Crane Dipping was bought for Churchill

good at UPPER CASE

Do wah Diddy

IM NOT GOOD WITH WORDS ,I MEAN A GESTURE OF THANK YOU

It may well have been DO Wah.
All we have against this is the word of an old docker who might have said no whilst others said yes.

They need to be stopped again.

YES THE CRANE DIPPING ,I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY MOVEING ,AND THE PART OF THE FUNERAL THAT STOOD OUT TO ME

I think he did akabula

But you must realise how weak we were after France fell, our army had been thrashed, we got the troops off at Dunkirk
but had to leave the equipment behind.

I think it was only our air force saved us, If Hitler had destroyed that I think he would have risked crossing the channel.
His army lands, and he could support it, we were toast.

Money Tree cost me thousands!!  • January 29, 2015 11:35 PM GMT 


They need to be stopped again.

what Germany!, just economically perhaps, a lot of their cars on our road
but better than Panzers

I THINK THE MEN WOULD HAVE GOT TOGETHER AND FORGOT THEIR POLITICS,AND DONE THE RIGHT THING ,

You are right Do wah Diddy, it is the Mail stirring it up as usual

e eans the CAPITALS

CAPT F STAND EASY ,

The interview withe the 'Docker' ruined an otherwise interesting appraisal of the Churchill funeral.

Just why that sh!te had to be included - and especially at the end of the programme - I do not know,

The 'Docker'looked remarkably YOUNG for somebody from 50 years ...
- and just how do we know that he was telling the TRUTH

"Dockers do did not work Saturday afternoons," said it ALL for me.

I agree with @onlooker. It should have been left on the cutting room floor. Even if true, I'm not sure about the spin put on it. I dare say the soldiers carrying the coffin still got paid, along with the archbishop and everyone else. Why call it a bribe?

There was a historian on Newsnight last night who said that Churchill delayed the D-Day landings by about a year which may have resulted in 10 million more deaths as it prolonged the war.

This is the problem in our Age of Celebrity, even the historians have to say increasingly daft and ridiculous things to stand out from the crowd

Thankfully they've no shortage of witless gibbons to reproduce them all over the internet. You have to wonder who he's borrowed this particular opinion from.

You can't handle the truth, Ken? (Your cosy little world rocking on it's hinges.)

Yes some of Churchill's decisions during WWII have come in for criticism.

The USA wanted to invade France in mid 1943 and not Italy, Churchill's decision.
But then we will never know what happened if we did, we may have failed for all we know.

I still think we owe a great debt of thanks for leading us through WWII.
Historians always argue over the past, one can see both sides of the argument on this one.

The USA even wanted us to invade France in 1942. I cannot see that would have succeeded.
1943 more arguable.

USA military command or Ebulgery off the chit chat forum....hmmmm, who to pick?

sorry wrong smiley

I suppose Churchill wanted to make sure the invasion did not fail.

The USA wanted to invade France in 1943

Maybe some generals did, but there wasn't widespread support within the US military for it. The navy, for one, was opposed. I think it is generally accepted that a 1943 cross-channel invasion stood much less chance of success, a shortage of available troops, intelligence, distractions elsewhere etc

Making sure not to err on the side of risk was the ultimate objective and the correct course of action

Speeches don't win wars.

I don't recall Stalin being quoted after he'd broken the back of the German army.

Stalin quote "The death of millions is a statistic"

His funeral's on the Parliament channel right now

The TV schedule for 30 January 1965 was only slightly
affected by the coverage of the funeral. In the morning,
the broadcast replaced an edition of 'The Science of Man'
about evolution and a German instruction programme called
'Komm Mit!' (which translates as 'Come Here!'). In the
evening, 'Juke Box Jury', 'Doctor Who' and 'Dixon of
Dock Green' were transmitted almost as planned, though
western series 'Temple Houston' was dropped to make
room for a one-hour edited compilation of the funeral
later that night.

bbc.co.uk

The Leopard  • January 30, 2015 10:45 AM GMT
USA military command or Ebulgery off the chit chat forum....hmmmm, who to pick?

That's a tough one Leopard, but me of course is the correct answer

I watch a lot of documentaries, including on Churchill. Despite all his speeches, he did not have much faith
in our boys against the Germans.

Of course if would have been harder in 1943, we did not have control of the air as we in 1944, I also suspect Germans were
stronger as well.

I am saying this is what Historians discuss, although maybe this is not the appropriate moment

Dr Crippen  • January 30, 2015 11:20 AM GMT
Speeches don't win wars.
I don't recall Stalin being quoted afte rhe'd broken the back of the German army.

He made plenty to the Russians believe me, Fight for Mother Russia, he downplayed communism a bit

He also had machine guns placed behind his own troops advancing to make sure they did.

Dockers didn't like working Monday to Friday, never mind Saturday.

I seem to remember they spent a lot of time on strike
spellingandgrammer

History like gambling is always easier in hindsight

Some disputed Churchill's decision to fight in N.Africa...but the consensus now he was right

Italy this is still under dispute by Historians

Most interesting quote I read was a captured German General in Italy
"Next time you invade Italy why not start at the top not the bottom"
and he was right

We landed in the north of Italy, all Germans troops to the south must withdraw, or risk being cut off
So what was the point of us slugging it all the way up from the bottom

I think the reason was, Churchill wanted to condition our troops and USA troops to fighting the Germans
an expensive way of doing it

However we have no way of knowing if a D Day landing would succeeded in 1943, so Churchill may well have been right
It is 'What if' history

The Leopard

There was a historian on Newsnight last night who said that Churchill delayed the D-Day landings by about a year which may have resulted in 10 million more deaths as it prolonged the war.

Why do you persist on posting this type of cr4p?
One historian trying to stand out from the crowd.
Churchill was without a doubt the greatest Briton of the 20th century.

Can't see that blocked poster.....probably the Establishment lap-dog, Aka-loser s*cking up again to the men with the shiney buttons 

He did not like your opening post Leopard......perhaps I should post it
unless you have blocked me too

I consider the historian was wrong to say what he did particularly on the anniversary of Churchill's death...
This is a mute point he is arguing...to accuse Churchill of the possible death of 10 million people...this is far too strong

Churchill made a decision he thought was best.

This does make him a mass murderer.

How ready would Britain and the US have been in 1943?
How many more axis troops would there have been that weren't now dead on the Eastern front?

D-Day was NOT as sure thing, the allies knew there was a possibility it might fail. To say that if they'd launched what as incredibly large and complex and dangerous operation an entire year earlier, that it wouldn't have been a complete disaster, and that by not doing it Churchill was at fault in some way, really ... It's classic smartass revisionism after the fact.

The only qualification required to be a historian is to say you're a historian, doesn't mean you aren't a complete tw*t!

Invading Italy from the top, where are your supply lines going to come from? You're going to stick an invading army at the top of a long thin peninsula and have to resupply it by sea from say Africa, running the gauntlet of the Luftwaffe and Italian air force for 100s of miles? Resupplying a small force at Malta was hard enough. The people cut off and captured may very well have been the allies.

I'm sure they considered their options!

That docker made the documentary for me .Respect to Churchill but I have never been a fan.

I thought invading Italy from the top was a good idea

I do not think we expected it would take us so long.

The Germans even disagreed over whether Italy was worth defending, Rommel did not think so

Still D Day in 1943 would have been much harder, we do not know it would have succeeded

To judge this we must look it at from the position of early 1943, how did it look then, not now

There must have been reasons for it. I suppose Africa and the med were crucial to the UK for getting oil and communicating with the eastern Med and further on. As long as Italy was there as a massive aircraft and ship launcher that was threatened. Maybe they too thought the Germans wouldn't defend it?

If you think about the mediteranean and how hard it would be to support a big force at the top of Italy across a large distance while the rest of Italy and France and Corsica whatever could be used to attack you, and your land forces are also getting attacked from both sides - I wouldn't fancy the chances!

Well we landed at Anzio

probably good reasons as you say

I still like my idea

Field Marshall Ebulgery

You can be a good War General but a bad politician a good footballer but thick as a plank
a good narrator but an awful lover .Right time right place but it was the people of this country
who won the war not the politicians...

Indeed ! but  one million of those people stood in the street to pay
tribute to a politician.

Dr Crippen


Speeches don't win wars.

Churchill's speeches certainly helped.

^In what way?

Half the country hated him because he was a Tory.
They kicked him out of office in first election that was held after the war.

The programme makers have been leading an awful lot of people up the garden path about Churchill and his inspiring speeches.

It's all good stuff and just part of the illusion that seeks to glamorise war.
Like kids being taught at school that the British beat the Germans.
Hardly ever mentioning the forces that Russia and America pitched against Germany which really beat them.
Russia in particular.

They kicked him out of office in first election that was held after the war.

Before someone picks me up on that.
They gave him the thumbs down and didn't elect his Tory party after the war.

Yes I think that was because people were hoping to build a better world, a more socialist society

It was not necessarily a rejection of Churchill

I do not think we succeeded we seem to be heading back to the same old world

It's all good stuff and just part of the illusion that seeks to glamorise war.

I do not think this is about glamorising war. War is part of human nature, it is the way settle our differences
we will never escape it.

Also people are quite happy to demand protection if they think this country is threatened do they not?
So people are incredibly hypocritical about this

We must acknowledge the people who have protected us

I am not having a go at you Dr Crippen, it is just part of the discussion

The major banking families backed both sides during the war. The longer it went on, the bigger the debt became.
Britain did not have the firepower to fight back before the battle of Britain. Germany had been practicing since the Spanish civil war.
Hitler admired Britain and had no intention of invading it, but was talked out of this by his generals.
Hitler wanted Russia, but the timing was wrong, winter looming and fighting on 2 fronts. His generals were against invading Russia and wanted to concentrate on western Europe.
Churchill was an alleged paedophile and satanic child murderer.

Churchill was an alleged paedophile and satanic child murderer.

You got a link twonky? Or did you just make that up?

I don't think I've ever read a post by Twonky that wasn't
1. A Lie
2. A Troll
3. Had a conspiracy theory in it.

People having a go at Churchill are saying more about themselves than Churchill really, and know nothign about the personal battles he fought to get the result we got. Could you imagine the country rallying behind the great war leader "Ed Miliband"?

To try and say the person who leads a country has no effect, as people seem to trying to say above, is just mind boggling considering the context where ww2 was all about fighting a country driven by another Leader, Mr A Hitler. Woudl you say his speeches and actions and decisions had no effect on Germany policy?

"Like kids being taught at school that the British beat the Germans.
Hardly ever mentioning the forces that Russia and America pitched against Germany which really beat them. "

And how many kids leave school thinking Germany started ww2 single handed without knowing that Germany and Russia had agreed to carve up Poland beforehand, and after Germany invaded Poland from the West, Russia invaded from the East? It's amazing how much that is played down. Great fighters for freedom Russia were not.

Perhaps not just checking

But we must be grateful to Russia whether we like it or not, because the enemy of my enemy is my friend

The German armies were broken in Russia

WWI was decided in the West, WW2 the East.

The division of Poland was a clever ruse by the Germans, it saved them fighting on two fronts

They were able to deal with France and Britain without worrying about their backs

Hitler hated Stalin, he always wanted Russia

Oh I agree with that ebulGery, but that's observing facts, not saying they are in any way good guys.
And if Britain had folded, and Germany didn't have to try to defend the western Europe or Italy or Africa or defend from the air or have its factories and communications destroyed regularly, and instead be able to turn its full might with its allies and unimpeded war production on Russia, there's a good chance they'd have won there I think. So again, Churchill and Britain played a very major part.

I totally agree Just Checking

It's a big agreement party! what a nice end of January Chit Chat miracle :)

Btw, although Britain did stand alone in Europe, remember that it was always Churchill's plan to engage the United States, and he was open about this. From his first speech as Prime Minister:

" ...We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old."

just checking

Perhaps not quite, I do not think Stalin would have invaded Poland by himself. I think he was offered half by the Germans
who said they were invading anyway.

If the Germans had just taken all Poland that would have alarmed Stalin. It was to give him a false sense of security while Hitler
dealt with the West...I do not think Hitler was ever going to stop at half Poland he wanted, 'Lebensraum' which meant Russia
and he hated communists.

Surprised that nobody mentioned the Dardanelles Campaign, or Norway,

Surprised that nobody mentioned the Dardanelles Campaign, or Norway,

Yes, Churchill was not a great military strategist, or even a mediocre one. As someone-or-other once said of Churchill, he was usually wrong, but the one time it really mattered, he was right.

More importantly, Churchill introduced tea breaks.

And insurance.

Churchill starved 3 million in Bengal and said "I hate Indians,they are a beastly people with a beastly religion.The famine was their own fault, for breeding like rabbits."

"Churchill starved 3 million in Bengal". Complete b*ll*cks.

Yes, Churchill was not a great military strategist, or even a mediocre one. As someone-or-other once said of Churchill, he was usually wrong, but the one time it really mattered, he was right.

very well said Ramruma

he will will always be hated in Wales and Ireland (for various reasons), but in England he will always be remembered as a hero to the vast majority (including the Kray twins ).

When the dockers planned to go on strike during the war he said they have every right to strike. However,as they were a protected trade he also said that would stop and they would get their army papers served on Monday morning if they did. True to form,they called off the strike rather than serve on the front lines,just like most of the left wingers today?

So Churchill was a **** strategist was he? Well he didn't throw his troops away trying to invade Italy from the North, so I think he wasn't that bad!

I strongly disagree with that

Anyway it is Military Commanders who are supposed to come with up with the strategies, at least on the best way to win

As PM it was Churchill's job to pick the best one, after all he was not trained as a Military Commander himself
although he decided overall strategy

Yes he did want to go to Italy after North Africa and bottom up

But one must not forget Roosevelt and the Military commanders of both ourselves and the US would have agreed to this

Of course Historians will always discuss military decisions in hindsight

There were some US commanders who wanted to go straight to an invasion of France, but was not risk free

I would not put this down as a mistake by Churchill myself to go for Italy, perhaps a little cautious

I don't entirely agree with him, I thought we should have invaded Italy a bit further up, we had the US air force to protect us

that is just my own take though, who knows what would have happened??????????

treetop

When the dockers planned to go on strike during the war he said they have every right to strike. However,as they were a protected trade he also said that would stop and they would get their army papers served on Monday morning if they did. True to form,they called off the strike rather than serve on the front lines,just like most of the left wingers today?

Great post. Amongst his greatest strategies I'd say.

When the dockers planned to go on strike during the war he said they have every right to strike. However,as they were a protected trade he also said that would stop and they would get their army papers served on Monday morning if they did. True to form,they called off the strike rather than serve on the front lines,just like most of the left wingers today?

I say they made the intelligent decision : to keep loading and unloading stuff rather than get your head blown off....yes?

Leopards kind of people.

^ Can't see blocked poster......probably Aka-loser still s*cking up to Capitalist Military Industrial Complex that resulted in the deaths of 61 million people.

Can't see? The daft fecker gave the game away on another thread with his response.
Leopards too nosey to block anyone.

^ Probably some lame response from Aka-apologist, friend of Dodgy Andy.

Aw, leave him be, he's discovered* an opinion and he's running with it, let him have his fun.

*borrowed

Now according to spotty he's blocked quite a few so how does he always know who it is who responds to him.
On another thread he names the person who responded on that one. Oh dear.
You are awful but I like you to quote one of you contemporaries.

Well, when you block someone you do actually see who it is, just not the body of their comment, so pretending he doesn't know if it's you really doesn't work. In any event, his mate is probably PMing him.

See?

I never knew that and neither did spotty obviously.
Told you he was too nosey.

So, you are a Mod then Ken?

You think you'd still be here if I were?

I've never done anything bannable, you would have to justify it to your superior, Naveed.

Ken Masters
You think you'd still be here if I were?

Best laugh I've had for ages. Quality response.

^ Aka, your City and Guilds in S*cking Up proving useful, I would guess.

Strange point of view. It wasn't really Winston's fault. In fact, it could be argued that the war actually saved a lot of lives.

Sorry. My last reply was to Leopard's post at 12-06pm. I got a bit distracted whilst typing! 

^ Fell asleep.

The Leopard

I've never done anything bannable, you would have to justify it to your superior, Naveed.

With that one word spotty opens his mind to the world. Oh dear oh dear.

Work to do....bye, Hamish.

Anyway it is Military Commanders who are supposed to come with up with the strategies, at least on the best way to win

As PM it was Churchill's job to pick the best one, after all he was not trained as a Military Commander himself
although he decided overall strategy


Well said Gerry, he demonstrated that by replacing Auchinleck with Montgomery to turn our fortunes around.

For me the most shameful part is this -- if you go to the Cabinet War Rooms (and you should) at the end there is a collection box -- which is bad enough because we ought to be able to pay for this as a country but when I went it was full of dollars with very few pounds.

Those Nuclear weapons don't grow on trees !

The dockers were left wing militants aka communists. They hated Churchill almost as much as they hated their own country. Destroyed much of their own industry with their antics and thieving.