Queen Victoria..

[Neutron]

Is one Brit I can really admire. She was almost as big a hard ass as I am.

Read the books Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, And The Coming Of A Great War

and

Castles Of Steel

Both extremely long histories of British and German Politics and and strategy Pre and during WW1. Both are fascinating and very interesting reads that really emphasize the personalities of the involved people. Both are written by Robert K Massie.

Tron

 

[red indian]

God knows why I bother but...........

......when Churchill shows himself to be a hardass, thats bad, but when its Queen Victoria its just fine.Whats the expression you folks use?...."go figure"

 

[Neutron]

Re: God knows why I bother but...........

......when Churchill shows himself to be a hardass, thats bad, but when its Queen Victoria its just fine.Whats the expression you folks use?...."go figure"

The difference is the Queen had an ounce of conviction, Winston was out for no one but Winston.

I have no problems with Churchills actions at the beginning of WW2. My problem comes from his actions from Late 1942 on, where all he was doing was trading the future of Europe so he could still feel he was a major player on the world stage.

Tron

 

[red indian]

What are you smoking Neuty???........

.....at least Churchill had no part in the creation of the British Empire, which the U.S. found so unacceptable, and which they sought to dismantle as a fortunate by product of WW2.

Can you explain to me what you thought the other main players were doing post WW2 that was any more or less morally acceptable than what Churchill was up to? and BTW what is this book you are reading that has given you this rather jaundiced view of Churchill? have you read Roy Jenkins biography of Churchill? it may give you a more balanced view, especially when you bare in mind he was a political enemy.

Queen Victoria surely represents the high water mark of everything that Americans loathe, yet you think she was a "hard ass" but Churchill who voulanteered to pull the whole thing down, who offered to give it all up in return for generous American help, and plunge his own country in to 60 years of debt, give up trade tarriffs and hand over every piece of gold and every piece of technology, you think this bloke was some kind of cigar smoking Ossama Binladen?

 

[MrMacphisto]

I gotta admit... I don't know that much about Churchill or Queen Victoria other than their respective involvements in WWII and the British Empire, but I'd say Churchill's survival over his challenges during his career were enough alone to garner respect for the man. WWII could have turned out very differently if men as sharp as Churchill and FDR weren't in power when they were. I don't even want to think about how things would have turned out if Bush and Blair had been in power during WWII.

I'm sure Churchill had his problems like anyone else, but personally, successfully leading a country against the Nazies is far more impressive to me than amassing an empire based on the exploitation of the Third World. There's a good reason we and most of the rest of the world had problems with the British Empire and why dismantling it was a good thing. Simply put, to me, Churchill represents the first significant non-royal British leader. The further away from an archaic royal culture that Britain gets, the better off they will be in the long run. The U.S. has a similar problem with its outdated "heartland" image.

 

[crydun]

Neutron.....

Can I tell you how much you intrigue me? cause you do, really

 

[Neutron]

Re: Neutron.....

Can I tell you how much you intrigue me? cause you do, really

crudun, why is that? I'm honestly curious.


Uh, Churchills success was more based on his willingness to abandon conviction in pursuit of power. Salisbury, Disreali, Gladstone and to an extent Balfour were all more successful, and Joe Chamberlin would have been had he decided to become Prime Minister. Churchill gleefully changed parties. He became popular because he saw the Liberal Party dying as a result of the Home Rule Debates, then when he saw the Unionists were going downhill due to their stance on Imperial Protection he proclaimed himself a Free Trader and jumped parties again. He also jumped Post WW1 and Pre and Post WW2. I'll never doubt the mans physical courage, but his morality and courage of conviction are always in doubt. I suggest you read about Churchill political career. He originally sold out the Unionists because he was AGAINST trade tariffs. He had no choice but to give up the Empire. The US flatly refused to defend a Brit empire and told Churchill that. He offered nothing that wasn't going away anyway. Also remember, much of the Brit empire acquired during Victoria reign was either a case of Britain governing the areas as colonies, OR FRance or Germany would, You don't give strategic or economic advantage to your enemies. Egypt, Transvaal, The Orange Land, Samoa, all were acquired because not do to so would have endangered Britain.

Also, don't mistake yourself, without Hitler starting up with Russia, and US Intervention Churchills leadership would have meant absolutely nothing.

As for Bush and Blair, The nature of the world has changed. At least from our end we had no choice but to level Iraq. Look at it this way. Churchill helped the Nazi regime for years, until they became a potential threat to british interests. He also went out of his way to turn Eastern Europe into a Soviet playground. All to preserve an Empire that was for all practical purposes already dead.


Tron

 

[crydun]

I don't know, dear. you just do. You're very mysterious, for one.

 

[Neutron]

I don't know, dear. you just do. You're very mysterious, for one.

LOL really now? I've been told enigmatice, eclectic and charismatic, but never mysterious 🙂

Tron