Challanging The British Historian

The British historian John Keegan writes:'' No other citizenof the last century of the second millennium, the worst in history, deserved better to be recognized as a hero to mankind than Churchill'' Both Churchill and F.D.R, Keegan says,'' derived their moral purpose from The Anglo-Saxon tradition of the rule of the law and freedom of the individual. Each could champion that tradition because the sea protected his country from the landbound enemies of liberty.''

How would you challange this historian?
Or do you also think that the biggest hero of the last century was Churchill?

I will quote Churchill but once to prove that this is wrong:

Originally posted by Winston Churchill - Middle Eastern natives I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.

Edited by Zaitsev - 17-Jan-2007 at 05:41

Originally posted by TheDiplomat The British historian John Keegan writes:'' No other citizenof the last century of the second millennium, the worst in history, deserved better to be recognized as a hero to mankind than Churchill'' Both Churchill and F.D.R, Keegan says,'' derived their moral purpose from The Anglo-Saxon tradition of the rule of the law and freedom of the individual. Each could champion that tradition because the sea protected his country from the landbound enemies of liberty.''

Churchill.... "Hero to Mankind" ????? Excuse me while I go and throw up! This reminds me of that post I once read about the Robespierre Appreciation Society..... Oh no..... I feel the need to go and throw up again

Churchill and FDR demonstrated that they were great leaders - in FDR's case in both peacetime and wartime. Both were capable of inspiring their peoples to sacrifice for the sake of their common goal.

Poisonous gas?  Tear gas?  well Kurds were gassed in the 20s by the British. Saddam had precedent.

Originally posted by Zagros Poisonous gas?  Tear gas?  well Kurds were gassed in the 20s by the British. Saddam had precedent.

Well i bet you can take most leaders from the pre-WW2 era and label them as thinking less of blacks, Asians or Europeans. Depended if you yourself was Asian, African or European. We could hardly have any heroes in this aspect, it was common for civilized men to think less of other races then, didn't stain your intelligence in those times.

We also had a topic on Gandhi once, and found out that he had made racist remarks in his youth, no trouble what so ever. A hero for everyone still, and i think we were all pretty tolerable and realized it was no surprise to be racist early 20th century.


Edited by Kalevipoeg - 17-Jan-2007 at 21:02

Originally posted by Sparten I think Churchill is overrated. Britain was hardly "alone", it had 25 % of the globes surface behind it, quite literally. India alone could have provided more men than the Germans, Canada would have been the industrial powerhouse. Th Brits would still have won, eventually.

Originally posted by Zaitsev Firstly, Churchill was one of the most incompetent military leaders of the 20th century. He himself is responsible for the monumental stuff up at Gallipoli.