Poll: England's greatest prime minister?
- Thread starter mysecondlife
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Do you know that at Yalta the choice was between Greece and Romania? Did you know that? No how could you, you look at us Romanians and call us Gypsies. What is one more injustice piled on top of that. Do you know the amount of influence the USSR was given, for nothing on a paper napkin, in Romania? 90%. So for all the good that Romania did in that part of the world, keeping Western Europe somewhat safe from the Ottoman empire, trying to survive wedged in between 3 fucking empires, we were given to the most barbaric people in Europe, the Russians. Thank Christ we had Ceausescu in power in 1965, otherwise we would still be Russian puppets.Scorpid said:
And yes you were in a position to fight. Just like you were in 1918-1921. But it seems you don't even know your own history.
Captcha: Whoa there. No Captcha I am not stopping. Not until the respect that is deserved of my people is given to us. Until everybody everywhere stops spitting in our faces.
Ha! GB and the US supported an authoritarian military regime. You could argue that the communists would have been just as bad, and I would disagree, but at least there would be room for debate. But to say that Greece ended up with a "democratic state"? How absolutely laughable.Scorpid said:
No one is calling anyone gypsies but thanks for the strawman. US and GB in 1914 could of crushed Imperial Russia with its shakey control, not arguing that but Stalins control of the country was absolute at the end of WWII. I do think Germany could of destroyed Russia in 1941 but Germany's nazi idea of "living space" and their minimum need to kill 30million slavs for it, got in the way and turned the populace against them. Stalin the psychopath he was, wasn't going to give up romania or Bulgaria or any Balkan country that fought the USSR to the wests area of influence. They were traditional slavic and they were his enemies and he wanted them to pay by becoming communists. Further more Greece was traditionally defensible with its rocky mountains and hills that ran all the way to athens which would minimize Russias advantage of numbers. BUT USSR at the end of WWII I would argue had the best military leadership of any country in the war with only Germany (who was now out) being able to surpass them in terms of talent. And last only dictatorships like Nazi germany and USSR are able to wage the sort of bloody warfare that made the war in the east so terrible. I don't think the voting public of GB or the US could stomach that sort of warfare and not vote politicians into power that would end it.Haerthan said:
If you want a "go romania message" out of me though I think the Romanians fought the best of any of Nazi germanys client states. BUT Romania also didn't suffer the worst, that honor (?) goes to Poland who were brutally slaughtered by the Germans and then brutally slaughtered by the Russians.
Winston Churchill. He and Thatcher are the only ones I know anything about. And I'm not voting for her.
Churchill was possibly the best liar that ever lived. He did it wonderfully. It did it seemlessly and he did it precisely when it was needed. Granted on the negative side of things there are still a few messes left over from him that world is still troubled dealing with today.Baffle said:
Ok a few things. The gypsies thing has actually hapenned, in Spain, in Italy, as I have family there, and I don't even need to mention the UKIP do I? Hell my little sister came across a joke about that in Canada. CANADA. So you telling me I am strawmanning is something that is wrong.Scorpid said:
Two, you keep saying politicians wouldnt have sent people to die in wars. Yes they would have, the whole "we shall fight on the beaches, streets..". But I didn't see that fat tub of lard in the front line. You never see the politicians sending their families into the danger zone. So you would have fought if Churchill had even a bit of the balls he is purported to have had. And you would have happily gone to the slaughter. Trust me. I studied history.
Three. The USSR didnt have the best military leadership, the West had. The USSR had numbers, such a quantity of manpower that it completely broke the Wehrmacht and the SS batallions. Shure Zhukov and some other generals were good, but they had manpower and the reassembled factories behind the Urals churning out tanks in such numbers, that the Germans' advanced airplanes, training and tanks counted for nothing.
Four I never said that Romania suffered the worst, yes Eastern Europe as a whole suffered pretty badly. What I am saying that suffering was unnecessary if Churchill and Roosevelt just said no to Stalin. Yea, Poland and the other eastern countries were lost, no doubt about that. But Romania wasn't lost, we never wanted the scum in our country and when the time came, the West abandoned us.
Fifth. We weren't a client state. We were allies. There is a reason why Antonescu is seen as a hero in Romania.
Alright you can argue with yourself because now your just making up things i've said. I'll say this last thing though the Red Army of 1941 is the one you are thinking about I think. The Red Army of 1945 I believe could of easily matched the west man for man or near enough it wouldn't of mattered. The Red Army of 45 were long past the days of sharing rifles and blocking squads, they were a modern fighting force that had learned their bloody lessons from the absolute best the Germans could throw at them. The west in comparison were fighting what the Germans could spare which usually wasn't their best. Also the technological difference between the west and USSR was negligible with the exception of airpower.Haerthan said:
I'll give you this though. They could of MAYBE of threatened Stalin with nuclear bomb but thats about it to get their way. But that was their largest advantage and I don't think you would call the nuclear waste land the Balkans would of become as worth it.
That is very different from merely seeing Stalin as an ally. As an aside, that happened no matter who was in charge, though maybe your nation got run by someone less bad if you were lucky.manic_depressive13 said:
Churchill fought in the Boer war, and he had family serving in WW2, IIRC.Haerthan said:
Dude there is a reason the Russians suffered the most amount of casualties. Yes they had good generals, yes they had good tanks like the IS-2, IS-3, KV-85, The Katyusha Rocket Launcher, yes. BUT THEY MASS PRODUCED THOSE. And I never said they shared rifles, seriously. And historians already know for a fact that the Soviets dismantled factories before the advancing German armies (scorched earth taken to its logical extreme). So please stop arguing with someone who studies history for a living.Scorpid said:
My main point to it all is that outside of England and maybe America, Churchill was nothing more than an imperialist who sold out whole countries to satisfy one man. Take that as you will, I don't care. I am done arguing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Churchill#Second_World_WarHaerthan said:
There you go - Churchill's son was involved in Libya and in partisan operations.
As for Churchill himself, he actually had rather extensive military service, albeit mostly in small scale colonial conflicts. He was considered for the VC for some of his actions in the Boer War, but was ineligable because he was technically a civilian at the time.
He was posted to the Western Front, and by all accounts occasionally exposed himself to danger (which, although not impressive in absolute terms, was a lot more than many of similar rank did).
So if you'd been there in 1916 you might indeed have seen that fat tub of lard on the front line.
I don't even like or particularly admire Churchill, but accusations of cowardice seem fairly ridiculous if you're at all acquainted with his career.
---------------------
On-topic, probably Atlee. He codified various forms of welfare (which I'd argue gradually led to a much-needed social respect for human rights and requirements), implemented generally reasonable protections for workers, had limited success with colonial dismantlement, and managed to do this in a bankrupt country after being fiscally sabotaged by the Americans.
And he also managed to not go too far with regard to union influence - something which later Labour governments were too careless about and which indirectly brought about Thatcherism.
Jim Hacker.
And those angry over Yalta should reserve their ire primarily for Stalin (of course) and then for FDR, who was far more trusting towards and accommodating of Stalin than Churchill ever was.
And for any imputations that Churchill lacked the courage to see action, he tried to serve in the trenches in WWI after resigning the First Lord of the Admiralty after Gallipoli.
And those angry over Yalta should reserve their ire primarily for Stalin (of course) and then for FDR, who was far more trusting towards and accommodating of Stalin than Churchill ever was.
And for any imputations that Churchill lacked the courage to see action, he tried to serve in the trenches in WWI after resigning the First Lord of the Admiralty after Gallipoli.
+1.dohnut king said:
But if I had to be serious, I'd go for Attlee for actually trying to fix things.