... 1,411 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Grenadier Guards and cubs Quote Link to post Share on other sites
... 1,411 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Do you honestly believe that there is equality and that there has always been equality amongst the classes ,services or not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NewBasfordlad 3,599 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Nah I was in the bucket basher's. I was over there for a short time working with the North Irish Horse a TA armoured squadron. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NewBasfordlad 3,599 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 No I do not, but was trying to point out that Churchill had actually been to war on a personal level and as ex-soldiers I think we would both give him credit for that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
... 1,411 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 I was in the grenadier gaurds when you had to be 6ft ,incidently the gurkas are a prime example of a brave and loyal alley that have been a victim of class ,they are forigners we do owe. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
... 1,411 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Of course has a soldier but rank or favour ,should not give him anymore or less than any other soldier,all I am trying to say is politicians by virtue are ambitous fame and fortune seeking individuals,all soldiers are the same in battle,I was refering to the politician despite his and officers decisions the masses won the wars. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NewBasfordlad 3,599 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Couldn't agree more about the Gurka's a bad deal if ever there was one. I went to the guards depot for a month back in the 70's.............scared the shite out of me and I had 3 bars on me arm. I was still trying to get my head round the rank structure when I left particularly the Household Cavalry. Fortunately I had a mate in the Blues & Royals who could explain to me. Must go supper awaits I will catch up tomorrow. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
barclaycon 569 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 I watched a report on Channel 4 News this evening on the anniversary of Churchill's death. I've never seen anything so disrespectful, biased and defametory. It sought to portray him in the worst possible way. This man, who only last year was voted greatest ever Englishman, was described by Channel 4 News as a racist, imperialist, misogynist and 'the butcher of Gallipoli'.The incredibly smug and self-satisfied Alex Thomson glossed over Churchill's role in saving the Western world from tyranny. Instead he engaged in his usual Brit-bashing and suggested that Churchill's faults were at odds with every one else at the time. Shock horror ! He wasn't perfect.This kind of naff journalism and childish attempt to 'expose' the supposed real truth shows just how biased their news editorial is. More kiddies from Media Studies who think they can re-write history and tell us how bad we all were. They were supposed to be reporting the anniversary of a great man's death. Not defiling his memory.If they spent less time trying to be trendy and sensationalist, then perhaps they'd be able to regain the credibility and 'accuracy' that Channel 4 News USED to have. 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bilbraborn 1,594 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Harold Wilson lead us to victory? Yeah right!! Churchill was in the right place at the right time. At least because of him we are free to hate him if we want to. No one is perfect. I would be suspicious of anyone who is. There will always be class divide. It is part of life. I doubt if this country could keep going without it. And I never indulge in the politics of envy. I had an acquaintance many years ago who was of the higher echelons of the class divide. He was as rich as it got. Wanted for nothing. But he and his wife would have given it all up and lived in a dustbin if only they could produce even just one child of their own. And personally, that is how I view my wealth. Money? Absolutely none. Family? treasured and loved. So therefore Happiness? Ecstatically so. I know my health could be better but at least I was brought up with the old Bull Dog spirit. I either say it could be worse, or I just get on with things despite anything trying to stop me. I know for many it is not that easy, but there are those of us in this forum who have horrendous bodily defects but fight on. And for all of us. When the end comes We'll go down fighting. It's all we know. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bubblewrap 3,815 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 I've said this more than once. I'm 65 happily married,in goodish health, own my own house,free of debt(bit on credit card paid off each month)& have enough income to have a lifestyle I (we with my wife)enjoy. Would I like more money ,well yes(who wouldn't) but it's not all that important. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
... 1,411 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 If the dead could speak one or two of them might suggest that laying down their lives had something to do with victory,and it was not churchill that gave us free speech ,I am not envious of wealth ,my idol is my father and the thousands like him that either lost their life or their youth they were just numbers,to give victory to any one individual to me is wrong no matter what war,if people disagree with that so be it ,I hope the real heroes are in a place where influence is not rewarded only fact.Human influence will always show bias swinging one way or another ,statements like churchill served in a war very good but so did millions of others that some we dont even know their names ,why should we praise them that praise themselves We dont need demi gods. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FLY2 10,108 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Only he was capable of inspiring the troops and boosting morale in the population. That's why we won . 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
... 1,411 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Has with most wars numerous reasons why we won,sacrifice beeing one there did not seem any shortage of cigars. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FLY2 10,108 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 He only had one, he never lit it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
... 1,411 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Tight git Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FLY2 10,108 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 He was saving it for the victory celebrations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
... 1,411 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 He certainly was not starving ,politicians yuk Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FLY2 10,108 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 He was a brilliant leader, and politicians rarely are. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NewBasfordlad 3,599 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 I think one of the most important things he did was to encourage continued resistance early in the war when it would have been so very easy to give in. If we had not continued to fight the Nazi's we would certainly have been occupied/eradicated like all the rest and in that sense #61 Churchill did give us freedom of speech or allowed us to continue with that privilege. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
... 1,411 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 I have just put in ryeland cresent bomb nottingham,where my dads home took a direct hit why he was fighting in the far east ,not much more than a kid himself,take a look at one minute peice of war,my dad was brought back to england with a tropical fever nearly dieing,once better he was sent staight back,read about those young children who died in that raid on the meadows,reality of war not some historians hype . The way people talk about leaders,they did not need ordinary people, what nonsense,you do you parents injustice. Whoever was in power would probably have done as well and who knows maybe even better,hindsight is a good thing. There was a lot of bad decisions made Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Merthyr Imp 729 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 I think one of the most important things he did was to encourage continued resistance early in the war when it would have been so very easy to give in. If we had not continued to fight the Nazi's we would certainly have been occupied/eradicated like all the rest and in that sense #61 Churchill did give us freedom of speech or allowed us to continue with that privilege. To consider what might have happened if things had turned out differently is always fascinating. From what I've read of the events of 1940, it was seen as quite likely for a time that Lord Halifax would have succeeded Chamberlain as Prime Minister. If that had happened, then - again from what I've read - it would seem likely that under Halifax's leadership Britain would have negotiated a peace treaty with Germany after the fall of France (and before the Battle of Britain) so there would have been no continuation of the fight with Germany as there was under Churchill. Without any need to invade Britain Hitler would have been able to turn his attention to invading Russia, maybe earlier than he did, and would have been able to concentrate on that instead of having his forces diluted by such as the North African campaign. Very likely he would have succeeded against Russia - even as it was German forces were only 15 miles from Moscow before being turned back. With the war in Europe over and Germany in control of most of it we would have been left looking on, still with the Empire/Commonwealth, of course, with which ties were stronger and more direct than today. But with Germany in command of the resources of most of Europe we would never have been in a position to reopen hostilities even there had been a will for it. The USA, of course, would never have had any reason to get involved in war in Europe in this scenario, but it's maybe getting in too deep to try and consider what would then have happened after Pearl Harbour. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
... 1,411 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 I have heard it said many times by veterans of the 2nd world war why did we bother,relating to the state of the world today,but the bad bits we can blame on the veterans. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
barclaycon 569 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Yes. I'm sure if tossers like Alex Thomson had been around in 1939 he'd have gone for appeasement. It's easy to look back at history and pontificate about people and events, as if you know better. Churchill wasn't perfect - we know that. But.....cometh the hour, cometh the man. He was what we needed at a time of crisis. Channel 4's character assassination of him was crass and impertinent. They thought they were being terribly modern by not following the 'standard' line that he was a great man and a courageous leader. As a keen student of history it always puzzled me how the electorate rejected Churchill in 1945 for Clement Attlee, but I've asked people who were there at the time (including my Dad - who fought in the war) and it transpires that it was anger with the government, not with the leader. People just wanted to come home and get their lives back after 6 years of misery, and yet the government kept them abroad and their families on rations. There were soldiers in France who saw the population getting back to normal and eating nice food etc. when they were still on Naafi crap. That's why they voted Labour. Alex Thomson neglected to mention that after 'rejecting' Churchill in '45, the population voted him back in 1951 after only 1 term of Attlee. I think his report dishonoured all the people who died fighting under Churchill's command and the millions of people who mourned his passing. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Blondie 1,392 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 He was a brilliant leader, and politicians rarely are. Very true - but he also said during the General Strike in the 1920's, when the children /people were starving during the Hunger Marches - ie The Miners..........make them eat grass......... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Robbie 39 Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 As soon as there was a threat of this country going to wall Churchill gain charisma from the mass, similarly, Mrs Thatcher, too, gained charisma during the Falklands conflict of 1982 and thus rescued from an unpopularity which was undermining support for her and her party. Like him or not and you will have your own reasons on which way you choose but remember with Churchill at the helm this country has stayed a democracy for 70 years Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.