Holy shit, Churchill was a badass mother****er

[Ravioli]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_churchill

Just read/skim through that. I thought he was just an old fart that led England during WW2 but i had no idea what he had been doing before all that. This guy has pretty much done everything, traveling around the world LOOKING for wars to fight while at the same time writing books about it. I just cant summarize his life in a simple post, just read through his wiki page. And here i am a lazy old slug who has no real plans of my life...im sure he would be proud of me. Its intresting how he became an atheist and from there on he didnt waste a second of his life knowing it was his only life.

Maybe its just me who didnt know about this, or maybe there are even more hardcore ppl from that time, but i was just shocked of what a man can achive in his life, where did he find his motivation and inspiration?

 

[Mellish]

Most likely we would all be speaking German right now if he wasn't born.

 

[NeptuneUK]

Winston Churchill is a legend.

Maybe its just me who didnt know about this, or maybe there are even more hardcore ppl from that time, but i was just shocked of what a man can achive in his life, where did he find his motivation and inspiration?

"Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential." - Winston Churchill

 

[Raziaar]

I just cant summarize his life in a simple post[/IMG]

"We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing-grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!"


I just summarized his life in a single post.

Or not. But I love the quote, but it sounds cooler when he's saying it.

 

[MJ12]

He's the legend of the Best,
by the hour
like Rosie Odonnell
at a bisexual bridal showa'

 

[Nitre]

Yeah, he's pretty damned awesome. Apart from the fact that he let Stalin win WWII.

 

[Omnomnick]

Winny Churchill was an awesome dude.

Shame he got beaten in the election right after the war

 

[Eejit]

He wasn't the greatest peacetime leader but he knew how to run a war alright. Leg end.

 

[99.vikram]

He was also a fu cking racist :-

In 1919, as Colonial Secretary Churchill advocated the use of chemical weapons on the "uncooperative Arabs" in the puppet state of Iraq. "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas," he declared. "I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes." Some year’s later, gassing human beings to death would make other men infamous.

“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” (Winston Churchill to Leo Amery, Secretary of State for India (1942); Diary of Amery (Secretary for India), September 9, 1942; quoted by Ziegler (1988), pp 351-352: Ziegler, P. (1988), Mountbatten. The Official Biography (Collins, London).

India ’s Nobel Prize-winning economist Professor Amartya Sen quoted Churchill’s notorious anti-Indian comment that “they breed like rabbits” in an essay to AIT:

“Winston Churchill's famous remark about the 1943 Bengal famine - that it was caused by the tendency of the people to breed like rabbits - belongs to this general tradition of blaming the colonial subject. This attitude had a crucial role in delaying famine relief....A British-owned newspaper, the Statesman of Calcutta, which was particularly influential in London, toed the official line for a long time, but after six months of famine, it broke ranks under the courageous editorship of Ian Stephens and began publishing reports on the extent both of the disaster and of the government's culpability....The policy of non-intervention ceased to be politically viable once one of the strongest voices of the Raj was itself in revolt.”

The racist British oversaw 1.5 billion excess deaths of their Indian subjects in 200 years of evil colonial rule – but have largely wiped this carnage, including that of the WW2 Bengal Famine, out of history .

An example of Churchill's racial views are his comments made in 1937: "I do not admit 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 these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race, has come in and taken their place."

If he was alive today, he would be rotting in jail for some of the things he advocated.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Er, a lot of people back then were racist, like H.P. Lovecraft. Doesn't make any difference to what an awesome leader he is - plus, no-one is totally good. Hitler advocated animal welfare, but you woulnd't say he was a good guy would you?

 

[99.vikram]

I find it really, really hard to forgive somebody who called Indians beastly, hated Gandhi, was a white supremacist and thought it was okay to gas people.
Guess who else supported that? Adolph motherfscking Hitler, that's who.

EDIT: Lovecraft's racism was subtle, and he wrote awesome stories. Churchill was a hateful warmonger who was glorified as a superhero.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Gandhi was a racist too.

 

[MJ12]

Gandhi was a racist too.

^This. I was just about to say that. He thought black people were the lowest of the low because of the whole caste system. (huge hypocrite when you consider what he was fighting for)
It's one of the really dissapointing aspects of Gandhi, because other than that he's a great figure. But, no one's perfect unfortunately

 

[99.vikram]

Yes, he was. But he did not want them gassed to death.

because of the whole caste system.

Bullsh*t. Gandhi was racist, but it had nothing to do with the caste system. Gandhi personally worked to uplift the lowest castes in India by building toilets etc. To many people, he set a precedent by visiting the homes of the untouchables.

 

[Gray Fox]

Wiki on ghandi racism:

Some of Gandhi's early South African articles are controversial. As reprinted in "The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi," (Vol. 8, p.120), Gandhi wrote in the "Indian Opinion" in 1908 of his time in a South African prison: "Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves." Also as reprinted in The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, (Vol. 2, p.74), Gandhi gave a speech on 26 September 1896 in which he referred to the "raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness". The term Kaffir is considered a derogatory term today (it is worth noting, however, that during Gandhi's time, the term Kaffir had a different connotation than its present-day usage). Remarks such as these have led some to accuse Gandhi of racism.[77]

Two professors of history who specialize in South Africa, Surendra Bhana and Goolam Vahed, examined this controversy in their text, The Making of a Political Reformer: Gandhi in South Africa, 1893–1914. (New Delhi: Manohar, 2005).[78] They focus in Chapter 1, "Gandhi, Africans and Indians in Colonial Natal" on the relationship between the African and Indian communities under "White rule" and policies which enforced segregation (and, they argue, inevitable conflict between these communities). Of this relationship they state that, "the young Gandhi was influenced by segregationist notions prevalent in the 1890s."[79] At the same time, they state, "Gandhi's experiences in jail seemed to make him more sensitive to their plight...the later Gandhi mellowed; he seemed much less categorical in his expression of prejudice against Africans, and much more open to seeing points of common cause. His negative views in the Johannesburg jail were reserved for hardened African prisoners rather than Africans generally."[80]

Former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela is a follower of Gandhi,[45] despite efforts in 2003 on the part of Gandhi's critics to prevent the unveiling of a statue of Gandhi in Johannesburg.[77] Bhana and Vahed commented on the events surrounding the unveiling in the conclusion to The Making of a Political Reformer: Gandhi in South Africa, 1893–1914. In the section "Gandhi's Legacy to South Africa," they note that "Gandhi inspired succeeding generations of South African activists seeking to end White rule. This legacy connects him to Nelson Mandela...in a sense Mandela completed what Gandhi started."[81] They continue by referring to the controversies which arose during the unveiling of the statue of Gandhi.[82] In response to these two perspectives of Gandhi, Bhana and Vahed argue: "Those who seek to appropriate Gandhi for political ends in post-apartheid South Africa do not help their cause much by ignoring certain facts about him; and those who simply call him a racist are equally guilty of distortion."[83]

In any case both of these men are remembered for all the good they did, which outweighed any short coming they had.
Churchill is remembered for his war effort, and Ghandi for his great sense of style.

 

[MJ12]

Yes, he was. But he did not want them gassed to death.

Gandhi lived in South Africa for roughly twenty one years from 1893 to 1914. In 1906, he joined the military with a rank of Sergeant-Major and actively participated in the war against the blacks

Yeah, he just fought a war against them. Not so bad?

 

[Gray Fox]

But he did it in style.

 

[Eejit]

In 1919, as Colonial Secretary Churchill advocated the use of chemical weapons on the "uncooperative Arabs" in the puppet state of Iraq. "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas," he declared. "I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes." Some year’s later, gassing human beings to death would make other men infamous.

Nice twisting of words:

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.

I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

Clearly a monster worse than Hitler! It would have been just like the holocaust!

 

[99.vikram]

So he wasn't a murderer, just a (potential) terrorist. Much better.

 

[Shift]

Now there was a guy who knew what he was talking about, on studying the rise to WW2, when Hitler invaded the Rhineland and the British were adament to do nothing about it and continue appeasing Hitler, Churchill on the otherhand had the foresight to read Mein Kampf and figure out that this guy was a nutter and had every intention of world domination, is continuing expansion pretty much proved this theory. He told them to attack, they didnt.

Had they intervened at that point, Germany's small force would have been easily routed, and Hitler's generals and the German population would have lost all faith in him, and he would have been thrown out of office. Instead he publisised it as a huge victory proving that the British and French had no spine, and from that point had the population and the generals trust in all manners military.

Its only when things started to go really dire that they went crawling back to Churchill. As someone said, one of the greatest wartime leaders in history, not so great in peacetime.

 

[Eejit]

So he wasn't a murderer, just a (potential) terrorist. Much better.

So to sum it up, he was part of the Empire's War Office.

 

[Solaris]

Churchill was an absolute arsehole, If I were alive when he was, I could shoot him dead with not a twinge of regret or sorrow.

His role in fighting the IRA in the 1920's is unforgiveable, he was an absolute scum bag. Not to mension the miners he shot or all those he killed to preserve the empire.

 

[repiV]

Can't we give all this faux-revolutionary, look-at-me-I'm-so-different-and-the-IRA-are-gods crap a rest for once. It's kind of tedious.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Churchill was an absolute arsehole, If I were alive when he was, I could shoot him dead with not a twinge of regret or sorrow.

His role in fighting the IRA in the 1920's is unforgiveable, he was an absolute scum bag. Not to mension the miners he shot or all those he killed to preserve the empire.

Holy ****ing shitcock. I agree with solaris. **** I must be wrong.

No seriously, I ****ing hate churchill and I think he's a racist warmonger..

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it" - all you need to know about the man.

 

[Solaris]

Can't we give all this faux-revolutionary, look-at-me-I'm-so-different-and-the-IRA-are-gods crap a rest for once. It's kind of tedious.

The IRA of the 1920's was very different from those who emerged 50 years later.

Back then, the Irish were denied democracy and were terrorised by British forces constantly. Churchill supported this, as he did all over the empire.

 

[The Monkey]

I read that Chamberlain was very aware of what kind of person that Hitler was, and that the whole "peace for our time" crap was just a way of stalling Hitler's aggression until Britain had build up their army. He sacrificed his honour and became the clown of the century in order to keep war away from Britain long enough to build an adequate defence.

That's what I call a hero.

 

[Solaris]

I read that Chamberlain was very aware of what kind of person that Hitler was, and that the whole "peace for our time" crap was just a way of stalling Hitler's aggression until Britain had build up their army. He sacrificed his honour and became the clown of the century in order to keep war away from Britain long enough to build an adequate defence.

That's what I call a hero.

I don't think that's true. He was an opponent of rearmament for a long time right up to the late 1930's.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Chamberlain did do the sensible thing. Britain was in no state to fight Germany in 1938, had the battle of Britain been a year earlier we would have lost.

 

[Solaris]

Britians state was his own fault for refusing to arm Britian whilst facsism was swallowing up Europe all around him.

Were the Labour party in power WW2 would have started earlier, probably over the Spanish civil war and have been a much quicker affair.

 

[Shift]

Chamberlain did do the sensible thing. Britain was in no state to fight Germany in 1938, had the battle of Britain been a year earlier we would have lost.

No Britain and France were more than capable of putting a stop to Hitler had they intervened earlier on, for instance like I said before, when Churchill advised them too, but they let him be and then yes, he did become too powerful for both Britain and France, but military advisors wanted Britain rearmed since the early 1930s when world powers were starting to rise and relations weakened, but Chamberlain was always against it. I mean Hitler writes a book you would really have to read it to get a better understanding of it at the time even if it was one of the worse books ever written in literacy terms. I remember back in my history exam at A-Level one of the questions was was Mein Kampf a blueprint to Hitler's aims or was he merely improvising, the most correct answer is that yes, most of the policies he did go through with were outlined in Mein Kampf, whereas he did do a lot of improvising too, like exploiting Britain and France's ignorance etc.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Britians state was his own fault for refusing to arm Britian whilst facsism was swallowing up Europe all around him.

Britain's problem was the mis held belief that battleships were the most important part of the military, almost all of Britain's defence budget went on surface vessels. The first justifiable reason to start war was over Czechoslovakia

Were the Labour party in power WW2 would have started earlier, probably over the Spanish civil war and have been a much quicker affair.

Nonsense.

 

[Mr Stabby]

No Britain and France were more than capable of putting a stop to Hitler had they intervened earlier on, for instance like I said before, when Churchill advised them too, but they let him be and then yes, he did become too powerful for both Britain and France, but military advisors wanted Britain rearmed since the early 1930s when world powers were starting to rise and relations weakened, but Chamberlain was always against it.

Britain did rearm it just rearmed in the wrong way, the general consensus of the British army was that tanks and aircraft were a waste of time. France Did build tanks and planes in the early 30's, which by the time the Germans invaded were obsolete and not used properly. The German Army was by far the most professional in the world from 1937 onward. Starting the war earlier with non existent radar and non existent spitfires was not a good idea.

I mean Hitler writes a book you would really have to read it, I remember back in my history exam at A-Level one of the questions was was Mein Kampf a blueprint to Hitler's aims or was he merely improvising, the most correct answer is that yes, most of the policies he did go through with were outlined in Mein Kampf, whereas he did do a lot of improvising too, like exploiting Britain and France's ignorance etc.

Mussolini and the USSR were doing just as much sabre rattling as Hitler. Mein Kampf may be applicable in hindsight, but at the time no one took it seriously. It was only when such policy became a reality ie Czechoslovakia, that any action could have been taken, and thats when Chamberlain too the correct decision to buy time.

 

[Solaris]

Hmm, Mr.Stabby is certainly offering an interesting perspective on this issue.

However, it is my understanding that the labour party and Mr.Churchill had been pushing for rearmament through the 1930's. Bevan, Atlee and other leading Labour figures visited the republicans during the Spanish civil war to encourage them. I find it probably that Britian would have got involved in some regard at that point were Labour leading them.

 

[Tagaziel]

Most likely we would all be speaking German right now if he wasn't born.

Russian. The Third Reich wouldn't weather the onslaught of the RKKA.

Also, wow, I expected Solaris to go and post something about his dear communist brethren from the pacifistic, unarmed* USSR supporting the downtrodden Irish worker class in their struggle against the bourgeoisie. I am pleasantly surprised.

* - This is, of course, bullshit

 

[Mr Stabby]

If the Labour party was in power, I can't imagine that they would have done much more than the left-wing government of France or the Soviet Union, who did supply the republicans with money and weapons. I think Germany's involvement (Condor legion) was done secretly anyway.

Considering the great depression of 1929, building up the army, on a hunch that Hitler was going to take over Poland a few years later, would have been political suicide. Not that building up the army to fight WW1 again, would have been much use.

 

[Solaris]

If the Labour party was in power, I can't imagine that they would have done much more than the left-wing government of France or the Soviet Union, who did supply the republicans with money and weapons. I think Germany's involvement (Condor legion) was done secretly anyway.

I don't think France offered any support actually, to the contary I think I read that they actually hindered it. The only countries that gave arms were Mexico and the Soviets, but the soviets sabotaged the whole thing anyway.

Considering the great depression of 1929, building up the army, on a hunch that Hitler was going to take over Poland a few years later, would have been political suicide. Not that building up the army to fight WW1 again, would have been much use.

You're right of course, the British public was desperate to the end to hold onto peace, no matter the cost.

 

[Tagaziel]

It wasn't really a hunch, since it was expected that Hitler would invade, which is why Poland signed treaties with France and Britain about military aid.

Which, of course, on 1st September 1939 became worthless pieces of paper. GG Brits.

 

[Mr Stabby]

It wasn't expect in the earlies 30's, it was expected from around 1938ish. Britain only gave Poland a military pact after Hitler took over Czechoslovakia. France signed treaties with Eastern Europeans from the late 20's not because they expected a war, they just really didn't like Germany.

That treaty with Poland is what started Britain's war with Germany, there was just nothing Britain could do about Poland.

 

[Tagaziel]

Except, you know, loading their bombers with bombs instead of leaflets.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Churchwill was indeed a scumbag(for many reasons), and, from what I have read, a right sod to speak to, but I suppose he is also in a sense a 'great man'.

I like where this discussion is going now. Prewar + Spanish Civil War.

Can't we give all this faux-revolutionary, look-at-me-I'm-so-different-and-the-IRA-are-gods crap a rest for once. It's kind of tedious.

Entirely different IRA there, repiV.