Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
TheDiplomat
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Challanging The British Historian Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 04:47 |
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?
|
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!
|
|
chimx
Immortal Guard
Joined: 10-Jan-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 05:04 |
Churchill and FDR were committed to foreign policies of trusteeship--so as to economically dominate regions--and in Churchill's case, maintain the British Empire. I guess it depends in part on how you view the Anglo-Saxon definition of freedom, but I can't see how one could uncritically champion either figures as "heros".
|
"Hegel says somewhere that great historic facts and personages recur twice. He forgot to add: 'Once as tragedy, and again as farce.'" -Karl Marx
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 05:39 |
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
|
|
DayI
Sultan
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 05:58 |
overhyped by the british, like david beckham is called by them as the "world best" soccer player. My ass gringo.
|
|
|
Gargoyle
Colonel
Joined: 25-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 681
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 07:42 |
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
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 08:43 |
Originally posted by Gargoyle
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
|
Welcome back, Gargoyle. I have not seen you here for a while.
Anyways, I know that Churchill may not be a hero to the world in some respects, but I find it somewhat heroic how he did sustain the morale of the British populace whenever it was possibly going to be invaded by a more powerful country, and also how he was able to defend his country while being the lone Allied Power in Europe during WWII.
|
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 08:45 |
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.
So too was Atatrk. And Gandhi, King, and Mandela.
I can't see that that can be disputed.
But to categorise someone as a 'hero' implies that you approve of their goal, and that's a very different thing.
Atatrk was a Turkish hero, Churchill a British one, Gandhi an Indian one. Take away the adjectives and its impossible to classify them.
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 09:05 |
Originally posted by Zaitsev
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. |
|
We had this in another thread, unfortunately Search isn't working. But basically he's being deliberately misquoted form a debate in the house of common on the use of tear gas.
|
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 11:18 |
Poisonous gas? Tear gas? well Kurds were gassed in the 20s by the British. Saddam had precedent.
|
|
chimx
Immortal Guard
Joined: 10-Jan-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 13:26 |
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 |
heh. you must vomit every time you use the metric system then.
|
"Hegel says somewhere that great historic facts and personages recur twice. He forgot to add: 'Once as tragedy, and again as farce.'" -Karl Marx
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 14:07 |
Originally posted by Zagros
Poisonous gas? Tear gas? well Kurds were gassed in the 20s by the British. Saddam had precedent. |
Poison gas was used to kill people. Tear gas to disperse angry mobs so the troops didn't have to open fire. Misinterpreting one of the few humane acts of Churchill's life is quite unecessary.
|
|
|
TheGame
Knight
Joined: 18-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 14:18 |
I would challenge this historian by saying, look what they did in other places around the world!
Wow, this historian has no credibility in my eyes.
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 17:37 |
....while i would personally question the notion of 'hero' in regards to Churchill, and no doubt to a great many people he is, but i do believe he deserves a huge level of recognition for the period of time when indeed, he did lead Britain to stand alone against Nazi domination in Europe...
...this will not to succumb, and to fight off detractors changed the path of WWII..decisons were changed or postponed, world leaders reassessed the war in Europe with more positive eyes, and the fate of Europe was brought to the attention of the world more seriously because of Churchill's wartime leadership....perhaps 'mankind' does at least owe a signifcant debt to this stout and determined individual....
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 19:34 |
People think Churchill is so great and all... but he was pathetic. Mein Gott, you should see his war advices that ruined Britain in WWI and WWII. He was determined to keep Britain intact from the enemiesm, but he was not a hero. Hero to Britain, definitely. Hero to the Allied power, maybe... hero to the world? Nah...
Churchill was a great man to some extent, but I personally disagree with the fact that he was a greatest hero of the second millennium. He was so arrogant that he refused to see others' point of view, and he made sure that Britain always got the benefits, and was a racist.
I'd talk more, but I got a exam coming up. Have fun debating.
|
Join us.
|
|
Kalevipoeg
Chieftain
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Estonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1458
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 21:00 |
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
|
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 23:49 |
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.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2007 at 04:35 |
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. |
..i understand what you are saying, but Britain 'was' alone in late 1939 early 1940, the resources of Empire were not available to the island and if (horrible thing 'if'!!) Britain had fallen to invasion, i do not think the Empire could have organised itself into a substantial resistance, indeed, would it have wanted to?...
...but that is besides the point, as mentioned in other posts, Churchill was a great 'wartime' leader, and his force of personality, his natural sociable gifts, his talent for words, his political acumen, and most importantly, his early recognition that Nazi Germany was a force to be dealt with and that the war could not be won without the aid of the United States (and thus his 'courting' of Roosevelt) practically made sure that a signficant part of the world did not fall to Nazi control...crucial moments in British (and world?) history...
..yes, it is easy to criticise Winston, his manner, his look even, his stubborness, and some of his more controversial decisions...but such a man was needed to help overcome the problem of defence against Fascism.....remember, Britain's government was ready to capitulate to Hitler and it was Churchill who grabbed hold of the reins and derided this decison, and yes, bullied the 'doves' into submission...if GB has given in, the United States could not have entered the war, and the result of that is a whole other issue.....
...if anyone has ever visited Winston's family home, Chartwell in Kent, you would see personal aspects of the man that are rarely publicised, he was a great wartime leader but he was a whole lot more besides... i think he did a fine job of balancing the difficulties he faced both poiltically and personally.......
...just think for a moment, who out of any of us would really want to be, i mean really would want to be a wartime leader? consider that and then maybe re-consider Churchill's position in the days after the fall of France....
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2007 at 05:51 |
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.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2007 at 06:00 |
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. |
For which he took responsibility and resigned.
It doesn't mean the Gallipoli affair was incompetent. It just means the Turks were far better soldiers than they had been thought to be. The loser of a battle is not necessarily incompetent when he is just beaten by a better foe.
That's like saying the Yankees are a lousy baseball team because they once lost to the White Sox.
(PS. You can safely assume that everyone knows about Churchill and Gallipoli. It may be news to you but it won't be to most people.)
|
|
TheDiplomat
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2007 at 06:16 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
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.
So too was Atatrk. And Gandhi, King, and Mandela.
I can't see that that can be disputed.
But to categorise someone as a 'hero' implies that you approve of their goal, and that's a very different thing.
Atatrk was a Turkish hero, Churchill a British one, Gandhi an Indian one. Take away the adjectives and its impossible to classify them.
|
Thanks for the insight, gclc2003. But This British historian claimed Chirchil was the ''greatest'' hero of the all...Therefore I felt the need of opening this thread
|
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!
|
|