[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I can understand that argument if he was besmirching te name of say John Craven but its not John is it and look at the twat who was doing it



TS even you must look at the guy and get what is going on?



Its perfect for Piers as his game is to mildly troll the audience and then act for them in their indignation



Its why the numbers are so good

The point is that people are getting upset at some little fella on the telly. I mean... It IS a bit over-sensitive isn't it? And yes Piers trolls but he also gets himself pretty frustrated and worked up at times, which really isn't the best idea for a slightly overweight man in his 50's .

I get that the young guy whoever he is is blatantly trolling too but I don't get why people are getting upset or taking personal offense over it, and can't deal with the facts as they are and make a rational counter point (that Churchill held some beliefs that are now outdated but were pretty common at the time, and it's important to add historical context and not judge based on current morality).

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I don't think anyone pretends Churchill was perfect. Talking about the hand he played in the Allies victory in WWII doesn't really need to include how much of a racist he was, especially as his views reflected the "consensus" at the time - I'm not saying it's okay because everyone else though it, just that there's no need to point it out.

But that's exactly what I'm saying, you don't think it's important to point it out but it's a part of who Churchill was. You're basically saying you want to wash out the bad stuff because of his role in WW2 and that's wrong. You can't close your eyes to an ugly truth about a person or a time, you've got to accept it all.

Chuchill wasn't a mythical hero, he was a real person with real views that achieved great things but he wasn't a morally great man. It's best to keep your eyes open when it comes to history, accept the good with the bad. History is an ugly thing but we don't do ourselves any favours by trying to make out it's prettier than it actually is.

[arista]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Was Churchill racist? Yes, but we wouldn't have to go too many generations back in our own families to find some pretty heinous opinions on race. Some of us wouldn't even have to go back any generations.

Did Churchill win the war for us? No, the Ruskies were far more influential in winning WWII than we were.

Bollocks the War started in Sept 1939
Churchill took control in 1940
No Russian problem at the start.


Sure at the End of the War
Russia took alot.
USA and Russia concluded our War
and of course Hitler was dead in his bunker
Russia got there first

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by arista

Bollocks the War started in Sept 1939
Churchill took control in 1940
No Russian problem at the start.


Sure at the End of the War
Russia took alot.
USA and Russia concluded our War
and of course Hitler was dead in his bunker
Russia got there first

That doesn't really make too much sense; I made no claims about what happened at the start of the war. Sorry, what I said was true, and getting there first was not even part of my consideration.

[bitontheslide]

26 million Russians died during World War II, they gave everything to fighting the nazis. Anyone who has been to Moscow will have seen the barricade that marks the line where the Nazis got to, it wasn't far from the city center at all. No-one is suggesting that the Soviet regime was a good one at the time of the war, but nevertheless, they were a key part of winning the war

[arista]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

That doesn't really make too much sense; I made no claims about what happened at the start of the war. Sorry, what I said was true, and getting there first was not even part of my consideration.

Russia took one side of Germany
USA took the other side

No way at the end of the War
did Russia win it alone
America was also there.
Thats what you Skip.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

26 million Russians died during World War II, they gave everything to fighting the nazis. Anyone who has been to Moscow will have seen the barricade that marks the line where the Nazis got to, it wasn't far from the city center at all. No-one is suggesting that the Soviet regime was a good one at the time of the war, but nevertheless, they were a key part of winning the war

Well, exactly... no matter how great of a strategist we think Churchill was, it's a cold hard fact that Britain (and probably from there, the US) would have been defeated in WWII without the Soviet Union. But you won't hear many people arguing that Stalin was a great guy because he was instrumental in defeating Hitler's Germany... or that as a result, the millions killed by famine under his regime are "not relevant" to the man's history. We're happy to hear all about Stalin and the Soviet Union... but not Churchill... because "he's one of ours" so he must by necessity be "better".

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by arista

Russia took one side of Germany
USA took the other side

No way at the end of the War
did Russia win it alone
America was also there.
Thats what you Skip.

Well yes but the point is that it was only won because of the divided front and it's quite likely that the German army could have held either east or west against the Russians or the rest of the Allies, but had to split the army in two and was thus defeated... but the only point relevant to this thread, really, is that Stalin was as instrumental to the war as Churchill and we don't give Stalin a "pass" for everything else in his life, so why Churchill?

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by arista

Russia took one side of Germany
USA took the other side

No way at the end of the War
did Russia win it alone
America was also there.
Thats what you Skip.

Now you're talking about the final acts. I haven't skipped anything my friend. I didn't say that Russia won the war alone, or that they even won the war. What I said, was that they were far more instrumental in winning the war than we were, which is actually a pretty uncontroversial statement.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Now you're talking about the final acts. I haven't skipped anything my friend. I didn't say that Russia won the war alone, or that they even won the war. What I said, was that they were far more instrumental in winning the war than we were, which is actually a pretty uncontroversial statement.

Err no Churchill, The Queen, Piers Morgan and the Great British Public won the war END OF and no amount of "history" or "facts" will stop that from being true. SUPER BRIIITAIN SUPER BRIIITAIN oleeeé oleeeé olé!!

[Mokka]

Well in Canada we are taught that we won the war

[arista]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Now you're talking about the final acts. I haven't skipped anything my friend. I didn't say that Russia won the war alone, or that they even won the war. What I said, was that they were far more instrumental in winning the war than we were, which is actually a pretty uncontroversial statement.

Sure
so was USA

[arista]

Originally Posted by Mokka

Well in Canada we are taught that we won the war

Yes Canada troops
part of the important team
fighting a then , Powerful Germany
With GB, India , Africa Nations
and many more nations

[parmnion]

Didn't Russia start off as Germanys allies?

[arista]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Didn't Russia start off as Germanys allies?

Yes early on,
then Hitler
changed his mind (half way through the war)
and then stormed into Russia
only held back when it was snowing.


Hitler a Deadly Evil Leader
like no other

[parmnion]

So therefore Russia did NOT do more than GB to win the war, in fact they probably prolonged it by 2-3 years.

[Oliver_W]

It is slightly amusing how he spergs on about how Churchill didn't win the war, the servicemen did, but still calls Churchill a mass murderer.

[arista]

Originally Posted by parmnion

So therefore Russia did NOT do more than GB to win the war, in fact they probably prolonged it by 2-3 years.

Its More Complex
As Hitler Took over France
and some African Nations

And of Course the Clever Japan Army
attacked the USA in Pearl Harbor
That dragged the USA in a Full War
and also taking German Bomb Developers
direct to USA for their rush to test a Atomic Bomb
on Japan, and they did more than one
forcing Japan to give in.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by parmnion

So therefore Russia did NOT do more than GB to win the war, in fact they probably prolonged it by 2-3 years.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by arista

Its More Complex
As Hitler Took over France
and some African Nations

And of Course the Clever Japan Army
attacked the USA in Pearl Harbor
That dragged the USA in a Full War
and also taking German Bomb Developers
direct to USA for their rush to test a Atomic Bomb
on Japan, and they did more than one
forcing Japan to give in.

Hold on a minute, is this the same Arista?

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by parmnion

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

It is slightly amusing how he spergs on about how Churchill didn't win the war, the servicemen did, but still calls Churchill a mass murderer.

It's not really incompatible though because when he talks of murder, he's more likely referring to deliberate infrastructure damage campaigns (where civilians were the specific target rather than collateral damage) and - while obviously, the Germans were fans too - Churchill did enjoy a good bombing now and then. He ordered things that would now be considered war crimes, although again, important to remember to put that in historic context as ALL military leaders throughout the ages did things that would now be considered war crimes, and I'm sure modern militaries are doing things right now that will be considered war crimes in 50 years time.

But still... That's how one might consider a leader to be a murderer whilst still admiring the common or garden footsoldier.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Twosugars