind living together ( and I happen to believe that the Anglo-Saxon nation states, in their imperfect way, were among the first to start thinking in these terms ), the course that Churchill took was not necessarily the most appropriate or sensible in a world where politics was still almost exclusively cynical advancement of self interest.

For the record I was borne in 1947 into the shadow of WW2 . I am only one generation away from people who experienced it, including my father and mother who actively participated in it. I grew up in the certain knowledge that Britain, through Churchill, had rendered the World a supreme and apparently selfless act by continuing the fight against a brutal and ruthless regime . I am immensely proud of that and I hold no truck with the totally discredited approach we call appeasement ….. something which has immediate resonance in our current world of international terrorism.

The argument has nothing to do with appeasement anymore than Germany suing for peace in 1918 was an example of appeasement. This is the way European politics had done business for centuries. From a position of power you waged war and from a position of relative weakness you sued for peace. The Great War had begun the reappraisal of that process, particularly in countries such as Britain, France and America but it had not as yet taken root universally.

The Munich agreement was one of the most misguided and disgraceful appeasement sell louts in history. Add to that the failure to oppose the (illegal) remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936 and we can all see the folly of appeasement..
The point is that by June 1940 the appeasement horse had already bolted. Churchill had regrettably arrived too late . By the summer of 1940 Britain was on the wrong end of a war that was effectively lost and with no real prospect of resistance or allies.

With HINDSIGHT we know that Hitler was not particularly serious about invading Britain and with HINDSIGHT we know he attacked Russia in 1941. In 1940 this was far from obvious.

The “we shall fight them on the beaches “ bluff of 1940 was a magnificent ”go for broke gamble” that spectacularly and implausibly paid off - much to the applause and gratitude of Europe and the World , but in the real political world of 1940 what odds would you have given it in June 1940

So if you’d been Churchill you too would have fought on ? If Hilter had had the strategic sense to invade Britain in 1941 ( as most people considered he would ) and not been arrogantly mesmerised by thoughts of destroying the ”ideologically decadent Soviet sub-humans” you could well have had a prostrate demilitarised and ethnically cleansed Britain of no use to anyone.

[horsa]

What strikes me most about this great man, was his sense of humour…
…. He did not win the Nobel Prize for Peace but the one for Literature for his monumental history of WW II (6 volumes). Fantastic read, he has a feel for language

I most heartedly agree. Because of his wartime role in that extraordinary struggle , it is often overlooked that Churchill was a great visionary, writer and Historian. His speeches are almost poetic and almost ( OK I exaggerate ) quoted as frequently and with as much gravitas as Shakespeare.

Question from woman ( to Churchill): What is the main difference between a man and a woman .
Answer " Madam, I cannot conceive"

Probably apocryphal, but what the hell.

[joea]

Ah makes it clear Horsa. Yea I was going to argue "Sealion" was a bluff. If the RN had a lot of old ships what about the Kriegsmarine? New ships but a handful only. When you compare the complexity of Allied amphibious ops with what the Germans had in 1940 well...the right strategy was what Doenitz argued. As for the Luftwaffe, great force but not the way it was used in 1940...they were not yet expert at sinking ships (not as good as later in the Med) and not really suited for strategic bombing. On the other hand Britain was in 1940 in no shape to context Germany's mastery of Europe. That's an understatement. ;)

That said, if anyone else other than good old Winne had been in charge, they might have made peace and there were those who wanted even friendlier relations (Mrs. Simpson's husband :know: )

Really it is astounding that Churchill was so stubborn looking at it the way Horsa presented it. :hmm:

[Wim Libaers]

Of course, there are a few other things that are attributed to him...

"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes."

"I do not agree that a dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

Of course, in that period and context, those things may have been perfectly normal opinions.

[horsa]

Of course, in that period and context, those things may have been perfectly normal opinions.

You raise lots of interesting points there, Wim Libaers.

Indeed context is everything, particularly when we come to judge people . It’s so easy to take the moral high ground and judge history by projecting it backwards from our own modern day standpoint. What concerns me is
“do we still pronounce judgement on what is “right” and “wrong” even though the context is different – cannibalism, slavery, imperialism, the rights of women, equality, individual freedom etc “. For example the English Queen Elizabeth I is generally smiled on favourable by British history books yet, through Drake and others, she was arguably a state sponsor of terrorism against the Spanish – but that was the context of the Age.

My own view is that, at the end of the day, someone has to play God and say “These are the rules/moral values by which we judge things”. No doubt they are open to accusations of arrogance, imperialism and megalomania but so be it. Of course that’s easy for me to say, speaking from the safe comfort of the West. I know that it is the West, through its superior power and technology, who is likely to offer ( and does) the candidate for that.

As to Churchill’s attitudes to “lower grade races”, that was a commonly held belief amongst the English Victorians and ( to quote Hitler for a change ) “Churchill was just an old Victorian “.
Here I’m reminded of a very useful distinction that my university tutor introduced me to – the distinction between an excuse and an explanation. We cannot excuse Churchill for his racism but he is guilty of the lesser “crime” of something which is “wrong” but explainable given the context.

[TteFAboB]

I do not agree that a dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

Of course, in that period and context, those things may have been perfectly normal opinions.

Likewise, it would be the Aztecs that would conquer North America and say that line instead.

[Abraham]

... The point is that by June 1940 the appeasement horse had already bolted. Churchill had regrettably arrived too late . By the summer of 1940 Britain was on the wrong end of a war that was effectively lost and with no real prospect of resistance or allies.

With HINDSIGHT we know that Hitler was not particularly serious about invading Britain and with HINDSIGHT we know he attacked Russia in 1941. In 1940 this was far from obvious.

The “we shall fight them on the beaches “ bluff of 1940 was a magnificent ”go for broke gamble” that spectacularly and implausibly paid off - much to the applause and gratitude of Europe and the World , but in the real political world of 1940 what odds would you have given it in June 1940

So if you’d been Churchill you too would have fought on ? If Hilter had had the strategic sense to invade Britain in 1941 ( as most people considered he would ) and not been arrogantly mesmerised by thoughts of destroying the ”ideologically decadent Soviet sub-humans” you could well have had a prostrate demilitarised and ethnically cleansed Britain of no use to anyone.
Good questions, Horsa.
It's the position that Churchill took in the summer of 1940 that made him the greatest Briton.
Although he was in my opinion militarily incompetent, he certainly was a political genius. He changed a hesistant and divided nation into a nation determined to fight it out, even till the bitter end if necessairy. He carried a heavy responsability and can be criticised for many wrong decisions, but he certainly stood on the right side of History. He inspired his own people as well as many in German-occupied Europe - including my parents - with his beautiful speeches. Even today I find them impressive, even emotionally moving, to listen to, especially those famous nine lines from his speech when Britain stood all alone after the Fall of France, in which he defined exactly what World War II was really about.
What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over.
I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin.
Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation.
Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our empire.
The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us.
Hitler knows that he will have to break us on this island or lose the war.
If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.
But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.
Let us, therefore, brace ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: 'this was their finest hour.'
Almost prophetic words, etched in History. This was the definition of a Moral War between the Good side and the Evil side.
Time has been unable to dilute anything from what he has said.

[horsa]

…etched in History. This was the definition of a Moral War between the Good side and the Evil side.
Time has been unable to dilute anything from what he has said

Abraham, this is so true. Churchill was nothing if not theatrical . In that uniquely desperate moment he spelt it out for the world what this struggle was all about and appealed for resistance from any quarter. Although he was galvanising a nation he was also addressing his other (real) audience – the United States. He was Horatio on the Bridge, Davy Crockett at the Alamo, Joan of Arc and (dare I say it ) the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke.

I still maintain that militarily he was living in cloud cuckoo land and simply got lucky – but Thank God.

[STEED]

Churchill the Bull Dog what a war leader thanks for not taking the BS from Mr Hitler well done Churchill :up: :up:

[Abraham]

…etched in History. This was the definition of a Moral War between the Good side and the Evil side.
Time has been unable to dilute anything from what he has said

Abraham, this is so true. Churchill was nothing if not theatrical . In that uniquely desperate moment he spelt it out for the world what this struggle was all about and appealed for resistance from any quarter. Although he was galvanising a nation he was also addressing his other (real) audience – the United States. He was Horatio on the Bridge, Davy Crockett at the Alamo, Joan of Arc and (dare I say it ) the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke.

I still maintain that militarily he was living in cloud cuckoo land and simply got lucky – but Thank God.
I personally feel that Britains darkest hour was his greatest hour and as soon as things started to change for the better for Britain, his magic left him.
In 1940 he galvanized a nation, in 1943 he hardly survived strikes and a motion of no confidence in Parliament (if my memory serves me well). His last substantial influence on the grand strategy of World War II was at the Casablanca conference, where he (and the Chief of the Imperial Staff Alenbrook) convinced the US not to attack Western Europe in 1943 but to invade its "soft underbelly" - Italy. This turned out to be a strategic mistake in my view. The underbelly was not soft at all and provided perfect defensive opportunities and Western Europe was much more heavely defended in mid 1944 then in mid 1943.
But that is a different discussion and hardly diminishes the greatness of Churchill.

[horsa]

in 1943 he hardly survived strikes and a motion of no confidence in Parliament (if my memory serves me well).

I think the motion of no confidence was in 1941 after the fall of Crete. By 1943 he was politically secure at home ( post Alemein and success in the Mediterranean theatre) . You are right to say his influence waned as Britain's position improved but this was the inevitable consequence of working with a partner (America) who would rapidly outsrip her both economically and militarily.