FrancieBrady wrote: » The POINT was not about where they came from, it was about Churchills desire to use chemical and poison weapons. You are having a hissy fit about something irrelevant to the conversation we were having. This is not a history forum the last time I looked. If people did what you ask, posts would be too long and nobody would read them. See relevant forums were that happens (tumbleweed) Of course, maybe you would prefer that I copied and pasted from somebody else's history site and unapologetically passed such opinion off as my own? Seems an easy thing to do.
Jawgap wrote: » Which was entirely debunked. Look I have a desire to fly in space, it doesn't mean I will or that I even can. Originally, it was a story based on a minute from a meeting. The author crafted it as part of cracking good yarn that helped sell his book. Subsequent analysis showed it for what it was.......another of Churchill's flights of fancy. As Alanbrooke said of his role as CIGS, "The Prime Minister has at least 10 ideas a day about how the war should be run, 4 of which are brilliant. My job is to figure out which 4." In other words Churchill, as the amateur who saw himself as the professional, often spouted unrealistic nonsense.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Opinions Jawgap. Somebody has one, somebody else has another and I have another, as have you. Based on all the things recorded about what that man said and did in his career, everyone can come to their own conclusions. Would he have used the weapons if he could? I think it was highly likely and as we have seen I am not alone.
Jawgap wrote: » Yes, opinions are fine, but ones that are base on partial information and developed from biased points of view are less fine than others an interesting and very large qualification you've added to your little question......would he have been let, would be a more nuanced one......after all he was a PM with all the constitutional baggage that office carried.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You trust Allenbrooke for a proper assessment of the man, that's fine, go right ahead. I'm sorry, but I am disposed to mistrust the opinion of somebody wrapped in an establishment (and given a title) that created the myth of 'Churchill the Hero' in the first place, which largely ignored the man's career record. It's the same establishment that circled the wagons to produce the myth of what happened on, for instance, Bloody Sunday. Appoint a Lord of the Realm safe in the knowledge he will protect the interests of the realm. It's largely how it works. There is a vested interest to keeping 'Churchill's War' and the myth of the man, on a pedestal. Nice to see you, Mary and Fred playing your part in keeping it alive. Who'd have thought.
Jawgap wrote: » No, I don't trust "Allenbrooke" because I'm not familiar with him, but Alanbrooke's assessment of Churchill is well chronicled as is his famous 'flat disagreements' with the PM over countless matters during the Chiefs of Staff Committee meetings......interesting that it took a couple of Paddies in the shape of Alanbrooke and Cunningham to keep Churchill from losing the war. He might have respected Churchill because of the office he held, but he was in no way in his thrall. Oh, and wasn't enobled until after the war - the title came after he proved himself as a soldier and leader.
Fratton Fred wrote: » everyone's stupid except you eh Fran?
Jawgap wrote: » interesting that it took a couple of Paddies in the shape of Alanbrooke and Cunningham to keep Churchill from losing the war. .
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, I get you, nobody ever moderated their behaviour, towed the line, or did what was expected of them, in a such a way that ensured them a knighthood. As stated, my position is, you have your opinion, I have mine. I look at his whole career and see what he has done and speculate on the basis of that, what he might have done had he gotten his way.
Jawgap wrote: » Actually, the record shows that Churchill appointed Brooke, Cunningham et al precisely because they wouldn't be cowed and would be their own men. And the history of the war is replete with examples of senior commanders disagreeing with the politicians in the strongest terms (to the point of disobedience, but not quite mutiny) rather than just being 'yes' men - Dowding being one of the better known and oft quoted examples. A copy of his letter to the War Cabinet is one of the first things you see when you walk into Northolt. And again, he didn't get a knighthood until after he was enobled.
I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected … We cannot, in any circumstances acquiesce to the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier.
To achieve the extirpation of Nazi tyranny there are no lengths of violence to which we will not go.
Fratton Fred wrote: » One of several succesful engagements against Italy, including the raid on Taranto (which the Japanese used as the model for Pearl Harbour) and the BAttle of Cape Matapan, which effectively took Italy out of the war.
Fratton Fred wrote: » The same guys then went and tied up 20,000 German troops in Crete and more importantly, inflicted enough German casualties that Hitler effectively stood down his elite paratroop regiment. but yeah, insignificant stuff alright:rolleyes:
Jawgap wrote: » No, I don't trust "Allenbrooke" because I'm not familiar with him, but Alanbrooke's assessment of Churchill is well chronicled as is his famous 'flat disagreements' with the PM over countless matters during the Chiefs of Staff Committee meetings......interesting that it took a couple of Paddies in the shape of Alanbrooke and Cunningham to keep Churchill from losing the war. He might have respected Churchill because of the office he held, but he was in no way in his thrall.
Snickers Man wrote: » Churchill didn't like Alanbrooke much either "I know these Brookes: stiff-necked Ulstermen and there's nothing worse than that!" Charming! And one of them (A cousin of Alanbrooke) the future prime minister of Northern Ireland too.
Snickers Man wrote: » Isn't this a case of the Italians tying the British (well really a load of Commonwealth/Empire forces with a smattering of British units) down rather than vice versa? Thereby leaving the Germans free to carry out their main war against their main enemy the Soviet Union? Is this my point or yours?
Snickers Man wrote: » Hitler didn't "stand down" his elite paratroop regiment. They continued to fight, albeit in land-based units, for the rest of the war. He just refused to allow another large-scale airborne operation such as occurred at Crete.
Snickers Man wrote: » And he was right. History shows that when you put paratroopers up against proper soldiers, the paras lose. Badly. Look at what happened to the British 1st Airborne and Polish Brigade at Arnhem. 10,000 went in; 2,000 came out. Why? Because they thought they would be facing rear-echelon units of old men with stomach problems and wheezy short sighted kids who were always the last to be picked for football teams in the playground, because Arnhem was so far behind enemy lines. These are the sort of people paras are SUPPOSED to go up against and slaughter in droves. That's what they're for. But at Arnhem they landed instead on the remnants of two SS Panzer Divisions. Whoops!
Snickers Man wrote: » Despite the fact that unlike at Arnhem and Operation Market Garden as a whole, the Germans actually did win in Crete. The subsequent "tying up" of German troops was done by Greek guerrillas, not, the British and Commonwealth armies who skedaddled.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's hilarious to see people who go on about people in the North's right to call themselves British (something I have no problem with) ooh and awww about an archetype of the above being 'Irish'. It's all kinds of ****ed up thinking imo.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I have not disputed that he was talked out of it. The point was what he would have done if he was the sole decision maker, what he himself believed. The above is not an off the cuff comment, nor a ten a penny idea. What is it about the last sentence that makes you think he wouldn't have used any weapon at his disposal? Take into account what he said much later in parliment too (again, not an off the cuff remark, or ten a penny idea that just occurred to him, either) I have no doubt, looking at the above, and based on his career, that he would have used those weapons if he could have. Which was my point.
Jawgap wrote: » Wikipedia :rolleyes:
FrancieBrady wrote: » What?
Fratton Fred wrote: » ok, not stand down, but paratroopers who don't use parachutes are just soldiers, aren't they?
riffmongous wrote: » How often did the Parachute Regiment get to use their's in Northern Ireland? The unit still retains the experience and skills I guess, at least until they have a high enough turnover from casualties.
Jawgap wrote: » Your source.....ultimately from docs in the Churchill Library, but rendered through Wikipedia. I suppose it's an adequate enough source for AH.
maryishere wrote: » but it was not a 1-10 chance of dying : it was a 1 in ten chance of dying or getting some sort of injury. Typical how you add legs to something. Last year no British servicemen died on active service. Some might have broken bones while parachuting or skiing, or cut their finger. It was a good year. In some other years some unfortunate soldiers lost their lives or were badly injured...I seem to remember you condoning attacks on British soldiers in the past.
smurgen wrote: » Churchill was a fat,alcoholic coward who sent young men off to bomb civilian populations.He stands in sharp contrast to the heros of 1916 who put their lives on the line in a bid to win independence.
Fratton Fred wrote: » he fat overweight and and liked a few drinks alright, but he was no coward. He liked Collins, as he saw him as someone who was not too dissimilar. a selfless love of their country. It is easy to conclude that he hated Dev because he saw him as a coward who was only interested in becoming king.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So because he liked a few Irish men we should have a different opinion of him? How cringingly riddled with inferiority that is.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » is that what you took from that post? why the need to go out of your way to be offended?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)
