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

The final nail in the coffin for Chamberlain premiership, was the disastrous invasion of Narvik, and ironically the idea for Narvik, was the First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill.
 
You don't have to be a nice guy to be a great man.

They are judged by their achievements, not their personality. Look at Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Cao Cao, Napoleon, Genhis Khan.
They're all considered great historical figures but they're at least as flawed as Churchill.
 
Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash.

* According to Churchill's assistant, Anthony Montague-Browne, Churchill had not coined this phrase, but wished he had.

lol
 
You don't have to be a nice guy to be a great man.

They are judged by their achievements, not their personality. Look at Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Cao Cao, Napoleon, Genhis Khan.
They're all considered great historical figures but they're at least as flawed as Churchill.

Exactly, maybe been dickheads but still achieved great things.
 
Every Genius is crazy. Its that simple just look at history.

Churchill
Hitler
Leonardo da Vinci
Vincent van Gogh


the list goes on. They were all Geniuses and all were out of their mind.
 
You don't have to be a nice guy to be a great man.

They are judged by their achievements, not their personality. Look at Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Cao Cao, Napoleon, Genhis Khan.
They're all considered great historical figures but they're at least as flawed as Churchill.
I think it might be sensible to adopt the nomenclature 'Big Man' rather than 'Great Man', which carries positive connotations and images of 'greatness' - we're really talking about magnitude of effect, here.

Oi big man!
 
Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash.

* According to Churchill's assistant, Anthony Montague-Browne, Churchill had not coined this phrase, but wished he had.

lol

"Cats look down on you, dogs look up to you, but a pig looks you in the eye and treats you like an equal."
 
I think it might be sensible to adopt the nomenclature 'Big Man' rather than 'Great Man', which carries positive connotations and images of 'greatness' - we're really talking about magnitude of effect, here.

Nah, I don't think we should change the nomenclature just because some people don't understand the meaning of the word "great".
 
But I wanna call him 'Big Man'. :(

Ordinary people can be called 'wee man'.
 
That would just be confusing. Consider Napoleon. :)
 
Eejit those folks you mentioned were all conquerors, while Churchill is famous
for stopping a man conquering a good deal of the world. It's a pretty huge
difference. Although his colonial record says otherwise.
 
Eejit those folks you mentioned were all conquerors, while Churchill is famous
for stopping a man conquering a good deal of the world. It's a pretty huge
difference.
I don't see how much of a difference it is with regards to be being considered "Great".

Would you be happy if I added Scipio Africanus to the list?
 
Churchill was great, but his pedestal is far higher than it should be, likewise Chamberlain made mistakes but he doesn't deserve the reputation he has either.
 
Eejit those folks you mentioned were all conquerors, while Churchill is famous
for stopping a man conquering a good deal of the world. It's a pretty huge
difference. Although his colonial record says otherwise.

He led the country brilliantly yes, but Churchill is just part of it, the real people who put a stop to it and the millions of poor souls who actually did the fighting.
 
That would just be confusing. Consider Napoleon. :)
Ah, but Napoleon was of a perfectly average size for his time. It's just that a French 'foot' was longer than an English 'foot', so Napoleon measured a lower number. Also, he would often be surrounded by his personal bodyguard of specially-selected tall people. This made him look small in comparison. Finally, the custom of referring to him as 'Petit Napoleon' implies nothing about his size, because 'petit' in French can act as a simple term of endearment.
 
I think it's hard to see why Churchill was a genius too.
 
Ghandi was an utter dick, he sabotaged any chance at a peaceful and united pakistan and india. He wanted a return to feudalism which would have meant the starvation of many millions of people.
 
While you are leading your country into a glorious communist future.

Watch your step near the mass graves, though.
 
Ghandi was an utter dick, he sabotaged any chance at a peaceful and united pakistan and india. He wanted a return to feudalism which would have meant the starvation of many millions of people.
If you don't know sh*t, it's better to keep your trap shut. Gandhi tried to keep the country united till the day he died. Nehru thought partition was inevitable (being a Congress guy) and Jinnah supported partition basically because he wanted a country to rule over. Ironically, he died shortly after getting Pakistan.

Jinnah loved the western lifestyle, had a western outlook, drank and smoked. He never had any touch with the actual muslim community. The only reason he incited the Muslim league to press for partition was his lust for power.

Jinnah, who had embraced separate electorates and the exclusive right of the League to represent Muslims....
Jinnah authorised force to achieve the annexation of the princely state of Kalat and suppress the insurgency in Baluchistan.
The insurgency in the frontier states (especially Baluchistan) of Pakistan continues till this date, although it is massively overshadowed by the Kashmir conflict.
 
If you don't know sh*t, it's better to keep your trap shut. Gandhi tried to keep the country united till the day he died. Nehru thought partition was inevitable (being a Congress guy) and Jinnah supported partition basically because he wanted a country to rule over. Ironically, he died shortly after getting Pakistan.

Jinnah loved the western lifestyle, had a western outlook, drank and smoked. He never had any touch with the actual muslim community. The only reason he incited the Muslim league to press for partition was his lust for power.
Oh why must you start the thing with an insult like that.
Ghandi drove the country to partition becuase he insisted on the creation of a Hindu fundamentalist state where everyone lived in basic huts and grew their own food. This drove the Muslims to want partition. When the country most needed a secular leader against the British they got a religious nutjob who was happy to use violence when it suited him.
 
Germany would never have been capable of invading England. Ever. Also, the German system of government would not have required it's citizens to speak German,
 
Germany would never have been capable of invading England. Ever. Also, the German system of government would not have required it's citizens to speak German,

No, we only just won the Battle of Britain not to what a lot of people say. There were decisive moments in the battle where German victory was painfully close but there was a failure to follow up, for instance one of the major RAF HQ operating the radar transmitters, their main defence, and operating a huge section of the countries RAF fighters was bombed almost completely out of commision, they managed to hold on, there were one more wave of bombers in the area, but instead of finishing it off, they went and bombed an industrial target instead.

The only reason the battle was called off because Hitler went even more insane and decided to attack Russia, while still leaving a perfect safe haven and base in the UK, opening himself for a war on two fronts (genious politically, but a ****ing retard in military matters).

It was the radar more than anything that won us the battle. Had the airforce been knocked out, Britain will have very well been invaded, and outcomes of things would have been much different.
 
Back
Top