- This topic has 8 voices and 12 replies.
-
Posts
-
What are your thoughts on Winston Churchill? I actually was thinking about him as I had the chance to visit Hyde Park and Fdr's home a couple of weeks ago. It made me think of the relationship they had had during the war. Can anyone recommend a good bio?
I don't know of any books but there are lots of very good websites about him.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchillhttp://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1953/churchill-bio.htmli find for most things these days it is not worth buying books as everything is online.
i find for most things these days it is not worth buying books as everything is online.
True, but I feel there is no substitute for the feel of a good book in your hand!
I agree. I couldnt help but think of his relationship with FDR when I was at hyde Park. Walking around I tried to picture them sitting outside discussing the war and Hitler. It was a bit surreal.
I have always been an admirer of Churchill( Winston, not that fool professor). It is unfortunate that great wartime leaders are usually cast aside when the crisis is over.
A great leader, yes.But also a late British colonial supremacist, fond of using mustard gas during air raids on the Iraqi tribes - Saddam wasn't the first to gas the marsh Muslims:
Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html
Wow, I didnt know that about Churchill. But then again, they didnt see chemical warfare as the evil it is now.
That is startling what Churchill did – although I agree with Stumpfoot's concern as to the extent of the evil they saw in chemical warfare. In today's time, people might think the neutron bomb is a “good” weapon upon hearing of it, although I think I have heard some criticisms of it as being especially evil.
This is very interesting about the chemical weapons. I found some other web sites that tell more.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Ypres#Gas_attack_at_Gravenstafelhttp://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/gas.htm
I think that this all gets into a maddening area – perhaps the madness of war in general. If nations wage war with the goal of killing as many of the enemy as possible, or to achieve objectives with little regard for human life on the other side, then weapons that kill many are better than weapons that kill fewer. Chemical or biological weapons that kill in droves is therefore a logical “advancement” of this warfare mindset. Whether you kill 20 enemy with some mustard gas or 20 enemy with a few hand grenades makes no difference to the dead; the only difference is for the level of difficulty in doing the killing, right?At least the above could - and perhaps was - the kind of thinking that brought us these weapons. My personal view is that war should never be fought for the purpose of killing in the first place, so biological and chemical weapons are not the logical next step in warfare.
If you shoot at someone (if you now how to use your weapon) you are likely to hit that person, and if it's war then it is most likely (and should be) a soldier. With Bio and chemicals its hard to keep those weapons isolated on the battlefield. But who are we kidding? Since when was there a war when civilians didnt suffer?
I think he liked big cigars …and saying things that would be remembered in future decades ...other than that ....you tell me ....
A great leader, yes.But also a late British colonial supremacist, fond of using mustard gas during air raids on the Iraqi tribes - Saddam wasn't the first to gas the marsh Muslims:
And neither was Churchill
Churchill suggested chemical weapons be used
http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Churchill_Winston_Spencer.htmlSuggesting and actually using are two different things, IMO. Plus, he never specifically mentioned Iraqi tribes.
I think Chruchill was one of the best leaders or certainly war leaders of all time.
