Churchill and Thatcher A Friendly Comparison of Two Great British Leaders

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Winston Churchill -1874-1965, Tyr-Ziu Saxnot's choice (the Lion) as the greater of the two leaders.
Margaret Thatcher 1925- , Drummond's choice (the Iron Lady) as the greater of the two leaders.

A Friendly Comparison of the Brilliance and Deeds of Two Great Leaders .

A brief note on how and why I chose to use this first presentation (1) on the greatness of Churchill. After researching Churchill by digging thru my books I decided to research using the internet to gain more information (faster). While doing so I came upon this commentary and immediately knew that I had to use it. For it was precise, well written and to be honest far better than I could have compiled with hours of researching using my books and laboriously reading and snatching tidbits here and there.




.Home History & Biographies , Winston Churchill Quotations.
.Winston Churchill Quotations. Winston Churchill Biography.

(1). First presentation,

It was no coincidence that Winston Churchill's quotations rallied the World War II Allied Forces and encouraged a weary British people to persevere and seek victory.
"In War: Resolution

In Defeat: Defiance

In Victory: Magnanimity

In Peace: Good Will" - Winston Churchill


It is impossible to think of Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill without considering his words. To Churchill, words were man's greatest contribution to life because as he said, "Words were the only things that last forever." Speech was the very fiber of Churchill's being, for it was in his speeches that Churchill became most fully and completely alive; and it was through his words and phrases that he made his greatest and most enduring impact on the world.


Churchill believed that his very life was part of the grand scheme of all history and that he was born to be a part of all his countrymen did in the face of battle. Lord Ismay, one of Churchill's wartime aids, recalled that "He gave you a kind of exaltation. He made you feel that you were taking part in something great and memorable." General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander during the last years of World War II and later President of the United States, recalls one striking example of Churchill's sense of history, saying, "When the Axis overran Greece in 1940, Churchill sent troops to aid the Greeks although he feared it was a foredoomed cause. He explained that at all costs, Britain had to uphold her reputation for fidelity to the Allies. 'In honor, we can do no less,' he said to me, and I believe the future will demonstrate its correctness."


It is from this sense of history and his belief that his acts and words were performed upon the stage of all time that mankind received such immortal words as: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few" and "Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'"


Churchill often spoke of leaving his mark on history, not just for the time in which he lived but for those that would follow. It is undeniable that he achieved that purpose. There was more to Winston Churchill than grand eloquence, though. His life was mixed with political defeat as well as victory. It was said that he was both exalted and disdained by his countrymen and his fellow ministers in Parliament. In fact, he was cast out of office only a few short months after he single-handedly waged the war of words that mobilized his people against Nazi and Fascist take-over.


So, disappointments were as real to Churchill as the victories. Throughout his life, Churchill suffered a feeling of inadequacy and insecurity that some historians believe were partly due to a speech impediment as a child. Churchill also deemed his intellect inferior because he lacked an Oxbridge education. Until the end of his career, he agonized before making any major speech and was on edge until he was satisfied that his words had not misfired in regard to his intent.


One may wonder what, other than his sense of history, drove Churchill on, despite his insecurity and many personal disappointments. But perhaps the real force in Winston Churchill's life was his love of his country and his compassion for its people. It is reported by Lord Ismay that once when Churchill visited a bombed-out air raid shelter where forty people had died, one of the survivors was heard to comment, "You see, he really cares. He is crying."


Still, the world best remembers Churchill for his words and the impact of those words upon the Allied victory in World War II. Just as Abraham Lincoln gave the world its interpretation of the American Constitution in his Gettysburg address, Churchill, with force and eloquence, imposed his vision of victory upon all the men and events with which he had contact. He believed victory was obtainable and he made others believe it too.


While no one doubts that Churchill's greatest speeches were made during World War II, it is clear that Churchill had begun his oratorical influence many years before the menace of Nazism actually became reality. With his sense of eternal destiny, Churchill tried to warn of the growing power in Germany; but although he was not altogether ignored, the British government did not want to believe what he tried to tell them. Then in October of 1911, Churchill assumed the responsibilities as First Lord of the Admiralty and until May, the modernization and strengthening of the Royal Navy were his main concerns. During that time, he established a naval staff, improved the conditions of the lower deck, converted the fleet from coal to oil power, supported new ideas in gunnery and improvements in ship design, and greatly increased the size of the Navy.


Churchill spoke of these improvements and anticipated accomplishments at the Lord Mayor's Banquet in the Guildhall in November of 1911. In an address that he entitled "We Have Got to Keep it Strong," Churchill warned of the sudden and rapid growth of the German Navy and insisted that Britain spare no expense to maintain its position of naval supremacy. Churchill observed that "the Navy is strong -- we have got to keep it strong -- strong enough, that is, to use for all that it may have to do. And not only strong but ready, instantly ready, to put forth its greatest strength to the best possible advantage."


This time, Churchill's warning was heeded and the British government began a course that would later insure Britain's naval supremacy at the onset of war. Over the years that followed, Churchill found himeself in and out of public office. Then through a series of political events, Churchill became Prime Minister of Britain in 1940 - Prime Minister of a wartime England. Reflecting upon Churchill during the war years, Eisenhower observed, "When he (Churchill) became Prime Minister in 1940, Britain reeled on the brink of defeat. But Churchill never flinched. 'You ask what is our aim?' he cried. 'I can answer in one word: Victory -- Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be.' With unequaled eloquence and indomitable will, he rallied his people. In their desperate plight, he gave them morale -- and in warfare, morale is everything."


The date of May 13, 1940 will always be remember in history as the day Churchill made his most significant speech. It was a simple speech with little ceremony and is recorded as one of Churchill's shortest addresses to the House of Commons. But it was powerful. Churchill offered his countrymen nothing but "blood, toil, tears, and sweat." He declared, "You ask what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war by sea, land, and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime." To wage this war, Churchill called upon all Britain: "Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."


In these brief words are the embodiment of Churchill's oratory. He characterized the British task as unprecedented in all human history. Then he offered to lead them with incomparable humility and moral simplicity. This was Churchill at his best, calling his countrymen to fight a war that he knew they could not lose, instilling in each of them the belief that the "strength of Britain and God Almighty was greater than any enemy."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Less than one month later, Churchill again made one of his most successful and well-received wartime declarations. At the end of this speech, Harold Nicholson reported, "This afternoon, Winston made the finest speech I have ever heard." Josiah Wedgewood said it was "worth a thousand guns and the speeches of a thousand years. "


The war raged on. Churchill told Britain's people, "I have, myself, full confidence that if we all do our duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our home island, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, we are going to try. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government -- every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and French Republic, linked together in their cause, and in their need, will defend to the death their native lands "¦ We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with 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."


Years later at Churchill's funeral, a Scotsman reminisced, "The Nazis bombed my unit to death. We left everything behind when we got out; some of my men didn't even have boots. They dumped us along the roads near Dover and all of us were scared and dazed, and the memories set us screaming at night. Then he (Churchill) got on the wireless and said we'd fight on the beaches and in the towns and that we'd never surrender. And I cried when I heard him. I'm not ashamed to say it. And I thought "¦ "We're going to win!"


When France fell to the Germans, Churchill believed the Nazis would turn full force toward Britain. What he himself named "The Battle of Britain" was about to begin, and he knew that this would be the greatest test of British military strength and resolve. Churchill had complete confidence in the combined military forces and appealed to their resolve for victory in a speech given on June 18, 1940. It was not remembered as one of his best delivered speeches, but of all his speeches, it is the best remembered in history for its words. Churchill reminded his countrymen that he had made it clear that whatever happened in France would make no difference in the resolve of Britain to "fight on, if necessary, for years, if necessary alone." Churchill declared, "I do not at all underrate the severity of the ordeal which lies before us; but I believe our countrymen will show themselves capable of standing up to it, like the brave men of Barcelona, and will be able to stand up to it, and carry on in spite of it, at least as well as any other people in the world. Much of this will depend upon this: every man and woman will have the chance to "¦ render the highest service to their cause."


But it is for these words that Churchill may best be remembered and it is with these words that he may have forever left his mark on the world: "I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin"¦ The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us on this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister and more protracted by the lights of a perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'"


With these words, Churchill rallied the devotion he needed from his countrymen to win the war. He also appealed to the United States to aid Britain in their struggle to stop the tyranny of Hitler, but it was another six months before the United States joined them in the war - six months that Britain fought alone.


Day after day and night after night, the German bombers flew across the English Channel to inflict destruction upon Great Britain. With each wave of German bombers, the young British pilots took to the air and engaged the Nazi planes to repulse them and stop the bombing. With each day of battle, "Winnie," as his countrymen had come to call him, encouraged the British forces to fight on and his people to keep the faith. Royal Air Force Captain Douglas Sader recalled, "Above all, it was an exhilarating period. We had purpose and pride. And Churchill gave them to us. We all waited for his voice on the radio. Everybody, in the air as well as on the ground, relied on this man."


To the Royal Air Force, in which he place such great confidence, Churchill paid tribute with these words spoken on August 20, 1940: "Two or three years are not a long time, even in our short, precarious lives. They are nothing in the history of a nation, and when we are doing the finest thing in the world, and have the honor to be the sole champion of the liberties of all Europe, we must not grudge these years or weary as we toil and struggle through them."


By August 1941, there were rumors that Roosevelt and Churchill were to meet somewhere in the Atlantic. On August 15, 1941, the rumors were confirmed when the two leaders did indeed announce eight aims for achieving peace. In December of that same year, Japan invaded the United States and the U.S. decisively became a part of the struggle. Churchill saw this as the turning point of the war because now the resources of the United States would certainly assure an Allied victory. Churchill was heard to comment, "After seventeen months of lonely fighting, we will win the war. England will live."


As the war dragged on, England's people grew tired. A run of defeats in the Far East led to criticism of Churchill. Some British said that he was only successful in fight with words. What these critics did not realize was that Churchill had inspired the men who fought so bravely with his words. Churchill's words were indeed weapons - many times they were almost England's only weapons.


The impact of Sir Winston Churchill's words may be debated for years to come, but for now, the most stirring commentary on Churchill's oratory contributions may have been words that were said at his funeral: "The rights for Sir Winston Churchill carried no burden of tragedy. If there was sadness, it was for the passing of an age where one man, in himself, could fire the free world to do battle for its own greatness, and if there were tears, they were shed in watching the mists of death cover the mirror of a personality where men have seen themselves ennobled."


One of my two presentations. I will post the second presentation of Churchill's amazing life and feat of Saving his nation from devastating Defeat during World War Two after my friend Drummonds posts his first presentation on Margaret Thatcher.
A note: I would like it to be known that this is a friendly informal comparison and as has been discussed previously by my friend and I on another forum, we both admire the living hell out of these two historic leaders. -Tyr

[gabosaurus]

tl;dr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

tl;dr

Thats ok , Drummonds will not find it to be too long. He has a keen interest in both leaders and I found him to be an energetic man as well. So reading doesnt seem to bother him at all. Besides it is just a bit of friendly nudging between he and I. As we started the discussion on another forum that was not as friendly towards free speech and this type of discussion as is the case here, that thanks to Jimmy. I am sure that you understand. I know exactly how you feel about the "too long bit" as I feel that way every time I listen to obama read his teleprompter more that 30 seconds!
That bamboy bores tha hell out of me and I already know that if his lips are moving he is either lying or eating.--Tyr

[SassyLady]

Thats ok , Drummonds will not find it to be too long. He has a keen interest in both leaders and I found him to be an energetic man as well. So reading doesnt seem to bother him at all. Besides it is just a bit of friendly nudging between he and I. As we started the discussion on another forum that was not as friendly towards free speech and this type of discussion as is the case here, that thanks to Jimmy. I am sure that you understand. I know exactly how you feel about the "too long bit" as I feel that way every time I listen to obama read his teleprompter more that 30 seconds!
That bamboy bores tha hell out of me and I already know that if his lips are moving he is either lying or eating.--Tyr

Anything that is interesting and well written isn't too long Tyr, but some of the youngsters have a hard time appreciating "ancient" history.

[red state]

You mean the simple minded among us!!!! That's usually the case with liberals....they need someone to TELL them what happened, what it means and how to react. They are truly lemmings!!! LLL!!!! or make that LLLL!!!


Anything that is interesting and well written isn't too long Tyr, but some of the youngsters have a hard time appreciating "ancient" history.

[Drummond]

Thats ok , Drummonds will not find it to be too long. He has a keen interest in both leaders and I found him to be an energetic man as well. So reading doesnt seem to bother him at all. Besides it is just a bit of friendly nudging between he and I. As we started the discussion on another forum that was not as friendly towards free speech and this type of discussion as is the case here, that thanks to Jimmy. I am sure that you understand. I know exactly how you feel about the "too long bit" as I feel that way every time I listen to obama read his teleprompter more that 30 seconds!
That bamboy bores tha hell out of me and I already know that if his lips are moving he is either lying or eating.--Tyr

.. Wow !! Tyr, I can see I've got my work cut out for me, here !!

I may add my reply tonight, but more probably it'll be tomorrow .. I've already neglected 'the other forum' more than I've intended and will spend a little time there.

But in any case, and to also make it clear to anyone else viewing this ... Tyr and I aren't involved in any major disagreement. Both of us agree that Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher were very fine British leaders .. this really just boils down to which was the better one of the two.

For right now ... Kudos, Tyr, that's a fine argument on behalf of Churchill. Impressive ... and I'm not about to tackle the subject by posing disagreements with it. No, when I get going, this'll just be about who can be viewed that much more meritoriously.

A quick comment. You say that the other forum isn't as friendly towards free speech ? You surprise me ! I've always had a high opinion of that forum !

Anyway, I may return to this later. If not, then within 24 hours.

[Drummond]

Anything that is interesting and well written isn't too long Tyr, but some of the youngsters have a hard time appreciating "ancient" history.

Hi, Sassylady.

I daresay that's a fair point in its way ... even so, I'd like to suggest that so-called 'ancient' history isn't history that deserves to be glossed over, however tempting it might be for youngsters to do just that. History has many lessons to teach us, and we all ignore them at our peril. A very obvious example ... Nazism. Hitler's rise to power, how it came about, what evils the Nazi brand of political thought, along with the methodology employed, brought about.

Nobody in their right mind should ever want 'future history' to ever produce an equivalent, and the best way to ensure that is to remain receptive to what that era teaches us.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

.. Wow !! Tyr, I can see I've got my work cut out for me, here !!

I may add my reply tonight, but more probably it'll be tomorrow .. I've already neglected 'the other forum' more than I've intended and will spend a little time there.

But in any case, and to also make it clear to anyone else viewing this ... Tyr and I aren't involved in any major disagreement. Both of us agree that Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher were very fine British leaders .. this really just boils down to which was the better one of the two.

For right now ... Kudos, Tyr, that's a fine argument on behalf of Churchill. Impressive ... and I'm not about to tackle the subject by posing disagreements with it. No, when I get going, this'll just be about who can be viewed that much more meritoriously.

A quick comment. You say that the other forum isn't as friendly towards free speech ? You surprise me ! I've always had a high opinion of that forum !

Anyway, I may return to this later. If not, then within 24 hours.

I'll answer your question first. Sorry my friend, I did not intend to downgrade that forum nor lead members here to think it was our old forum that we abandoned in search of a far better one! Instead I should have stated that I feel more comfortable here discussing Churchill.

Yes, I should have been more clear about the nature of our comparison of both great British leaders. You did so for me and thanks for being so kind and eloquent with your generosity.
No problem , post your first presentation when you are ready. I am anticipating a real hummdinger'..
On that note , I'd like to say this before you reply on Thatcher. I have great admiration for the "Iron Lady" and my highest compliment for her is that she strikes me as the female version of a Churchill, same fighting spirit, same dogged determination, same kind of brilliant mind, etc.

I look forward to an impressive and great read upon your reply on Thatcher.-Tyr

[SassyLady]

I have admired both of these world leaders and have included quotes from them in my sig line over the years.

It's going to be a hard choice and am looking forward to seeing both sides presented. Unfortunately, it seems Churchill might have a little advantage due to leading the country through a war torn era.

[Shadow]

I am more of a reader than debater myself. But...I love reading and learning about history,especially when it is presented this way. As a back and forth of different points of view. I'm looking forward to reading along with you guys!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I have admired both of these world leaders and have included quotes from them in my sig line over the years.

It's going to be a hard choice and am looking forward to seeing both sides presented. Unfortunately, it seems Churchill might have a little advantage due to leading the country through a war torn era.

Yet Thatcher has the advantage of being more current a historic figure and standing out as a great FEMALE leader as well.
But sshhh , let's not give Drummonds any ideals, not that he would need any but still he has a brilliant way with words and he is a Brit too! ;)
However , I do appreciate your interest and your great insight to have previously judged both leaders as admirable !
Only joking about the comments. Feel free to praise both if you care to.
For Drummonds , gonna need all the help he may find if he is to place Thatcher even a teeny tiny bit higher than Winston Churchill IMHO!;);)--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am more of a reader than debater myself. But...I love reading and learning about history,especially when it is presented this way. As a back and forth of different points of view. I'm looking forward to reading along with you guys!

Thanks my friend, I am sure my friend Drummonds will agree that comments are welcomed if they are not deliberately placed to interfere in our little joust by aiding one side over the other. I know that you two ladies would not do that but just wanted others to please understand and be nice enough to willingly do so as well..
Thanks in advance to all. -Tyr

[gabosaurus]

Churchill was a great man and a legendary figure of English history. He is also very fortunate that Hitler was a very stupid man. Otherwise, Churchill would have died about 1942 and England would have become a German colony.

I don't know much about Thatcher, other than the fact that she used a very American method of reversing her declining popularity. She started a war that no one wanted.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I wanted to share this about Churchill. He was a brilliant man with a keen mind and very sharp wit.
This actually happened---

Lady Astor, aghast at a party. "Mr. Churchill you are drunk." Mr. Churchill: " And you , Lady Astor, are ugly. As for
my condition, it will pass by the morning. You, however, will still be ugly."
"Sir, if you were my husband , I would poison your drink." Lady Astor to Winston Churchill
"Madam, if you were my wife , I would drink it." replied the brilliant Mr. Churchill
"Always remember that I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me."

When a much younger man I could recite from memory dozens and dozens of such stories about this great man.
I found that this one was my favorite because it's brilliant and funny but it was indeed a very hard decision because he has so many noted conversations.
His fondness for drink was one of the many things that interested me in that it rarely ever dimmed his ability to defend himself and give back greater than he got! I like that he gave women enough respect to engage them on whatever level they had chose to engage him.. His mother was a very beautiful American lady. I dare say that from my reading and study of him decades ago I found that he got much of his spirit and wit from her!-Tyr

[Kathianne]

I wanted to share this about Churchill. He was a brilliant man with a keen mind and very sharp wit.
This actually happened---

Lady Astor, aghast at a party. "Mr. Churchill you are drunk." Mr. Churchill: " And you , Lady Astor, are ugly. As for
my condition, it will pass by the morning. You, however, will still be ugly."
"Sir, if you were my husband , I would poison your drink." Lady Astor to Winston Churchill
"Madam, if you were my wife , I would drink it." replied the brilliant Mr. Churchill
"Always remember that I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me."

When a much younger man I could recite from memory dozens and dozens of such stories about this great man.
I found that this one was my favorite because it's brilliant and funny but it was indeed a very hard decision because he has so many noted conversations.
His fondness for drink was one of the many things that interested me in that it rarely ever dimmed his ability to defend himself and give back greater than he got! I like that he gave women enough respect to engage them on whatever level they had chose to engage him.. His mother was a very beautiful American lady. I dare say that from my reading and study of him decades ago I found that he got much of his spirit and wit from her!-Tyr

In the quick tongue department, Churchill often has reminded me of Benjamin Franklin.

[SassyLady]

Yet Thatcher has the advantage of being more current a historic figure and standing out as a great FEMALE leader as well.
But sshhh , let's not give Drummonds any ideals, not that he would need any but still he has a brilliant way with words and he is a Brit too! ;)
However , I do appreciate your interest and your great insight to have previously judged both leaders as admirable !
Only joking about the comments. Feel free to praise both if you care to.
For Drummonds , gonna need all the help he may find if he is to place Thatcher even a teeny tiny bit higher than Winston Churchill IMHO!;);)--Tyr

Well, now that you've invited our support for either .... just being female gives Thatcher an advantage ... imagine the "glass ceiling" she had to break just to get there and then add in all the great stuff (Drummonds will detail) she did and the scales are tipping a little.

[Kathianne]

I've read and enjoyed Churchill's autobiographies. But much more William Manchester's biographies, where the triumphs and tragedies, brilliant moves and debacles are put into readable, historical sense. In spite of his enormous ego, one can feel the despair Churchill experienced at various times and incidents. Truly remarkable work on a remarkable subject.

[CSM]

WOW!

First, kudos to both for actually having a civil and reasonable disussion/debate. This board could use more such threads.

Second, I find this topic of extreme interest and am looking forward to the presentation from both sides.

I will say that the first thing that struck me was that both leaders were just what was needed AT THE TIME. I sincerely hope that both sides of the debate keep context in mind during the discussions.

I am really. really liking this!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, now that you've invited our support for either .... just being female gives Thatcher an advantage ... imagine the "glass ceiling" she had to break just to get there and then add in all the great stuff (Drummonds will detail) she did and the scales are tipping a little.

Look forward to your comments and I know that you will champion Thatcher but I would expect no less than you to remain true to yourself. I am fine with posting praise for either of the two. Thanks.. --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've read and enjoyed Churchill's autobiographies. But much more William Manchester's biographies, where the triumphs and tragedies, brilliant moves and debacles are put into readable, historical sense. In spite of his enormous ego, one can feel the despair Churchill experienced at various times and incidents. Truly remarkable work on a remarkable subject.

Thanks..
Ahh yes, Churchill's despair, a subject that I will not dwell on much in my second presentation although it was a great obstacle to his magnificent career and a thorn in his side in his personal life as well. He apparently chose to treat it with drink but did so in a very controlled way IMO. Few can control their drinking in such a manner as to perform their immense duties at such a high level and not falter or make a major mistake! During his war years any major mistake could have very serious consequences , with life and death always being on the line. I've found no major mistake marked on his ledger..

A brief note for you to consider : You mentioned Churchill's ego, which in regards to his life/career , under normal circumstances would point to arrogance and elitism. I find very little of both when also considering the times and the culture there. For in his heart he had a great love of his nation and it's peoples. His judgement of himself squares fairly well with both his historic deeds and his spirit. A man must judge himself correctly in order to adequately look for his faults to correct them. Churchill did well in that and even did so when considering his fondness for drink . Myself, I fault him not for how he chose to treat his maladies. After all , he too was human with all the weaknesses and problems that existence entails. Sometimes that is not properly consider because of his historic deeds and greatness in saving his nation! As always stated, the right man at the right time but the GREATNESS of Churchill went well beyond that IMO..---Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

WOW!

First, kudos to both for actually having a civil and reasonable disussion/debate. This board could use more such threads.

Second, I find this topic of extreme interest and am looking forward to the presentation from both sides.

I will say that the first thing that struck me was that both leaders were just what was needed AT THE TIME. I sincerely hope that both sides of the debate keep context in mind during the discussions.

I am really. really liking this!

Thanks , appreciate the kudos. I fear that Drummonds shall put my feeble efforts to shame but have as my shield the greatness of Churchill to rely on. With such armor even a weaker warrior may prevail.
YET I SHALL DO MY ABSOLUTE BEST AND WOULD NOT DARE DO LESS BECAUSE WE ARE DISCUSSING TWO HONORABLE AND GREAT LEADERS.. -Tyr

[gabosaurus]

Regardless of political affiliations, I welcome anyone who is a student of WWII history. Being that half of family is German and the other half is rooted in the U.S., the WWII European theater has always been my passion.
I welcome your thoughts here. :beer:

[logroller]

Winston Churchill -1874-1965, Tyr-Ziu Saxnot's choice (the Lion) as the greater of the two leaders.
Margaret Thatcher 1925- , Drummond's choice (the Iron Lady) as the greater of the two leaders.

A Friendly Comparison of the Brilliance and Deeds of Two Great Leaders .

A brief note on how and why I chose to use this first presentation (1) on the greatness of Churchill. After researching Churchill by digging thru my books I decided to research using the internet to gain more information (faster). While doing so I came upon this commentary and immediately knew that I had to use it. For it was precise, well written and to be honest far better than I could have compiled with hours of researching using my books and laboriously reading and snatching tidbits here and there.




.Home History & Biographies , Winston Churchill Quotations.
.Winston Churchill Quotations. Winston Churchill Biography.

(1). First presentation,

It was no coincidence that Winston Churchill's quotations rallied the World War II Allied Forces and encouraged a weary British people to persevere and seek victory.
"In War: Resolution

In Defeat: Defiance

In Victory: Magnanimity

In Peace: Good Will" - Winston Churchill
I appreciate the spirit of debate; and if a long post is necessary, I've no issue. I may caution, however, against extensive quoting of another's work. There are rules here (and laws everywhere) surrounding copyrights, so unless your excerpt is public domain, it likely runs afoul. :carryon:

[Drummond]

Churchill was a great man and a legendary figure of English history. He is also very fortunate that Hitler was a very stupid man. Otherwise, Churchill would have died about 1942 and England would have become a German colony.

I don't know much about Thatcher, other than the fact that she used a very American method of reversing her declining popularity. She started a war that no one wanted.

It's probably just as well (so far as I know) that there isn't much of a notable British presence on this particular forum. Many Brits today regard WWII as ancient history, far removed from relevance to today's world. Even so, I believe most British people would find the scenario you blithely suggest a rather offensive one.

[Drummond]

OK, Tyr ... tonight, I'll have a crack at my pro-Margaret Thatcher presentation. I'll do what I can to present my case, though I doubt it'll match the calibre of your own, Tyr !! My only hope is that my offering won't amount to an actual disappointment.

We shall see.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

OK, Tyr ... tonight, I'll have a crack at my pro-Margaret Thatcher presentation. I'll do what I can to present my case, though I doubt it'll match the calibre of your own, Tyr !! My only hope is that my offering won't amount to an actual disappointment.

We shall see.

My friend , I've seen your skill before, so this clever attempt at getting me to be overconfident will not work but I admire it's cleverness!--:beer:-;), a humorous bit of jousting with you amigo.... Im sure you understand.
I have every expectation that your offering will certainly equal my effort or quite likely greatly exceed it . That is why I plan on doing better in my (2) presentation.
You sir , are a very good "wordknight" and that is a compliment well based in fact!
I'd only be disappointed if you had chosen to not post a reply in Thatcher's greatness at all. Of course you gave your word so that was an impossibility. Let us both add to their fame and glory as best as we can.
Looking forward to your (1) presentation.--Tyr

[Drummond]

OK, here goes ...

Let it first be said clearly that, though my intention is to present a case suggesting that Margaret Thatcher can properly be regarded as the better of the two Leaders we are discussing, both were - in their respective ways - of the highest calibre of Conservative leader the UK has ever known. Their contributions to the social and political welfare of the British people each saved us from disaster, and elevated us to a stature permitting us to have pride in ourselves once more ... this as the reward for comprehensively defeating each of the anti-British foes they both faced.

Having stated this clearly, I shall begin by pointing out a fact concerning Churchill which may perhaps be little appreciated, but which is nonetheless true. It is simply this .. Churchill, during his political career, did not consistently remain a Conservative. Yes, he began his career as a Conservative, succeeding in winning an election in 1900 which saw him represent that Party as a Conservative MP. He later switched his alliegance to our Liberal Party, serving under an Administration led by Lloyd George. Still later, he switched back to the Conservatives ... and at one point tried to bring the Liberals within the political orbit of the Conservative Party.

I offer this link:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0857349.html


Churchill was elected to Parliament as a Conservative in 1900, but he subsequently switched to the Liberal party and was appointed undersecretary for the colonies in the cabinet of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. Under Asquith, he was initially (1908–10) president of the Board of Trade, then home secretary (1910–11), and championed innovative labor exchange and old-age pension acts. As first lord of the admiralty (1911), he presided over the naval expansion that preceded World War I.

Discredited by the failure of the Dardanelles expedition, which he had championed, Churchill lost (1915) his admiralty post and served on the front lines in France. Returning to office under Lloyd George, he served as minister of munitions (1917) and secretary of state for war and for air (1918–21). As colonial secretary (1921–22), he helped negotiate the treaty that set up the Irish Free State.

After two defeats at the polls he returned to the House of Commons, as a Constitutionalist, and became (1924–29) chancellor of the exchequer in Stanley Baldwin's Conservative government. As an advocate of laissez-faire economics, he was strongly criticized by John Maynard Keynes. Churchill was not a financial innovator; he basically followed conventional advice from his colleagues. Nevertheless, Churchill's decision to return the country to the prewar gold standard increased unemployment and was a cause of the general strike of 1926. He advocated aggressive action to end the strike, and thus earned the lasting distrust of the labor movement.

I argue that this is one reason for considering that Margaret Thatcher was the better of the two Leaders. Mrs Thatcher's political record is proof of unwavering loyalty and service towards the Conservative Party. To further its good fortunes, to prove its superior worth to the British Establishment, was at all times the focus of her efforts. There was never the slightest reason to suppose this would ever change.

Churchill, as my link illustrates, had his failures. He also had indomitable spirit, however, a trait he shared with Mrs Thatcher. Winston Churchill, in his later career, faced an uphill struggle to impress upon the senior political figures of the time, that Germany was the great threat it actually proved to be. Neville Chamberlain was convinced he could work with Hitler. Churchill ultimately prevailed, however, to become the magnificent wartime Leader that he was.

This helps to characterise Churchill. Facing domestic opposition, he faced it down, prevailed, as a preparation for the REAL struggle to come; namely, defeat of a foreign aggressor and its overwhelmingly strong war machine. Churchill had no doubt: he was facing an evil from abroad, one absolutely deserving of being crushed.

Mrs Thatcher faced but one foreign adversary, at least, in terms of the action of a rival Nation State .. I refer to Argentina, and her wantonly aggressive invasion of the Falkland Islands. One could reasonably, I think, regard her leadership and success in that altogether more limited campaign as nonetheless 'Churchillian' in character. Its calibre was certainly comparable, even if the extent of the challenge posed was considerably less.

However ... that said, I would argue the following case. Churchill's finest days were filled with a situation in which he had the British people with him. He embodied their hopes, their spirit, in the struggle to win through against the Third Reich, first as a battle to survive against a superior military machine, and later as a driving force to ensure Nazism's utter defeat. He had domestic SUPPORT, he had the comfort of knowing that his real enemy was stationed (the Channel Islands notwithstanding ... remember, they DID suffer Nazi occupation) abroad, that his target to defeat was always separate from the UK which he led.

Mrs Thatcher's political reality - taking the Falklands out of the equation - was vastly different to this, and it is this difference which to my mind helps show her superior mettle. For her, her principal adversaries were far closer to hand, in the shape of our militant Trade Unions. Churchill's adversary was a foreign one. His was an 'us versus them' conflict, where the enemy was a foreign one. This was NOT true (principally, anyway ..) for Mrs Thatcher.

The political environment which Mrs Thatcher inherited really needs to be appreciated to understand the nature and magnitude of the challenge she had to tackle.

Backtracking to the early 1970's, the then-Conservative PM, Ted Heath, faced social strife possibly unimaginable to many Americans. Then, power workers and coal miners were engaged in strike action so crippling that the UK was starved of the power we needed to keep homes warm, businesses operational. That period was called the 'three day working week', because it was precisely that: power supplies could only be maintained for three working days for many weeks. For the two remaining days, power cuts were the norm. Now, Ted Heath decided to NOT supply leadership in this crisis. Instead, he called an election, asking the voters .. 'Who runs the country, Government or Unions' ? In 1974 - twice, in two elections that year - the answer of 'The Unions do' was visited upon us. The Labour Party won power, and the Unions became a dominant and frequently formidable feature in the years that followed.

Jim Callaghan (Labour PM) thought he could broker a peace with them, to curb strike activity. For a time, it worked, then this broke down .. and to cut a long story short, the UK suffered its 'Winter of Discontent' in 1978-79, where we saw wave after crippling wave of strikes. Much of Society was reduced to dysfunctionality - orders were lost - businesses folded up, because workforces were too unreliable, essential services were crippled. One winter of chaos later, Mrs Thatcher emerged after her election as the Leader who had the task of - it was hoped - making a useful difference, in the shape of a break with Socialist-led chaos.

Not for nothing did Mrs Thatcher quote this following passage, moments before entering 10 Downing Street for the first time ...


"Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope."

Hours previously, even before all the votes were finally in (.. though enough to show that Mrs Thatcher had won) a major Trade Union figure was interviewed by the BBC's Election team. Even now, I recall it .. Sid Weighell was his name. Weighell used the platform the BBC had given him to express a barely concealed threat, amounting to an ultimatum .. to say that Mrs Thatcher must use her position to work with Trade Unionism in the UK, to respect them, to listen to them, to heed their demands. The clear implication was that Weighell was demanding that Mrs Thatcher make no moves to oppose Trade Unionism and its ambitions.

Mrs Thatcher started as she meant to continue. Weighell was ignored.

This introduces the prime reason I have for asserting that Margaret Thatcher risked more than Churchill ever did, had harder battles to win, tougher challenges to triumph over. Mrs Thatcher knew that the key to reversing our dire fortune as a nation was to get the Unions under control, to curb their power, to give us - once more - a sense of pride, and dignity as a nation, rather than be forced to wallow in ruinous social conditions meted out to us by militant Union wreckers.

... and this gets to the nub of the principal issue. Churchill enjoyed the support of the British people, as a nation united, and led them accordingly. BUT, Mrs Thatcher always had a section of our population against her. Had all she'd worked to do fail to benefit the British people, had the Unions experienced an upsurge in popularity which would've then converted into a rejection of Mrs Thatcher's controls, she risked not only personal political ruin, but the ousting of the Conservative Party from power for a generation or more.

As it was ... Mrs Thatcher stood ever-firm DESPITE these constant pressures, pressures that Churchill, when it really counted, never had to face or tackle.

Mrs Thatcher was a conviction politician to an extent that I say cannot quite be claimed for Churchill. True, both stood up for what they believed in. For Churchill ... it was sometimes the Conservative Party, sometimes the Liberal Party. For Mrs Thatcher, it was her unwavering vision of a particular brand of Conservative political direction that she never ceased to translate into a solution for our Society's ills.

As much as Mrs Thatcher forever wanted political popularity, she NEVER, ONCE, courted it at the expense of what she was convinced was the right thing to do .. the mark of a truly magnificent politician and Leader.

I shall end this piece by offering a partial the text of an article which the Daily Mail published about Mrs Thatcher. It speaks for itself ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-562178/Margaret-Thatcher-The-debt-owe-her.html


Today, a whole generation has grown up with no concept of what it means to live through the strikes and industrial unrest that the unions threaten to unleash over the coming summer months.

This lucky generation takes for granted the basics of civilised life - such as electricity, schooling, a postal service and rubbish collection.

And yet, Britain was not always like that. Anyone aged 50 or over was brought up in the shadow of trade union dominance.

We remember studying for exams by candlelight because of strike action.

We remember the three-day week, rubbish uncollected on the streets, bodies unburied, newspapers which often failed to come out, and riots in the streets.

In truth, Britain was close to becoming a Third World state - mired in moral and physical squalor.

Almost everyone assumed that economic and social collapse was inevitable.

Churchill won a battle against a foreign enemy, his people united with him.

Mrs Thatcher had a harder task, which saw her triumph magnificently. It was to win a war against the worst that her OWN people had to offer.

For my part, I know which constitutes the tougher victory.

[gabosaurus]

I think the comparison is ludicrous. Examine the current opinions of Churchill and Thatcher. Who is more respected and admired?
Churchill kept his country together inspired during some of the darkest and most trying moments in its history. Thatcher faced only internal problems.
The political ideology of the two should have little or nothing to do with it. The true test should be character. Which Thatcher had very little of.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

OK, here goes ...

Let it first be said clearly that, though my intention is to present a case suggesting that Margaret Thatcher can properly be regarded as the better of the two Leaders we are discussing, both were - in their respective ways - of the highest calibre of Conservative leader the UK has ever known. Their contributions to the social and political welfare of the British people each saved us from disaster, and elevated us to a stature permitting us to have pride in ourselves once more ... this as the reward for comprehensively defeating each of the anti-British foes they both faced.

Having stated this clearly, I shall begin by pointing out a fact concerning Churchill which may perhaps be little appreciated, but which is nonetheless true. It is simply this .. Churchill, during his political career, did not consistently remain a Conservative. Yes, he began his career as a Conservative, succeeding in winning an election in 1900 which saw him represent that Party as a Conservative MP. He later switched his alliegance to our Liberal Party, serving under an Administration led by Lloyd George. Still later, he switched back to the Conservatives ... and at one point tried to bring the Liberals within the political orbit of the Conservative Party.

I offer this link:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0857349.html



I argue that this is one reason for considering that Margaret Thatcher was the better of the two Leaders. Mrs Thatcher's political record is proof of unwavering loyalty and service towards the Conservative Party. To further its good fortunes, to prove its superior worth to the British Establishment, was at all times the focus of her efforts. There was never the slightest reason to suppose this would ever change.

Churchill, as my link illustrates, had his failures. He also had indomitable spirit, however, a trait he shared with Mrs Thatcher. Winston Churchill, in his later career, faced an uphill struggle to impress upon the senior political figures of the time, that Germany was the great threat it actually proved to be. Neville Chamberlain was convinced he could work with Hitler. Churchill ultimately prevailed, however, to become the magnificent wartime Leader that he was.

This helps to characterise Churchill. Facing domestic opposition, he faced it down, prevailed, as a preparation for the REAL struggle to come; namely, defeat of a foreign aggressor and its overwhelmingly strong war machine. Churchill had no doubt: he was facing an evil from abroad, one absolutely deserving of being crushed.

Mrs Thatcher faced but one foreign adversary, at least, in terms of the action of a rival Nation State .. I refer to Argentina, and her wantonly aggressive invasion of the Falkland Islands. One could reasonably, I think, regard her leadership and success in that altogether more limited campaign as nonetheless 'Churchillian' in character. Its calibre was certainly comparable, even if the extent of the challenge posed was considerably less.

However ... that said, I would argue the following case. Churchill's finest days were filled with a situation in which he had the British people with him. He embodied their hopes, their spirit, in the struggle to win through against the Third Reich, first as a battle to survive against a superior military machine, and later as a driving force to ensure Nazism's utter defeat. He had domestic SUPPORT, he had the comfort of knowing that his real enemy was stationed (the Channel Islands notwithstanding ... remember, they DID suffer Nazi occupation) abroad, that his target to defeat was always separate from the UK which he led.

Mrs Thatcher's political reality - taking the Falklands out of the equation - was vastly different to this, and it is this difference which to my mind helps show her superior mettle. For her, her principal adversaries were far closer to hand, in the shape of our militant Trade Unions. Churchill's adversary was a foreign one. His was an 'us versus them' conflict, where the enemy was a foreign one. This was NOT true (principally, anyway ..) for Mrs Thatcher.

The political environment which Mrs Thatcher inherited really needs to be appreciated to understand the nature and magnitude of the challenge she had to tackle.

Backtracking to the early 1970's, the then-Conservative PM, Ted Heath, faced social strife possibly unimaginable to many Americans. Then, power workers and coal miners were engaged in strike action so crippling that the UK was starved of the power we needed to keep homes warm, businesses operational. That period was called the 'three day working week', because it was precisely that: power supplies could only be maintained for three working days for many weeks. For the two remaining days, power cuts were the norm. Now, Ted Heath decided to NOT supply leadership in this crisis. Instead, he called an election, asking the voters .. 'Who runs the country, Government or Unions' ? In 1974 - twice, in two elections that year - the answer of 'The Unions do' was visited upon us. The Labour Party won power, and the Unions became a dominant and frequently formidable feature in the years that followed.

Jim Callaghan (Labour PM) thought he could broker a peace with them, to curb strike activity. For a time, it worked, then this broke down .. and to cut a long story short, the UK suffered its 'Winter of Discontent' in 1978-79, where we saw wave after crippling wave of strikes. Much of Society was reduced to dysfunctionality - orders were lost - businesses folded up, because workforces were too unreliable, essential services were crippled. One winter of chaos later, Mrs Thatcher emerged after her election as the Leader who had the task of - it was hoped - making a useful difference, in the shape of a break with Socialist-led chaos.

Not for nothing did Mrs Thatcher quote this following passage, moments before entering 10 Downing Street for the first time ...



Hours previously, even before all the votes were finally in (.. though enough to show that Mrs Thatcher had won) a major Trade Union figure was interviewed by the BBC's Election team. Even now, I recall it .. Sid Weighell was his name. Weighell used the platform the BBC had given him to express a barely concealed threat, amounting to an ultimatum .. to say that Mrs Thatcher must use her position to work with Trade Unionism in the UK, to respect them, to listen to them, to heed their demands. The clear implication was that Weighell was demanding that Mrs Thatcher make no moves to oppose Trade Unionism and its ambitions.

Mrs Thatcher started as she meant to continue. Weighell was ignored.

This introduces the prime reason I have for asserting that Margaret Thatcher risked more than Churchill ever did, had harder battles to win, tougher challenges to triumph over. Mrs Thatcher knew that the key to reversing our dire fortune as a nation was to get the Unions under control, to curb their power, to give us - once more - a sense of pride, and dignity as a nation, rather than be forced to wallow in ruinous social conditions meted out to us by militant Union wreckers.

... and this gets to the nub of the principal issue. Churchill enjoyed the support of the British people, as a nation united, and led them accordingly. BUT, Mrs Thatcher always had a section of our population against her. Had all she'd worked to do fail to benefit the British people, had the Unions experienced an upsurge in popularity which would've then converted into a rejection of Mrs Thatcher's controls, she risked not only personal political ruin, but the ousting of the Conservative Party from power for a generation or more.

As it was ... Mrs Thatcher stood ever-firm DESPITE these constant pressures, pressures that Churchill, when it really counted, never had to face or tackle.

Mrs Thatcher was a conviction politician to an extent that I say cannot quite be claimed for Churchill. True, both stood up for what they believed in. For Churchill ... it was sometimes the Conservative Party, sometimes the Liberal Party. For Mrs Thatcher, it was her unwavering vision of a particular brand of Conservative political direction that she never ceased to translate into a solution for our Society's ills.

As much as Mrs Thatcher forever wanted political popularity, she NEVER, ONCE, courted it at the expense of what she was convinced was the right thing to do .. the mark of a truly magnificent politician and Leader.

I shall end this piece by offering a partial the text of an article which the Daily Mail published about Mrs Thatcher. It speaks for itself ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-562178/Margaret-Thatcher-The-debt-owe-her.html



Churchill won a battle against a foreign enemy, his people united with him.

Mrs Thatcher had a harder task, which saw her triumph magnificently. It was to win a war against the worst that her OWN people had to offer.

For my part, I know which constitutes the tougher victory.


I say with absolute sincerity, Simply Brilliant!
YOU MY FRIEND HAVE JUST MADE MY (2) PRESENTATION AT LEAST TEN TIMES HARDER THAN I HAD ANTICIPATED IT TO POSSIBLY BE !! KUDOS ON A TASK MAGNIFICENTLY WELL DONE!--:beer:

MYSELF, I HAD NOT THOUGHT TO ADDRESS EITHER SUBJECT'S FAULTS OTHER THAN I HAVE COMMENTED HERE OUTSIDE MY (1) PRESENTATION ON MY CHOICE'S (CHURCHILL'S) WEAKNESS FOR DRINK AND TO A LESSER EXTENT HIS BOUTS OF DESPAIR. I hope to maintain that in my second presentation , forgive me should I SLIP UP IN THAT AMBITION.

A simple note: Churchill understood that total destruction , wreck and ruin and many deaths faced his nation/peoples should he fail in his task(a far graver danger faced), I contend that Thatcher had not such a tremendous weight on her shoulders! For should she fail, Britain would still survive although a far lesser nation still facing dire problems but not as a conquered nation and enslaved people subject to the unmerciful murderous oppression of Nazi rule!
That enormous difference in the danger faced overshadows Churchill's not being a conservative from start to finish and even the fact that Thatcher faced stiffer opposition at home. Consider this as a premptive jab my friend as I may not cover it too much in my second presentation or I may choose to cover it a bit more. I waited until reading your first to even start thinking about my second! A wise decision on my part ,for your first, clearly gives me cause to rethink how to even approach my second presentation! Bravo on that !--Tyr

[Drummond]

I think the comparison is ludicrous. Examine the current opinions of Churchill and Thatcher. Who is more respected and admired?
Churchill kept his country together inspired during some of the darkest and most trying moments in its history. Thatcher faced only internal problems.
The political ideology of the two should have little or nothing to do with it. The true test should be character. Which Thatcher had very little of.

I find myself wondering if you're joking.

Churchill was and is (his memory, anyway) admired. I'm happy to agree. But as I pointed out, Churchill started the second world war in a position of being his peoples' saviour against the foreign National Socialist menace from Hitler's Reich. That stature, that personal approval of him as a Leader who saved us from a foreign tyranny, basically remained constant.

I have little doubt that he enjoyed it, too ... as well he might.

But consider Mrs Thatcher's position. Yes, she won THREE consecutive election victories (which itself says a lot ..), but .. throughout her Premiership, she was dogged by opposition. Sometimes her personal approval ratings were high, sometimes considerably less than high. The so-called 'poll tax riots' come to mind as an especially low point in her Leadership career.

Here's the joke, surely. You say that Mrs Thatcher had 'very little' character. But perhaps the most remarkable, and praiseworthy, trait .... was her characteristic doggedness in continuing on with policies that at times earned her unpopularity. If your accusation has merit, SURELY, what history SHOULD record is her buckling under to every tough challenge that came her way, deferring to popularity rather than doing what she was sure was RIGHT.

.. but she did the opposite. Little character ?? You jest ... :lmao: :lmao:

[Drummond]

I say with absolute sincerity, Simply Brilliant!
YOU MY FRIEND HAVE JUST MADE MY (2) PRESENTATION AT LEAST TEN TIMES HARDER THAN I HAD ANTICIPATED IT TO POSSIBLY BE !! KUDOS ON A TASK MAGNIFICENTLY WELL DONE!--:beer:

MYSELF, I HAD NOT THOUGHT TO ADDRESS EITHER SUBJECT'S FAULTS OTHER THAN I HAVE COMMENTED HERE OUTSIDE MY (1) PRESENTATION ON MY CHOICE'S (CHURCHILL'S) WEAKNESS FOR DRINK AND TO A LESSER EXTENT HIS BOUTS OF DESPAIR. I hope to maintain that in my second presentation , forgive me should I SLIP UP IN THAT AMBITION.

A simple note: Churchill understood that total destruction , wreck and ruin and many deaths faced his nation/peoples should he fail in his task(a far graver danger faced), I contend that Thatcher had not such a tremendous weight on her shoulders! For should she fail, Britain would still survive although a far lesser nation still facing dire problems but not as a conquered nation and enslaved people subject to the unmerciful murderous oppression of Nazi rule!
That enormous difference in the danger faced overshadows Churchill's not being a conservative from start to finish and even the fact that Thatcher faced stiffer opposition at home. Consider this as a premptive jab my friend as I may not cover it too much in my second presentation or I may choose to cover it a bit more. I waited until reading your first to even start thinking about my second! A wise decision on my part ,for your first, clearly gives me cause to rethink how to even approach my second presentation! Bravo on that !--Tyr

Tyr, my friend, I appreciate your comments very much. THANK YOU ...

Can I offer disagreement outside of the series of presentations ? I would suggest that the UK's troubles were so dire that we could've actually bankrupted ourselves as a nation, and known abject poverty that it would've taken generations to break free from. Had the Unions won through and continued their wreckage, had they never been tamed, more and more businesses would've folded. Few people, or nations, would've trusted us to honour business deals. The IMF wouldn't have dared loan us money. Trade would've dwindled possibly to nothing .. and we NEED trade to survive, we don't even have the capacity to ever be self-sufficient in feeding ourselves.

What was the UK inflation rate in 1976 ? Get this .. a record-busting TWENTY SIX PERCENT. Opinion began to be offered that our economy was incapable of tolerating such inflationary pressures for long (.. and that was the very time that revenue from North Sea Oil began to flow into the economy !). Harold Wilson, the then-Leftie PM, had to devalue our currency. The Chancellor (Denis Healey) ... if only for a short while, raised the top rate of tax to NINETY EIGHT PENCE IN THE POUND (so after tax, rich businessmen had the privilege of keeping two pence (!!) out of every pound they earned !).

Our economy was unbelievably fragile. Too much of a sustained knock could've ruined us. Though, that didn't stop the Unions meting out their 'Winter of Discontent', and all their strikes ....

The stakes Mrs Thatcher inherited were very high. She HAD to succeed, to assure us of a future worth having ...

[Drummond]

Well, now that you've invited our support for either .... just being female gives Thatcher an advantage ... imagine the "glass ceiling" she had to break just to get there and then add in all the great stuff (Drummonds will detail) she did and the scales are tipping a little.

:goodposting: :goodposting:

Thanks for posting this !! Very well put. And you're absolutely right .. she faced a lot of opposition from the then-Tory 'grandees' who balked at the idea of a woman getting anywhere near the top job in the Conservative Party. Her capacity to triumph does itself testify to her grit and determination to win through.

[Drummond]

Thanks..
Ahh yes, Churchill's despair, a subject that I will not dwell on much in my second presentation although it was a great obstacle to his magnificent career and a thorn in his side in his personal life as well. He apparently chose to treat it with drink but did so in a very controlled way IMO. Few can control their drinking in such a manner as to perform their immense duties at such a high level and not falter or make a major mistake! During his war years any major mistake could have very serious consequences , with life and death always being on the line. I've found no major mistake marked on his ledger..

A brief note for you to consider : You mentioned Churchill's ego, which in regards to his life/career , under normal circumstances would point to arrogance and elitism. I find very little of both when also considering the times and the culture there. For in his heart he had a great love of his nation and it's peoples. His judgement of himself squares fairly well with both his historic deeds and his spirit. A man must judge himself correctly in order to adequately look for his faults to correct them. Churchill did well in that and even did so when considering his fondness for drink . Myself, I fault him not for how he chose to treat his maladies. After all , he too was human with all the weaknesses and problems that existence entails. Sometimes that is not properly consider because of his historic deeds and greatness in saving his nation! As always stated, the right man at the right time but the GREATNESS of Churchill went well beyond that IMO..---Tyr

:goodposting:

... Ok, so I'm arguing Mrs Thatcher's corner ... though I also admire much about Churchill. As has been said ... each Leader was just what we needed, at the times they were to hand to lead us. Tyr, you're doing a grand job ...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, my friend, I appreciate your comments very much. THANK YOU ...

Can I offer disagreement outside of the series of presentations ? I would suggest that the UK's troubles were so dire that we could've actually bankrupted ourselves as a nation, and known abject poverty that it would've taken generations to break free from. Had the Unions won through and continued their wreckage, had they never been tamed, more and more businesses would've folded. Few people, or nations, would've trusted us to honour business deals. The IMF wouldn't have dared loan us money. Trade would've dwindled possibly to nothing .. and we NEED trade to survive, we don't even have the capacity to ever be self-sufficient in feeding ourselves.

What was the UK inflation rate in 1976 ? Get this .. a record-busting TWENTY SIX PERCENT. Opinion began to be offered that our economy was incapable of tolerating such inflationary pressures for long (.. and that was the very time that revenue from North Sea Oil began to flow into the economy !). Harold Wilson, the then-Leftie PM, had to devalue our currency. The Chancellor (Denis Healey) ... if only for a short while, raised the top rate of tax to NINETY EIGHT PENCE IN THE POUND (so after tax, rich businessmen had the privilege of keeping two pence (!!) out of every pound they earned !).

Our economy was unbelievably fragile. Too much of a sustained knock could've ruined us. Though, that didn't stop the Unions meting out their 'Winter of Discontent', and all their strikes ....

The stakes Mrs Thatcher inherited were very high. She HAD to succeed, to assure us of a future worth having ...

Sure, we may exchange other thoughts outside of our comparison presentations. I would never think to restrict you from exspressing your views and concerns about your own nation! The more info the better I almost always hold as a guiding principle. For example until your post above I had not known how grave the situation was during those years , for it was hardly covered well here during that time and I was engaged in hard work, drinking, fighting and chasing the pretty gals during much of that period! As always I admit my life's mistakes and have no shame in admitting that perfection is a state that I've never been in!
Carry on my friend with replying how and when you want outside the presentations. Its all good.--Tyr

[Drummond]

... well, anyway, in my part of the world it's getting late, so I shall leave shortly for the night. Tyr (and folks ..) I look forward to revisiting this thread tomorrow (must also revisit the War on Terror one ... I have replies to add there ..). Best wishes, all !

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I find myself wondering if you're joking.

Churchill was and is (his memory, anyway) admired. I'm happy to agree. But as I pointed out, Churchill started the second world war in a position of being his peoples' saviour against the foreign National Socialist menace from Hitler's Reich. That stature, that personal approval of him as a Leader who saved us from a foreign tyranny, basically remained constant.

I have little doubt that he enjoyed it, too ... as well he might.

But consider Mrs Thatcher's position. Yes, she won THREE consecutive election victories (which itself says a lot ..), but .. throughout her Premiership, she was dogged by opposition. Sometimes her personal approval ratings were high, sometimes considerably less than high. The so-called 'poll tax riots' come to mind as an especially low point in her Leadership career.

Here's the joke, surely. You say that Mrs Thatcher had 'very little' character. But perhaps the most remarkable, and praiseworthy, trait .... was her characteristic doggedness in continuing on with policies that at times earned her unpopularity. If your accusation has merit, SURELY, what history SHOULD record is her buckling under to every tough challenge that came her way, deferring to popularity rather than doing what she was sure was RIGHT.

.. but she did the opposite. Little character ?? You jest ... :lmao: :lmao:

My friend you will never find me ever faulting the Ironlady's character. I put her character on par with that of Churchill but our comparison goes deeper than simply their characters. For it covers their deeds , victories and defeats as well and possibly a bit more. I agree she never buckled and never wavered! A strong, highly principled and moral woman that had the courage to face any and all opposition with skill, wit and unrelenting spirit! -Tyr

[Drummond]

Sure, we may exchange other thoughts outside of our comparison presentations. I would never think to restrict you from exspressing your views and concerns about your own nation! The more info the better I almost always hold as a guiding principle. For example until your post above I had not known how grave the situation was during those years , for it was hardly covered well here during that time and I was engaged in hard work, drinking, fighting and chasing the pretty gals during much of that period! As always I admit my life's mistakes and have no shame in admitting that perfection is a state that I've never been in!
Carry on my friend with replying how and when you want outside the presentations. Its all good.--Tyr

Good post, much appreciated.

Ah yes, those were the days for me, too.

You must have gathered that a lot of what I'm posting comes from my memory of those days (1973-74, I'm thinking of here). I still recall sitting in an office, working away, no electricity, so no heating or electric lighting, sitting there wearing an overcoat, trying not to freeze, in the middle of winter ... all courtesy of Trade Union trash ...

You know, back in my early teens, I was convinced that Socialism was the political philosophy I should follow. But I saw the disgusting wreckage they inflicted for myself. The three day working week. No garbage collections, no power, essential services spasmodic or even at times nonexistent. Fast-forward to the Winter of Discontent, and although by then we had uninterrupted power, nearly everything else was breaking down. I recall that in the middle of London, for example, to cope with no garbage disposal, black bags full of the stuff were piled several feet high across much of Leicester Square, turning that entire landmark area into one enormous refuse dumping-site. I even recall seeing a rat darting in between the bags ...

Yes, I began as a Socialist. But I learned from example (and plenty of it !!) just how very wrong I was. I learned to hate what ruin they'd inflicted on a once proud and decent People. So I turned from Socialism in utter disgust.

To this day, my reverence for stellar figures such as Mrs Thatcher matches in intensity its polar opposite, a hatred and utter loathing of Socialism and its - yes, I say this - EVIL. . Rid the world of the blight of Socialism, and it'll enter a new and sustained Golden Age.

Absolutely so, without a shadow of a doubt.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Good post, much appreciated.

Ah yes, those were the days for me, too.

You must have gathered that a lot of what I'm posting comes from my memory of those days (1973-74, I'm thinking of here). I still recall sitting in an office, working away, no electricity, so no heating or electric lighting, sitting there wearing an overcoat, trying not to freeze, in the middle of winter ... all courtesy of Trade Union trash ...

You know, back in my early teens, I was convinced that Socialism was the political philosophy I should follow. But I saw the disgusting wreckage they inflicted for myself. The three day working week. No garbage collections, no power, essential services spasmodic or even at times nonexistent. Fast-forward to the Winter of Discontent, and although by then we had uninterrupted power, nearly everything else was breaking down. I recall that in the middle of London, for example, to cope with no garbage disposal, black bags full of the stuff were piled several feet high across much of Leicester Square, turning that entire landmark area into one enormous refuse dumping-site. I even recall seeing a rat darting in between the bags ...

Yes, I began as a Socialist. But I learned from example (and plenty of it !!) just how very wrong I was. I learned to hate what ruin they'd inflicted on a once proud and decent People. So I turned from Socialism in utter disgust.

To this day, my reverence for stellar figures such as Mrs Thatcher matches in intensity its polar opposite, a hatred and utter loathing of Socialism and its - yes, I say this - EVIL. . Rid the world of the blight of Socialism, and it'll enter a new and sustained Golden Age.

Absolutely so, without a shadow of a doubt.

I've not had the great misfortune of having experienced firsthand the abject "paradise" that Socialism inflicts!
You sir, have advantage over me with profitting from that experience with firsthand knowedge and bad experiences that fuels your zeal for Conservatism! Surely, the only thing good to come from you having had to actually live thru it.
Yet , I share deeply your hatred for Socialism and its evils!
Our would-be boyking Obama PLANS on giving me that "paradise', to which I say, HELL NO!--TZ

[Drummond]

I've stayed longer than intended ... must leave now (almost midnight here ..).

Tyr, again, a good post.

On your point about what you will have coming, if the likes of Obama continues to enjoy the privilege of his leadership role ... well, 'Obamacare' is surely the precursor to the UK's State healthcare system. Introduced in 1948 by our Socialists, and the first of its kind ever to be seen on this planet ... you'd have to imagine that over the past 60+ years it's existed for, SURELY, if it COULD work well both in terms of practicability and underlying theory, we'd have perfected such a system by now.

Au contraire ...

Current news stories concerning our NHS ... treatment rationing, and a doctors' strike that happens TOMORROW ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18495981

From that page ..


Rationing is nothing new in the NHS, it has always happened. There is a finite pot of money and so resources have to be managed.

There are national thresholds for how ill you have to be to get help. Restrictions are also routinely put in place to stop those that are overweight or are smokers having treatment if their lifestyles would then undo or limit the effectiveness of that care.

There is also a drive to get the NHS to stop doing procedures for which there is little clinical benefit. Some tonsollectomies fall into this category.

So not all the restrictions highlighted by GP magazine and Labour are necessarily bad.

But what appears to be happening increasingly as well is rationing to save money. A cataract operation on one eye costs the NHS about £900. A hip replacement sets the service back more than £5,000.

With money getting increasingly tight, some areas are delaying referring patients for these type of treatments.

Critics argue it is a short-term measure - patients just end up sicker and often need the treatment in the end - but that, unfortunately, is how some trusts seem to be managing budgetary constraints.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18523892


Ministers and NHS leaders have made last-ditch pleas to persuade doctors to call off a day of industrial action.

Medics across the UK are due to boycott non-urgent care on Thursday in a dispute over pensions, as they take action for the first time since 1975.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley called the industrial action "pointless", while NHS Employers predicted patients would suffer.

But union leaders said they had been forced into the move.

The industrial action is due to start at midnight.

The British Medical Association has always maintained doctors would fulfil all emergency and urgent care duties.

That means accident and emergency units and maternity services will remain open.

Urgent tests will also be done and GPs will still see patients in emergencies.

But the action could disrupt routine hospital appointments, non-emergency surgery, such as knee and hip operations, and pre-booked GP visits.

Many patients have already been told their appointments have been rearranged.

Many NHS trusts the BBC talked to were predicting disruption would be kept to a minimum.

But NHS Employers ramped up the pressure on doctors on the eve of the strike by suggesting emergency services could buckle under the strain.

Fears have been raised the action could create problems discharging patients from hospital beds or a surge in demand because patients cannot or think they cannot get care elsewhere.

NHS Employers director Dean Royles said: "We are deeply concerned about the distress it will cause patients as well as the anxiety it will cause to many of our staff who want to ensure their patients are not put at risk.

"We will find out whether the plans to protect urgent and emergency care that employers have been working on can hold up."

[aboutime]

Hi, Sassylady.

I daresay that's a fair point in its way ... even so, I'd like to suggest that so-called 'ancient' history isn't history that deserves to be glossed over, however tempting it might be for youngsters to do just that. History has many lessons to teach us, and we all ignore them at our peril. A very obvious example ... Nazism. Hitler's rise to power, how it came about, what evils the Nazi brand of political thought, along with the methodology employed, brought about.

Nobody in their right mind should ever want 'future history' to ever produce an equivalent, and the best way to ensure that is to remain receptive to what that era teaches us.


Drummond. Exactly! Almost like saying. "If we ignore History. We are doomed to repeat it."
Threads like this one. Talking about two great leaders of the 20th century is...probably not part of the American education system today. Nor are those two names familiar to anyone born as early as the 1990's.
I could go on. But most of us today. Who were around long enough to recognize those names, Also know. American Idol, and Britain's Got Talent are FAR MORE IMPORTANT.
Need I say more?

[gabosaurus]

But consider Mrs Thatcher's position. Yes, she won THREE consecutive election victories (which itself says a lot ..), but .. throughout her Premiership, she was dogged by opposition. Sometimes her personal approval ratings were high, sometimes considerably less than high. The so-called 'poll tax riots' come to mind as an especially low point in her Leadership career.

Here's the joke, surely. You say that Mrs Thatcher had 'very little' character. But perhaps the most remarkable, and praiseworthy, trait .... was her characteristic doggedness in continuing on with policies that at times earned her unpopularity. If your accusation has merit, SURELY, what history SHOULD record is her buckling under to every tough challenge that came her way, deferring to popularity rather than doing what she was sure was RIGHT.

If these are your qualifications as "character," then Obama has the same "character" as Thatcher. Correct?

[aboutime]

If these are your qualifications as "character," then Obama has the same "character" as Thatcher. Correct?


Assuming Obama has any Character would be a better statement.
Comparing Thatcher to Obama is a Huge insult to Thatcher.

Obama still hasn't learned how to STOP LYING.

[gabosaurus]

There are many English who believe Thatcher had zero integrity, zero character and zero compassion for anyone who did not share her beliefs. One of them is married to my best friend.

Otherwise, check these out as they pertain to both Thatcher and Obama...

"throughout her Premiership, she was dogged by opposition."

"Sometimes her personal approval ratings were high, sometimes considerably less than high."

"her characteristic doggedness in continuing on with policies that at times earned her unpopularity."

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In the quick tongue department, Churchill often has reminded me of Benjamin Franklin.

' Ole Ben had more wit but Churchill had him beat in the leadership and fighting department. Ben being a brighter mind and Churchill being a never say die fighter. Both did very great service for their respective countries. 'Ole Ben putting his charms to work on the ladies in the King's court in Paris. The man used everything he had to gain support for his county. I do mean everything , if you get my drift.-Tyr

[taft2012]

I have admired both of these world leaders and have included quotes from them in my sig line over the years.

It's going to be a hard choice and am looking forward to seeing both sides presented. Unfortunately, it seems Churchill might have a little advantage due to leading the country through a war torn era.

Are those really your legs? ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Are those really your legs? ;)

Come on taft, the lady has a quick wit and a brilliant mind too! Stop being so damn lustful all the time.-:laugh2:
Turn your "wolf" off for a while and engage her in a serious way my friend. Sure , her legs are sexy and a distraction but my guess is that she likes to see who can get past that.
Redstate hates you avatar even more than I do!--:laugh:
By the way, ringo and granny joined. -Tyr

[Drummond]

If these are your qualifications as "character," then Obama has the same "character" as Thatcher. Correct?

Aboutime's post (#42) does a good job of answering you.

However, if you really want to press such an argument .. would you have me believe that Obama is insane ?

Mrs Thatcher did what she knew was right. Obama CANNOT be so deluded as to believe that all he does is right, though (unless he actually IS insane).

Obama is following a Socialist agenda. He knows, in doing this, that he's steering America away from the vision I understand your Foundling Fathers had for your country. But, he doesn't care about that ... he has other intentions for you.

Am I accurate - I certainly think I am - in concluding that a part of what has made America great is that you've been such strivers for what you've wanted to build ? That you value the individual ? That you value liberty ?

Well, Obama is doing the bog-standard Socialist thing of trying to create a State of big Government, and a dependence culture, which would run contrary to the heart of that greatness. He must know he is (!!), but he doesn't care.

Mrs Thatcher, by total comparison, was on record as saying that there is no such thing as Society. She, too, valued the individual, and the merits of striving to achieve. Little wonder, therefore, that she detested the destructiveness of our Unions, partly because of the sheer wanton destruction they'd made the UK suffer, but partly also because of that 'something for nothing' culture that Unions work to popularise. If you can strike to get yourself a ten percent wage rise, without having earned it, heyy, they're happy !!

I wish I still had my taped recording of Margaret Thatcher and her rendition of the Gettysburg address !! Folks, I can assure you that SHE valued America - the real America - a whole lot more than Obama does.

[jimnyc]

Kudos for an excellent thread minus the flames, guys! Admittedly, I'm no historian, especially when it comes to Churchill and Thatcher, so this thread serves as a great learning experience from me! :2up::beer:

[Drummond]

There are many English who believe Thatcher had zero integrity, zero character and zero compassion for anyone who did not share her beliefs. One of them is married to my best friend.

... oh, really .. ??

Please be more honest than this.

Margaret Thatcher generated considerable controversy. She knew her own mind, she had her convictions as to what she felt it was necessary to do, to do things right ... and she followed through.

Mrs Thatcher wasn't one to bend to others, not if she believed that ran contrary to the greater good. So, naturally, there would be many, especially from the Left Wing, who'd despise her for never giving ground to them.

Of your 'many' English who'd oppose her, how many were Left wing, so would never have considered 'believing' anything else .. because the Socialist agenda thy were tied into mandated their position ?

How many of the rest were taken in by Left wing propaganda ?

How many were Trade Unionists who were at the sharp end of her much-needed Union reforms, reforms which still stand to this day ?

You see, failure to categorise her opposition in terms of what characterised its origin, is misleading in the extreme. Well .. ISN'T it ?


Otherwise, check these out as they pertain to both Thatcher and Obama...

1. "throughout her Premiership, she was dogged by opposition."

2. "Sometimes her personal approval ratings were high, sometimes considerably less than high."

3."her characteristic doggedness in continuing on with policies that at times earned her unpopularity."

But, DO they pertain to both Obama and Mrs Thatcher ?

Points:-

1. Please confirm for me my understanding that Obama isn't a 'Premier' at all, but a President ..

2. Please confirm for me my understanding that Obama isn't a woman ..

3. She did not 'earn' her unpopularity, such as it ever was, at all. The issue was that Mrs Thatcher wouldn't yield to her natural opposition and carried through her intended reforms against her opposition's wishes. Naturally, that opposition saw that as being very 'naughty' of her ...

There were those who fervently wished that she could be toppled from high Office, not because any vote justified such a thing, but just because they wished for it. One such example was a Leftie character called Arthur Scargill, and yes, he was a Union leader hell-bent upon defeating her. The Miners' Strike of 1984 was his doing .. but happily, Mrs Thatcher prevailed over his own brand of destructiveness.

Years later, Scargill tried a more honest route, and tried establishing his own political Party machine. But it never got him anywhere.

... aww, diddums .... :banana2:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Big D, I will likely post my (2) presentation on Churchill's greatness as Britain's saviour in its darkest hour this weekend , as I hope not to have to delay it any longer. I've been as busy as a cat trying to cover up scat on a hot tin roof.:laugh:
I must say that I've been enjoying your posts here and on various other threads. :clap:
By the why , I have made a few posts at your other forum . Sent you a pm there today.
I was busy but made time to post there just as I said that I would.
Consider this if you will, how great would it have been for Thatcher to have been Churchill's wife and the children that union may have birthed! -That torture thread here is very interesting is it not? ;) -Tyr

[gabosaurus]

You guys can debate Churchill and Thatcher all you want. The true is, you should be fortunate that England remains a democracy.
Without the stupidity of Hitler and the intervention of the U.S. military during World War II, there would be no England.

[Kathianne]

You guys can debate Churchill and Thatcher all you want. The true is, you should be fortunate that England remains a democracy.
Without the stupidity of Hitler and the intervention of the U.S. military during World War II, there would be no England.

Without Hitler, there would have been no reason for the US to intervene.

[Drummond]

You guys can debate Churchill and Thatcher all you want.

Well, now, 'Gabby' (may I call you 'Gabby' ??) ... this is simply marvellous.

I didn't ask you for your approval to engage in such a debate, and I must even freely admit that it never crossed my mind to do that. Nonetheless, and clearly prompted by heartwarming generosity, you haven't hesitated to append your expression of approval, regardless.

I am so grateful to receive it ...


The true is, you should be fortunate that England remains a democracy.

This is slightly unclear ? Let me clean up the message for you. I think what you meant to say, was .. 'The truth is, you should consider yourselves fortunate that England remains a democracy'

I again owe you thanks, Gabby. What we have here is an instructive reminder of the strangeness of the Left-wing thought process. You see ... I am a Conservative. I believe in the right of my own nation to follow its own path, craft its own choice of self-determination. Consequently' fortune' doesn't come into it, but rather, the right to run your country's affairs as you choose to.

Of course, the Leftie mindset so often fails to credit this as praiseworthy, preferring to actually crush self-determinist freedoms (the Soviet Union, against Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia, 1968 come to mind as blatant examples). More recently, some Leftie regimes take a 'softly, softly' approach and work to fashion attitudes in Society through propagandist means.

One that's making the news right now is on the issue of immigration, and whether it was 'racist' to care about immigration levels. Well ... here's what the hard Left had to say, in the UK ...

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=8894


The British ruling class has always operated an “open door/closed door” approach to immigration, depending on what it perceives to be its economic interests at the time.

Consequently, some Tory governments have encouraged inward migration, while some Labour governments, not least Tony Blair’s administration, have brought in racist controls on immigration.

.. See that ? To the hard Left, even CONTROL of it is somehow 'racist'.

More recently, whilst on the election trail, Gordon Brown let slip that he considered one Gillian Duffy, with whom he'd just had a public discussion in the street, a 'bigot' for expressing concerns on immigration. Being found out, in the way he was, helped ruin his re-election chances. So, today, we now - finally, YEARS later - see that Brown's successor has apologised, and started to backtrack.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2162970/Ed-Miliband-Labour-leader-admits-talking-immigration-isnt-racist.html


In a major U-turn, Mr Miliband said the party became 'disconnected from the concerns of working people' during its 13 years in power.

Labour often tried to silence criticism of its immigration policy by suggesting it was inspired by racism while in office.

The announcement represents a major change of direction for the party after Gordon Brown branded voter Gillian Duffy a 'bigoted woman' for raising concerns about the impact of immigration during the 2010 election campaign.

Mr Brown was forced to apologise to Mrs Duffy, 65, after he met her to smooth over her anger after insulting her.

It was one of the key moments in the election campaign and was see to signify how out of touch Labour had become on immigration.

Mr Miliband said Labour made a mistake by allowing uncontrolled migration into Britain in 2004 when Poland and other eastern European states joined the EU.

Churchill, in his role as a Conservative Prime Minister, had his own approach to take on immigration control. Yes .. he was very determined to resist the forced immigration of our territory intended by one Adolf Hitler. And, yes .. history records this as a meritorious success for Churchill, for the British spirit, for our right to follow our own chosen destiny.

'Fortune' really isn't the point, Gabby. JUSTICE, FREEDOM, LIBERTY ... ARE !


Without the stupidity of Hitler and the intervention of the U.S. military during World War II, there would be no England.

Possibly. Or - possibly not. I'm very aware of the major (actually pivotal) role the US played once it entered the war, and the British owe a permanent debt of gratitude for all you did to help in Hitler's defeat. However ... one shouldn't forget that we were under threat of invasion in 1940, we were being attacked daily from the air from Hitler's forces, and YET, thanks in major part to Churchill's inspirational leadership, we saw off that threat, essentially defeating Hitler's Luftwaffe.

So, Gabby, don't be so sure ...

[jimnyc]

Well, now, 'Gabby' (may I call you 'Gabby' ??) ... this is simply marvellous.

I didn't ask you for your approval to engage in such a debate, and I must even freely admit that it never crossed my mind to do that. Nonetheless, and clearly prompted by heartwarming generosity, you haven't hesitated to append your expression of approval, regardless.

I am so grateful to receive it ...

Well played, Sir! :lol::lol: :clap::clap:

[Drummond]

Big D, I will likely post my (2) presentation on Churchill's greatness as Britain's saviour in its darkest hour this weekend , as I hope not to have to delay it any longer. I've been as busy as a cat trying to cover up scat on a hot tin roof.:laugh:
I must say that I've been enjoying your posts here and on various other threads. :clap:
By the why , I have made a few posts at your other forum . Sent you a pm there today.
I was busy but made time to post there just as I said that I would.
Consider this if you will, how great would it have been for Thatcher to have been Churchill's wife and the children that union may have birthed! -That torture thread here is very interesting is it not? ;) -Tyr

Much appreciated ! And I'll take another look at the other forum momentarily.:beer:

Margaret to have been Winston's wife ? H'm !! Those two very dominant characters would've had a whale of a time, I suspect ... and what a potential 'dynasty' it would've created ...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Much appreciated ! And I'll take another look at the other forum momentarily.:beer:

Margaret to have been Winston's wife ? H'm !! Those two very dominant characters would've had a whale of a time, I suspect ... and what a potential 'dynasty' it would've created ...

Sorry my friend , I got to run, will reply in about 3 hours. -Tyr

[Drummond]

Sorry my friend , I got to run, will reply in about 3 hours. -Tyr

No worries. Tyr. Mind you, that timing will correspond to my midnight (I'm 5 hours ahead of the forum timezone) ... so I expect I'll catch up with any posts tomorrow.

[jimnyc]

No worries. Tyr. Mind you, that timing will correspond to my midnight (I'm 5 hours ahead of the forum timezone) ... so I expect I'll catch up with any posts tomorrow.

You're 5 hours ahead of us? Can you tell me who wins the Dodgers game tonight? :poke: :beer:

[gabosaurus]

It is obvious that British conservatives are as brain deficient as their American counterparts.
Due primarily to the complete idiocy of Churchill's predecessor, Neville Chamberlain, Hitler's forces were allowed to conquer half of Europe without firing a shot. This greatly emboldened Hitler and led to his invading Poland. This display of milquetoast behavior secured Chamberlain's place as one of history's most ineffective leaders and placed his country in great danger.

Let's move on to the beginnings of World War II.
In June of 1940, the Germans drove a large Allied force back to the beaches of Dunkirk. Hitler's generals somehow failed to continue the advance, thus sparing close to 350,000 Allied troops.
With the Allies on the brink of defeat, Chamberlain was negotiating terms for conditional surrender with Hitler. When the Allies were allowed to escape from Dunkirk, Chamberlain cut off talks and yielded to Churchill.
Hitler could have easily invaded and conquered Britain in the 1940. Instead, he decided on an air war which he hoped would break the British spirit. Which, of course, it didn't.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sorry my friend , I got to run, will reply in about 3 hours. -Tyr

Just think their son could possibly be much like a combo of Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great, Charlemagne and Hannibal
And a daughter could possibly be much likea combo of Boudicca, Tamar, Trieu Thi Trinh and Artemisia I of Caria !
Now a gal like that when I was young could have tamed even me!-:laugh:-Tyr

[SassyLady]

Are those really your legs? ;)

Sometimes!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Big D, just a little sample of Churchill's honor and its depth for you to consider.--Tyr

My comments sourced from my study of Churchill’s book, Closing the Ring..
A note on the honor of Churchill. Well before the Normandy invasion , while at the Conference in Teheran this incident occurred in which Churchill revealed the man of conviction that he was and continued to be all his life!

Churchill’s account of the incident:
Stalin was our host at dinner. The company was strictly limited-Stalin and Molotov, the President, Hopkins, Harrington, Clark Kerr, myself and Eden, and our interpreters. . After the labours of the Conference, there was good deal of gaiety, and many toasts were proposed. Presently Elliot Roosevelt, appeared at the door , was beckoned in and took his seat at the table. Stalin , as Hopkins recounts, indulged in a great deal of “teasing “ of me, which I did not at all resent until the Marshall entered in a genial matter upon a serious and even deadly aspect of the punishment to be inflicted upon the Germans. The German General Staff, he said, must be liquidated. The whole force of Hitler’s mighty armies depended upon about fifty thousand officers and technicians. If these were rounded up and shot at the end of the war, German military strength would be extirpated. On this I thought it right to say : “The British Parliament and public will never tolerate mass executions.. Even if war passions allowed them to begin, they would turn violently against those responsible after the butchery had taken place.. The Soviets must be under no delusion on this point.”
Stalin however, perhaps only in mischief, pursued the subject. .”Fifty thousand “ he said, “must be shot.” I was deeply angered.. “ I would rather, “ I said, “ be taken out into the garden here and now and be shot myself than sully my own and my country’s honour by such infamy.”
At this point the President intervened. He had a compromise to propose. Not fifty thousand should be shot, but only forty-nine thousand. By this he hoped, no doubt, to reduce the whole matter to ridicule. Elliot Roosevelt rose in his place at the end of the table and made a speech, saying how cordially he agreed with Marshall Stalin’s plan and how sure he was that the United States Army would support it. At this intrusion I got up and left the table, walking off into the next room, which was in semi-darkness. I had not been there a minute before hands were clapped upon my shoulders from behind, and there was Stalin, with Molotov at his side, both grinning broadly , and eagerly declaring that they were only playing, and nothing of a serious character had entered their heads. Stalin has a very captivating manner when he chooses to use it , and I never saw him do so to such an extent as at that moment. Although I was not then , and am not now, fully convinced that all was chaff and there was no serious intent lurking behind, I consented to return , and the rest of the evening passed pleasantly……


Here we had Stalin proposing the mass murder of fifty thousand German officers and technicians after the war, a purge of the type that he later used often own his own citizens in which millions were murdered in order to maintain his dictatorship and supreme power! I am firmly convinced that Stalin’s proposal was not a joke there at Teheran and was floated as a trial balloon to see how the Allies would react to his methods and to what extent they would allow his ambitions to grow and be used to destroy those that he viewed as Russia’s enemies! Only one man in that room stood resolutely on principle and moral standards of decency, that man was Winston Churchill, not FDR nor any other! Stalin upon seeing Churchill’s outrage saw fit to dismiss that ideal because he desperately needed two new fronts opened up on the Germans- the Normandy invasion and Operation “Overlord” were too important to risk and he quickly sought to win Churchill back or else lose his support for the early relief of Russian armies by having the Germans fight on more fronts thus reducing the number of German replacements troops available to aid German armies battling in Russia. This was critical to the Soviet’s victory ! For had not those German troops been engaged with allied forces elsewhere the broad advance of Russian troops would have encountered renewed , fresher better equipped and more concentrated German forces later. Such opposition Stalin hoped not to face with his forces spread so thinly in their planned broad offensives.. Better to sacrifice American and British lives than Russian ! Stalin as history has shown was quite willing to murder not just 50,000 enemy but millions , even if they be his own citizens! One man courageously stood up to him even at a time when it was absolutely critical that the three allies stay united to win the war! That man was Churchill and it was to save the lives of 50,000 German soldiers (enemy soldiers no less )!
Consider the courage and principal displayed in standing up against such evil even if it should cost the unity so desperately need to insure Allied victory!
Such was the integrity and greatness of Winston Churchill.-Tyr
^^^^ note, not part of my (2) presentation.

[aboutime]

Are those really your legs? ;)

That avatar reminded me of my colonoscopy preparation last week.

[taft2012]

Come on taft, the lady has a quick wit and a brilliant mind too! Stop being so damn lustful all the time.-:laugh2:
Turn your "wolf" off for a while and engage her in a serious way my friend. Sure , her legs are sexy and a distraction but my guess is that she likes to see who can get past that.
Redstate hates you avatar even more than I do!--:laugh:
By the way, ringo and granny joined. -Tyr

Ringo! There's a conservative's conservative! :clap:

I can get past those legs... if she'll give a chance. :laugh:

[SassyLady]

Ringo! There's a conservative's conservative! :clap:

I can get past those legs... if she'll give a chance. :laugh:

I changed my avatar just for you! I totally understand that some males cannot get past the visuals and it makes them goofy.

However, you will probably suffer the wrath of all the other males on this forum when they don't see my legs anymore!!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I changed my avatar just for you! I totally understand that some males cannot get past the visuals and it makes them goofy.

However, you will probably suffer the wrath of all the other males on this forum when they don't see my legs anymore!!!

Damn, there goes my thrill, but I do admire your brain and only admired your legs in an intellectual way.
Taft just got the ire of many males here unless you put the leg pic back....-Tyr

[taft2012]

Miss Sassy, I love you for much more than your legs. ;)

Legs are like flypaper. They lure men in and then they're stuck.

[Drummond]

I changed my avatar just for you! I totally understand that some males cannot get past the visuals and it makes them goofy.

However, you will probably suffer the wrath of all the other males on this forum when they don't see my legs anymore!!!

'Sassy', just posting to say that I like the Margaret Thatcher quote you've included in your signature !:thanks:

[Drummond]

Big D, just a little sample of Churchill's honor and its depth for you to consider.--Tyr

My comments sourced from my study of Churchill’s book, Closing the Ring..
A note on the honor of Churchill. Well before the Normandy invasion , while at the Conference in Teheran this incident occurred in which Churchill revealed the man of conviction that he was and continued to be all his life!

Churchill’s account of the incident:
Stalin was our host at dinner. The company was strictly limited-Stalin and Molotov, the President, Hopkins, Harrington, Clark Kerr, myself and Eden, and our interpreters. . After the labours of the Conference, there was good deal of gaiety, and many toasts were proposed. Presently Elliot Roosevelt, appeared at the door , was beckoned in and took his seat at the table. Stalin , as Hopkins recounts, indulged in a great deal of “teasing “ of me, which I did not at all resent until the Marshall entered in a genial matter upon a serious and even deadly aspect of the punishment to be inflicted upon the Germans. The German General Staff, he said, must be liquidated. The whole force of Hitler’s mighty armies depended upon about fifty thousand officers and technicians. If these were rounded up and shot at the end of the war, German military strength would be extirpated. On this I thought it right to say : “The British Parliament and public will never tolerate mass executions.. Even if war passions allowed them to begin, they would turn violently against those responsible after the butchery had taken place.. The Soviets must be under no delusion on this point.”
Stalin however, perhaps only in mischief, pursued the subject. .”Fifty thousand “ he said, “must be shot.” I was deeply angered.. “ I would rather, “ I said, “ be taken out into the garden here and now and be shot myself than sully my own and my country’s honour by such infamy.”
At this point the President intervened. He had a compromise to propose. Not fifty thousand should be shot, but only forty-nine thousand. By this he hoped, no doubt, to reduce the whole matter to ridicule. Elliot Roosevelt rose in his place at the end of the table and made a speech, saying how cordially he agreed with Marshall Stalin’s plan and how sure he was that the United States Army would support it. At this intrusion I got up and left the table, walking off into the next room, which was in semi-darkness. I had not been there a minute before hands were clapped upon my shoulders from behind, and there was Stalin, with Molotov at his side, both grinning broadly , and eagerly declaring that they were only playing, and nothing of a serious character had entered their heads. Stalin has a very captivating manner when he chooses to use it , and I never saw him do so to such an extent as at that moment. Although I was not then , and am not now, fully convinced that all was chaff and there was no serious intent lurking behind, I consented to return , and the rest of the evening passed pleasantly……


Here we had Stalin proposing the mass murder of fifty thousand German officers and technicians after the war, a purge of the type that he later used often own his own citizens in which millions were murdered in order to maintain his dictatorship and supreme power! I am firmly convinced that Stalin’s proposal was not a joke there at Teheran and was floated as a trial balloon to see how the Allies would react to his methods and to what extent they would allow his ambitions to grow and be used to destroy those that he viewed as Russia’s enemies! Only one man in that room stood resolutely on principle and moral standards of decency, that man was Winston Churchill, not FDR nor any other! Stalin upon seeing Churchill’s outrage saw fit to dismiss that ideal because he desperately needed two new fronts opened up on the Germans- the Normandy invasion and Operation “Overlord” were too important to risk and he quickly sought to win Churchill back or else lose his support for the early relief of Russian armies by having the Germans fight on more fronts thus reducing the number of German replacements troops available to aid German armies battling in Russia. This was critical to the Soviet’s victory ! For had not those German troops been engaged with allied forces elsewhere the broad advance of Russian troops would have encountered renewed , fresher better equipped and more concentrated German forces later. Such opposition Stalin hoped not to face with his forces spread so thinly in their planned broad offensives.. Better to sacrifice American and British lives than Russian ! Stalin as history has shown was quite willing to murder not just 50,000 enemy but millions , even if they be his own citizens! One man courageously stood up to him even at a time when it was absolutely critical that the three allies stay united to win the war! That man was Churchill and it was to save the lives of 50,000 German soldiers (enemy soldiers no less )!
Consider the courage and principal displayed in standing up against such evil even if it should cost the unity so desperately need to insure Allied victory!
Such was the integrity and greatness of Winston Churchill.-Tyr
^^^^ note, not part of my (2) presentation. :clap::clap::clap:

Excellent post, Tyr ! I can add nothing of any value in reply, other than to agree.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:clap::clap::clap:

Excellent post, Tyr ! I can add nothing of any value in reply, other than to agree.

I'd like to add to those claps of applause and give them to the memory of Winston Churchill my friend.
For its quite likely were he not the man that he surely was we would likely be speaking German and visiting gas chambers for permanent vacations ! So to the right honorable man gentleman.....

:clap::clap::clap: :beer: :clap::clap::clap: :beer:, and one beer for big C, one for big D, and :beer: for little 'ole me..;)--Tyr

[Drummond]

I'd like to add to those claps of applause and give them to the memory of Winston Churchill my friend.
For its quite likely were he not the man that he surely was we would likely be speaking German and visiting gas chambers for permanent vacations ! So to the right honorable man gentleman.....

:clap::clap::clap: :beer: :clap::clap::clap: :beer:, and one beer for big C, one for big D, and :beer: for little 'ole me..;)--Tyr

I wouldn't dream of quarreling with anything you've said here, Tyr. :beer:

Still, if it weren't for Margaret Thatcher, the UK would probably have suffered a Greece-style fiscal collapse (only several times worse) by the turn of this century, its citizens rendered incapable of buying the most basic necessities. We'd have become a Third World power for sure.

When our backs are to the wall, there's something in the British spirit that always rises to the challenge and wins through ... just when it must.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

My friend, this is strange for me to have to say but I must as always be honest. Your support of Thatcher's leadership abilities and my dogged support of Churchill's leadership and greatness led to my delving deeper into Thatcher's life and career in my study in preparing for our comparison of the two truly magnificent Brit leaders.
During my prep I was about halfway into my (2) presentation when I decided to concentrate more on Thatcher and I found quite a good deal . With your first presentation I learned a good deal as well. The combination of that knowledge and my research has led me to this conclusion , as surprising as it may be to me , I have to acknowledge Thatcher to be at least Winston Churchill's equal in leadership abilities. For me that was shocking indeed and but one must always be true to oneself. Now with my sincere acknowledgement of her abilities and at least co-equal leadership abilites existing with the two great leaders I feel it simply wrong for me to continue to try to prove my man's superiority! Should you be so gracious as to concede it to be at least a tie I'd be obliged to accept with great thanks, however should you feel to present your next presentation I will be happy indeed to read it and learn more from it. Consider if you will that I'm not sure how to handle this as it is a new task for me to face my previously wrong confidence in my knowledge of both leaders. The error was in my lack of knowledge of Thatcher combined with my extreme admiration of Winston Churchill. I freely admit defeat due to my previous ignorance and thank you for a great learning experience! I have greatly enjoyed such a friendly jousting match as that which you have so freely and generously given . I sincerely hope that we may do the same in our future discussions.-Tyr

[SassyLady]

'Sassy', just posting to say that I like the Margaret Thatcher quote you've included in your signature !:thanks:

Thank you! I've been using that quote for a couple of years ..... I also like quotes by Eisenhower.

[Drummond]

It is obvious that British conservatives are as brain deficient as their American counterparts.
Due primarily to the complete idiocy of Churchill's predecessor, Neville Chamberlain, Hitler's forces were allowed to conquer half of Europe without firing a shot. This greatly emboldened Hitler and led to his invading Poland. This display of milquetoast behavior secured Chamberlain's place as one of history's most ineffective leaders and placed his country in great danger.

I'm by no means a supporter of Chamberlain. Chamberlain's actions were a disgrace.

But I offer you this argument nonetheless ...

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/neville_chamberlain.htm


Two schools of thought exist as to why Chamberlain pursued appeasement.

One is that he honestly thought that he could address the grievances that he believed Germany rightly held after the Treaty of Versailles. Chamberlain believed that if was seen as being fair to German concerns, then he could achieve success and stop Europe from declining into war.

Another theory is that Chamberlain believed that appeasement was worth trying but that war was inevitable. He also realised that Britain was not well prepared for war and that he needed to buy time to improve Britain's military position. In particular, it is said that Chamberlain knew that our air defences were weak and that the more time he could gain, the stronger they would become.

It is possible that a combination of the two - a desire for peace matched with a desire to ensure Britain was able to defend itself - determined what Chamberlain attempted to do.

Take that for what it's worth. In all honesty, I'm not myself sure that Chamberlain's actions deserve that degree of defence. But just possibly they do.


Let's move on to the beginnings of World War II.
In June of 1940, the Germans drove a large Allied force back to the beaches of Dunkirk. Hitler's generals somehow failed to continue the advance, thus sparing close to 350,000 Allied troops.
With the Allies on the brink of defeat, Chamberlain was negotiating terms for conditional surrender with Hitler. When the Allies were allowed to escape from Dunkirk, Chamberlain cut off talks and yielded to Churchill.
Hitler could have easily invaded and conquered Britain in the 1940. Instead, he decided on an air war which he hoped would break the British spirit. Which, of course, it didn't.

And your point is ... ?

How many wars see ultimate victories where all their battles always have successful outcomes for the victors ? OK, yes, Dunkirk happened. But at that time, British forces hadn't been properly prepared for all-out war, and we were facing a fighting machine which had already added resources to itself from captured territories, and one which hadn't known defeat.

For how many years had Hitler been building up his Reich's fighting strength, before launching any military campaigns ?

Anyway, after Dunkirk, the British set about defending their own territory. Hitler launched his massive air offensive. So, tell me .. what was the kill-ratio of Spitfire crews against German planes ? We did magnificently, Gabby, in defending our islands .. under Churchill's inspirational leadership.

This may not sit well with British-critical biases you're entertaining, Gabby. But there it is, all the same.

[Gaffer]

Great thread. Informative and educational. I think even Reagan learned a thing or two from Thatcher. See Air Traffic Controllers strike.

As a couple she and Churchill would have produced some really ugly kids. Brilliant, but ugly.

[SassyLady]

have to acknowledge Thatcher to be at least Winston Churchill's equal in leadership abilities.

Some of us already knew this .... and we aren't even British!!

[Drummond]

My friend, this is strange for me to have to say but I must as always be honest. Your support of Thatcher's leadership abilities and my dogged support of Churchill's leadership and greatness led to my delving deeper into Thatcher's life and career in my study in preparing for our comparison of the two truly magnificent Brit leaders.
During my prep I was about halfway into my (2) presentation when I decided to concentrate more on Thatcher and I found quite a good deal . With your first presentation I learned a good deal as well. The combination of that knowledge and my research has led me to this conclusion , as surprising as it may be to me , I have to acknowledge Thatcher to be at least Winston Churchill's equal in leadership abilities. For me that was shocking indeed and but one must always be true to oneself. Now with my sincere acknowledgement of her abilities and at least co-equal leadership abilites existing with the two great leaders I feel it simply wrong for me to continue to try to prove my man's superiority! Should you be so gracious as to concede it to be at least a tie I'd be obliged to accept with great thanks, however should you feel to present your next presentation I will be happy indeed to read it and learn more from it. Consider if you will that I'm not sure how to handle this as it is a new task for me to face my previously wrong confidence in my knowledge of both leaders. The error was in my lack of knowledge of Thatcher combined with my extreme admiration of Winston Churchill. I freely admit defeat due to my previous ignorance and thank you for a great learning experience! I have greatly enjoyed such a friendly jousting match as that which you have so freely and generously given . I sincerely hope that we may do the same in our future discussions.-Tyr

Tyr, you're a scholar and a gentleman !! :clap::clap::clap::beer:

I believed from the start that, even if Mrs Thatcher was the better leader, the degree of that superiority was probably wafer-thin. No doubt Mrs Thatcher herself had inspiration to draw on from Churchill, in any case, to build the calibre of PM that she proved to be.

I also had the difficulty of knowing that she was never tested to the degree that a Leader is bound to be tested in a scenario such as a world war !! Nonetheless .. she had her trials, and she richly deserved the 'Iron Lady' accolade that I believe came from the RUSSIANS !

I'm content to call this a draw, Tyr. Fact is, that they were both magnificent Conservatives who knew how to triumph ... and in great style.

Many thanks for your gesture, Tyr ! :clap::happy0100::beer:

[Drummond]

Great thread. Informative and educational. I think even Reagan learned a thing or two from Thatcher. See Air Traffic Controllers strike.

As a couple she and Churchill would have produced some really ugly kids. Brilliant, but ugly.

Not so sure about those 'ugly' kids ... definitely brilliant ones, though.

And yes, I remember the reports we got over here about Reagan's intention to fire the strikers. I inwardly cheered at the time. It was just the approach their disgusting militancy deserved, and of course Mrs Thatcher shared his intolerance of the destructiveness of strikers' militancy.

[Toro]

Maggie is my hero, but I would have to say that Churchill is the greater leader.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IHadByMvXk

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Some of us already knew this .... and we aren't even British!!

My admiration and loyalty to Churchill blinded me to the truth of the matter. I've freely admitted previously here on another thread that I have never been in the state of perfection. Many thanks to you guys for educating me and also indulging me in my passion of seeking ever more knowledge!--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, you're a scholar and a gentleman !! :clap::clap::clap::beer:

I believed from the start that, even if Mrs Thatcher was the better leader, the degree of that superiority was probably wafer-thin. No doubt Mrs Thatcher herself had inspiration to draw on from Churchill, in any case, to build the calibre of PM that she proved to be.

I also had the difficulty of knowing that she was never tested to the degree that a Leader is bound to be tested in a scenario such as a world war !! Nonetheless .. she had her trials, and she richly deserved the 'Iron Lady' accolade that I believe came from the RUSSIANS !

I'm content to call this a draw, Tyr. Fact is, that they were both magnificent Conservatives who knew how to triumph ... and in great style.

Many thanks for your gesture, Tyr ! :clap::happy0100::beer:

The gift of knowledge that you shared was appreciated my friend. Now I wil have to reexamine my long held contention that Hannnibal was by far the greater general than was Napoleon .... such lessons have to be used ...
Care to take Napoleon my friend??? I favor Hannibal and dearly do not want to give up my admiration without a fight..-;)
If so, you accept, how about you start the thread and I answer after your first go?
As you surely have guessed by now I am a stubborn old dog!--:beer:--Tyr

[SassyLady]

Alexander the Great trumps both for all time greatest generals.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Alexander the Great trumps both for all time greatest generals.

Thanks, I AM A HUGE ADMIRER OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT!
However remember his father Philip of Macedonia built and trained his army before he took charge having subdued the Greek states with it. . Now granted Alexander was brilliant and a military mind excellent he had a well disciplined and trained army from the start. Can not take away conquering most of the known world though. There is that to consider yet after all those long years he did not conquer India having met serious opposition. Died an early death ,with rumors that he was poisoned as the army wanted to return home. I would have matched him up against Hannibl but love them both too much and couldnt chose which one to take! :laugh:
Good choice on your part...--:beer:---Tyr

[Gaffer]

The differences in periods, weapons and societies has to be taken into account when comparing war leaders. Some were charismatic leaders while others were strategists. There are so many variables in war. A plan that appears to be the work of genius may have been the result of pure luck.

Looking forward to this debate.

[SassyLady]

Thanks, I AM A HUGE ADMIRER OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT!
However remember his father Philip of Macedonia built and trained his army before he took charge having subdued the Greek states with it. . Now granted Alexander was brilliant and a military mind excellent he had a well disciplined and trained army from the start. Can not take away conquering most of the known world though. There is that to consider yet after all those long years he did not conquer India having met serious opposition. Died an early death ,with rumors that he was poisoned as the army wanted to return home. I would have matched him up against Hannibl but love them both too much and couldnt chose which one to take! :laugh:
Good choice on your part...--:beer:---Tyr

I believe Alexander became a commander when he was 16. I think one of his greatest achievements was the founding of all those cities and centers of trade. He change the culture of the regions he conquered.

I believe Napoleon was brutal, but I'll bet Alexander executed more potential enemies and thus, the most brutal of the great generals. Can't prove it, just a thought.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The differences in periods, weapons and societies has to be taken into account when comparing war leaders. Some were charismatic leaders while others were strategists. There are so many variables in war. A plan that appears to be the work of genius may have been the result of pure luck.

Looking forward to this debate.

Hannibal's tactics came from his thinking and have been studied by military people ever since he first birthed them.
He invaded Rome , by so doing took the fight to the enemy's home soil. Early on he could have enter Rome and sacked the city after having defeating the massive Roman army sent out to stop him. History does not explain why when so close to the gates of the city of Rome , Hannibal did not enter to sack the city , instead choosing to turn away to go winter in the PO valley. This type incident was repeated in my opinion when early in the war Lee defeated the Union troops facing him and was close to Washington D.C. yet did not enter/ sack the city! Instead he too turned away! Of course Lee had a good reason ,being his West Point training , previous loyalty to the Union and the heart racking burden of have to fight/kill fellow citizens! . WHILE HANNIBAL HAD ONLY HATRED FOR THE ROMANS AND WAS NOT FIGHTING HIS OWN COUNTRYMEN. Two similiar early war mistakes and history proves each to have been major and almost certainly a golden chance for victory early on. Both mistakes led ultimately to defeat! I can understand Lee's reasoning as he wanted the North to sue for peace and accept the South's terms but Hannibal wanted the Roman empire destroyed , so his decision is all the more baffling to myself and historians as well. -Tyr

[Drummond]

The gift of knowledge that you shared was appreciated my friend. Now I wil have to reexamine my long held contention that Hannnibal was by far the greater general than was Napoleon .... such lessons have to be used ...
Care to take Napoleon my friend??? I favor Hannibal and dearly do not want to give up my admiration without a fight..-;)
If so, you accept, how about you start the thread and I answer after your first go?
As you surely have guessed by now I am a stubborn old dog!--:beer:--Tyr

Interesting !! I'll have to give this some thought ... not to mention, if I take this on, do quite a bit of research. Tyr, I'll let you know soon.

In the meantime ... you might find this worth watching. I'm reasonably certain this is a BBC production, so hardly surprisingly, it gets some Leftie spin included. Nonetheless, Margaret - through sheer force of character - acquits herself well .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG8CkvAlOTs

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Interesting !! I'll have to give this some thought ... not to mention, if I take this on, do quite a bit of research. Tyr, I'll let you know soon.

In the meantime ... you might find this worth watching. I'm reasonably certain this is a BBC production, so hardly surprisingly, it gets some Leftie spin included. Nonetheless, Margaret - through sheer force of character - acquits herself well .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG8CkvAlOTs

Thanks for your consideration on possibly accepting the friendly comparison of those two great generals my friend.
Sorry, can not watch the video because when I tried do so I get no audio only video. Must be either in that link or else in my comp.. Let me know if the link is good then I'll know that it is my comp, which likely it is as I've had this problem before ! My brother came and worked on my comp , fixed it before. Sent you a pm discussing this offer and making a few other suggestions.

[SassyLady]

Thanks for your consideration on possibly accepting the friendly comparison of those two great generals my friend.
Sorry, can not watch the video because when I tried do so I get no audio only video. Must be either in that link or else in my comp.. Let me know if the link is good then I'll know that it is my comp, which likely it is as I've had this problem before ! My brother came and worked on my comp , fixed it before. Sent you a pm discussing this offer and making a few other suggestions.

I got both video and audio so it might be your comp. Thatcher's voice brings back memories.

[Drummond]

Thanks for your consideration on possibly accepting the friendly comparison of those two great generals my friend.
Sorry, can not watch the video because when I tried do so I get no audio only video. Must be either in that link or else in my comp.. Let me know if the link is good then I'll know that it is my comp, which likely it is as I've had this problem before ! My brother came and worked on my comp , fixed it before. Sent you a pm discussing this offer and making a few other suggestions.

Just took around 25 mins out to check the link. It does get 'glitchy' if you've got too much else running on your computer at the same time, I found. But it does play properly otherwise, Tyr (with me it was the video freezing and the audio continuing on).

I'll look at your latest PM, then sign off for the night .. after 1AM here ..

[Drummond]

Just took around 25 mins out to check the link. It does get 'glitchy' if you've got too much else running on your computer at the same time, I found. But it does play properly otherwise, Tyr (with me it was the video freezing and the audio continuing on).

I'll look at your latest PM, then sign off for the night .. after 1AM here ..

Further note, Tyr .. the 'latest PM' was the one I've already responded to.

Signing off - back tomorrow. Looking forward to the new posts I'll doubtless see on my return.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I believe Alexander became a commander when he was 16. I think one of his greatest achievements was the founding of all those cities and centers of trade. He change the culture of the regions he conquered.

I believe Napoleon was brutal, but I'll bet Alexander executed more potential enemies and thus, the most brutal of the great generals. Can't prove it, just a thought.

Good perhaps you would care to take Alexander the Great and I'll take Temujin, aka The Dragon better known as Gengis Ghan.. Compare them as generals, as leaders and which executed more enemies. -Tyr