TheVictors said:

You know, you may be right and I missed MC's post on it.


I think it was Margaret Thatcher ...and boy, was she hammered!

Click to expand...

Nice job.

From the Wikipedia page for Nancy Astor; Viscountess Astor:

She was noted for exchanges with Winston Churchill, though, these are not well documented. Churchill is supposed to have told Lady Astor that having a woman in Parliament was like having one intrude on him in the bathroom, to which she retorted, "You’re not handsome enough to have such fears." Lady Astor is also said to have responded to a question from Churchill about what disguise he should wear to a masquerade ball by saying, "Why don't you come sober, Prime Minister?" In another recounted exchange, Lady Astor said to Churchill, "If you were my husband, I'd poison your tea," to which he responded, "Madam, if you were my wife, I'd drink it!" The retort has been documented as being by Churchill's friend F. E. Smith, Lord Birkenhead.

American born Nancy Astor was noted for her cutting rhetorical wit; who knows what exchanges with Churchill happened, and in what level of good humor or animus they occurred within.

They seemed to have had more political common views than differences.

tinselwolverine said:

How does a person get partially killed...?

You get killed, or you don't...

It's not like horseshoes...

Click to expand...

Ha, nice catch. I meant the reasoning of their killers was based either partially or fully on their advancements toward Civil Rights and freedoms. Much is left to interpretation and opinions since no one can ever know for certain the killers' exact motivations.

Monster said:

Platitude? Maybe, but he actually backed up his words. And you want to talk about botched and failed military campaigns? I suggest you check Churchill's record. For all his poetic bluster, the man was involved in way too many failures - militarily and economically.

And you brought up too many people that had nothing to do with him aside from political affiliation and blood. Not sure how that relates to his legacy.

Btw, Obama's been a shitty president, only slightly above GWB in terms of shittitudiness. Way too many failures compared to successes. It's not all his fault, but he hasn't helped the situation.

Click to expand...

You should reread this thread - I didn't bring up anyone, not even Churchill. I just took exception to Kennedy. I agree with you for the most part on Obama although I would rate him lower than GWB - down there w/ Carter near the bottom of my ranking of Presidents.

Spartanmack said:

You should reread this thread - I didn't bring up anyone, not even Churchill. I just took exception to Kennedy. I agree with you for the most part on Obama although I would rate him lower than GWB - down there w/ FDR and Carter although I won't deny FDR was one of the most influential figures of the 20th Century just because I disagree with a lot of what he did.

Click to expand...

...so you're not defending Churchill's pathetic record on just about everything, you just don't like JFK?

michchamp said:

...so you're not defending Churchill's pathetic record on just about everything, you just don't like JFK?

Click to expand...

Well, Churchill was no Stalin, that's for sure. I see no point in arguing who the greatest figures of the 20th Century were with a guy who has a Stalin pic for his avatar.

michchamp said:

Not sure why Churchill is even considered one of the greatest figures of the 20th Century. To put his life & career in context:

he was born into an extremely wealthy & noble family. typical "born on third base, thinking he hit a triple" guy. Although since he's English, maybe that analogy could be adapted to cricket.

his main contribution to the British war effort in WWI was the disastrous Battle of Gallipoli.

After that his initial political career ended with his mismanagement of the British economy throughout the 1920's... which were basically prosperous everywhere except the UK. Then for the next decade he was basically a nobody until Hitler came along, and he had the fortune to be the only British politician urging war at the one (1) time since 1900 that urging war was the right move.

his war record was basically that of a cheerleader, giving speeches, etc. After WWII was over, the British kicked him to the curb.

Click to expand...

Typical Michamp revisionist history. Where does one even start?!?

Before WWI, he was actually part of the liberal party - so I am surprised you didn't herald him as THE greatest after knowing all about him:

Right from the Wiki:
"Also in 1908, he introduced several reforms for the prison system, introduced the first minimum wage, and helped set up labor exchanges for the unemployed and unemployment insurance. Churchill assisted in the passing of the People's Budget, which introduced new taxes on the wealthy to pay for new social welfare programs." OMFG how horrible of him.

WWI years
He was partly responsible for modernizing the British Navy.
Did you know that after the failed Battle of Gallipoli, he re-joined the British Army and saw action? So riiiight, that battle was his only contribution.

While the British people "kicked him to the curb" in 1945 - I guess it failed your observations that 6 years later he was the prime minister again?

When he died in 1965 he was revered by the British people. They mourned him for a week. I guess they were just brain-washed, huh?

He had major flaws - he did dumb stuff, and while he may or may not be considered one of the greatest, it is obvious you went and looked for just the negative stuff. Typical.

KAWDUP said:

...

WWI years
He was partly responsible for modernizing the British Navy.
Did you know that after the failed Battle of Gallipoli, he re-joined the British Army and saw action? So riiiight, that battle was his only contribution.

...

Click to expand...

I'm not going to bother disputed your other comments... you interpret the facts one way, and I the other.

But as far as his army service goes, I saw this in the wikipedia article on him earlier when posting in this thread. I didn't post it at the time, but since you bring it up:
What a hero, eh?

And don't downplay what a disaster Gallipoli was. he cost the Allies 200,000 casualties, over 50,000 of those deaths, for no reason, over the advice of his admirals and staff.

it's also funny he tried to get a post as a brigade commander, but even the British Army didn't want to give him that much responsibility; they assigned him to command a battalion in a quiet sector.

kinda like George W. Bush "serving his country" by spending a couple weekends in the Texas Air National Guard.

michchamp said:

I'm not going to bother disputed your other comments... you interpret the facts one way, and I the other.

But as far as his army service goes, I saw this in the wikipedia article on him earlier when posting in this thread. I didn't post it at the time, but since you bring it up:

"After his resignation from the government in 1915, Churchill rejoined the British Army, attempting to obtain an appointment as brigade commander, but settling for command of a battalion. After spending some time as a Major with the 2nd Battalion, Grenadier Guards, he was appointed Lieutenant-Colonel, commanding the 6th Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers (part of the 9th (Scottish) Division), on 1 January 1916. Correspondence with his wife shows that his intent in taking up active service was to rehabilitate his reputation, but this was balanced by the serious risk of being killed. During his period of command, Ploegsteert was a "quiet sector," and the battalion did not take part in any set battle. Although he disapproved strongly of the mass slaughter involved in many Western Front actions, he occasionally exposed himself to danger by making excursions to the front line or into No Man's Land."
​

What a hero, eh?

And don't downplay what a disaster Gallipoli was. he cost the Allies 200,000 casualties, over 50,000 of those deaths, for no reason, over the advice of his admirals and staff.

Click to expand...

Also, don't overestimate his role in it. It wasn't solely his fault, yet he did feel responsible as he was one of the few that championed the idea. But there is plenty of blame to go around. British Secretary of State for War, Lord Herbert Kitchener, and his appointed General Sir Ian Hamilton made a number of rather critical mistakes and mis-calculations. Certainly don't let the truth get in the way of your Churchill bashing - it is probably entertaining for some.

As far as your interpretations of what is written about his service into No Man's Land - it is not the most commonly accepted version that you found. Funny how you are so willing to believe the negative half of one's life, after you have already formed a negative opinion of them. You are regurgitating someone's else's interpretation of events, yet the British people mourned his passing, obviously badly duped according to you.

Did you really want to discuss more of Word War I's events - I love reading about history, especially military history, so I'd be glad to discuss your findings on Google with actual historical books written about the subject.

Just let me know.

KAWDUP said:

Also, don't overestimate his role in it. It wasn't solely his fault, yet he did feel responsible as he was one of the few that championed the idea. But there is plenty of blame to go around. British Secretary of State for War, Lord Herbert Kitchener, and his appointed General Sir Ian Hamilton made a number of rather critical mistakes and mis-calculations. Certainly don't let the truth get in the way of your Churchill bashing - it is probably entertaining for some.

As far as your interpretations of what is written about his service into No Man's Land - it is not the most commonly accepted version that you found. Funny how you are so willing to believe the negative half of one's life, after you have already formed a negative opinion of them. You are regurgitating someone's else's interpretation of events, yet the British people mourned his passing, obviously badly duped according to you.

Did you really want to discuss more of Word War I's events - I love reading about history, especially military history, so I'd be glad to discuss your findings on Google with actual historical books written about the subject.

Just let me know.

Click to expand...

I've read books about the topic as well, and took a course on European history during that era in college. I'm not really interested in discussing more about it. Like I said, you have your take on events and I have mine. The facts aren't different.

If you really want to talk about it, I suggest you find a family member who is having trouble sleeping.

michchamp said:

I've read books about the topic as well, and took a course on European history during that era in college. I'm not really interested in discussing more about it. Like I said, you have your take on events and I have mine. The facts aren't different.

If you really want to talk about it, I suggest you find a family member who is having trouble sleeping.

Click to expand...

You were the one arguing with my view on your revisionist history lesson.

See that is your problem - when a real juicy subject comes up that we might actually discuss from what seems like equally informed backgrounds, you get scared and run away.

Forgive me for putting you to sleep, I guess we can just go back to calling each other names, and coming up with stupid straw-man arguments - your specialty.