- This topic has 4 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
I would argue it was Churchill because he was the most consistent. This comes up after reading a piece by Hanson this morning. Hanson sums him up quite well and I have to admit I agree with thim on this 100%.
Winston Churchill had many flaws, but of all the men of the 20th century he will probably prove to be its greatest. He sized Hitler up when few could. He saw the danger when it was unpopular to do so, and when there was little hope in stopping him. The British people were with him only after Poland was the proverbial straw that broke the appeasing camel?s back and France was later invaded; the Russian people came in only after the June 1941 invasion of Russia; the American people only after the Pearl Harbor attacks and Hitler?s December 1941 declaration of war on the U.S.In contrast, Churchill, among his own and those abroad, was continually resolute, constant, and neither depressed by adversity nor artificially animated by success. He was there in the beginning, unchanged through it all, and the same when it ended.
The original piece is HERE.
I would argue it was Churchill because he was the most consistent. This comes up after reading a piece by Hanson this morning. Hanson sums him up quite well and I have to admit I agree with thim on this 100%.
Winston Churchill had many flaws, but of all the men of the 20th century he will probably prove to be its greatest. He sized Hitler up when few could. He saw the danger when it was unpopular to do so, and when there was little hope in stopping him. The British people were with him only after Poland was the proverbial straw that broke the appeasing camel?s back and France was later invaded; the Russian people came in only after the June 1941 invasion of Russia; the American people only after the Pearl Harbor attacks and Hitler?s December 1941 declaration of war on the U.S.In contrast, Churchill, among his own and those abroad, was continually resolute, constant, and neither depressed by adversity nor artificially animated by success. He was there in the beginning, unchanged through it all, and the same when it ended.
The original piece is HERE.
100 % agreed
I voted for Churchill before I even read your responses. He managed to outshine his contemporaries in eloquence, shrewdness, energy, and strategic astuteness.
I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.… we shall fight in France, we shall fight 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 the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.Not so many politicians would use such a speech !
Yes–he was adamantine–a perfect example of someone who chooses not to learn through experience
He was however, arguably the right man in the right place at the right time for his country. If not for Churchill England might have capitulated or sought a separate peace after the fall of France.
