100 WORST Britons - according to the Daily Mail
Join Date: May 2000
Location: door or ramp, don't mind.
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that purveyor of hard hitting, thought provoking, quality print-journalism Piers "I've got beady eyes and crinkly hair" Morgan on the list?
Or did they just put "Piers Morgan, sensationalist trouble maker and tit merchant"?
Or better still, "Piers Morgan, sensationalist band-wagoneer and tit"
Or did they just put "Piers Morgan, sensationalist trouble maker and tit merchant"?
Or better still, "Piers Morgan, sensationalist band-wagoneer and tit"
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want to start a massive WW2 tactics thread so im not going to reply WE Branch Fanatic to your post on that.
Suffice to say that many people think that just because Churchill was the sitting PM during WW2 then that automatically mean's that he was a hero. And tend not to want to know the details of WW2 itself and Churchill's part in it.
Churchill was certainly charismatic and had an almost unnatural way with words unlike myself as many ppl have pointed out
Some people say that we WON WW2. I'd more acturatly state that we were on the winning side Certainly the fall of France was not his fault (i think he became PM on the very day the Germans invaded) yet the subsequent stratigic decisions that he directed and were implemented by his general staff where almost all distarious undertaking's.
That we would all be wearing swastica's now if not for his "leadership" is suspect. Germany could never of invade the UK due to our naval strength even if our airforce had of been destroyed in the BoB. If America hadn't of been attacked by Japan we would of certainly been forced to sue for peace in early 1942. Our Bank of England was broke. And we lacked suficent ships to force the u-boat blockade withoutneutral countries shipping construction. The Alliance between Japan and Germany was certainly fragil. They were on the other side of the planet from each other, they could not come to each other's aid. And it is just pure luck that Germany declared war on America nothing more.
DUNKIRK WAS NOT A VICTORY. Just because we rescued 250,000 men does not make it a good thing. Most of these men were subsequently captured in north africa or at Singapour. Where these victories? People always state things like Dunkirk and 2nd El Alamine as being great victories THEY WERE NOT given surrounding events in the world.
Ask a German about WW2 and they will imeditaly talk about the great battles on the eastern front against the Russians. The North African and other western battles our barely remembered today. We simply had little effect on the german military machine. And who's order's were we under at that time?
All of Churchill's bluster and "fighting spirit" led to nothing but body bag's in defeat after defeat. Like I said perhaps ppl should read a few biograph's or general histories about Churchill before you decide to equalate him with some sort of great war hero.
Suffice to say that many people think that just because Churchill was the sitting PM during WW2 then that automatically mean's that he was a hero. And tend not to want to know the details of WW2 itself and Churchill's part in it.
Churchill was certainly charismatic and had an almost unnatural way with words unlike myself as many ppl have pointed out
Some people say that we WON WW2. I'd more acturatly state that we were on the winning side
Certainly the fall of France was not his fault (i think he became PM on the very day the Germans invaded) yet the subsequent stratigic decisions that he directed and were implemented by his general staff where almost all distarious undertaking's.That we would all be wearing swastica's now if not for his "leadership" is suspect. Germany could never of invade the UK due to our naval strength even if our airforce had of been destroyed in the BoB. If America hadn't of been attacked by Japan we would of certainly been forced to sue for peace in early 1942. Our Bank of England was broke. And we lacked suficent ships to force the u-boat blockade withoutneutral countries shipping construction. The Alliance between Japan and Germany was certainly fragil. They were on the other side of the planet from each other, they could not come to each other's aid. And it is just pure luck that Germany declared war on America nothing more.
DUNKIRK WAS NOT A VICTORY. Just because we rescued 250,000 men does not make it a good thing. Most of these men were subsequently captured in north africa or at Singapour. Where these victories? People always state things like Dunkirk and 2nd El Alamine as being great victories THEY WERE NOT given surrounding events in the world.
Ask a German about WW2 and they will imeditaly talk about the great battles on the eastern front against the Russians. The North African and other western battles our barely remembered today. We simply had little effect on the german military machine. And who's order's were we under at that time?
All of Churchill's bluster and "fighting spirit" led to nothing but body bag's in defeat after defeat. Like I said perhaps ppl should read a few biograph's or general histories about Churchill before you decide to equalate him with some sort of great war hero.
A Civilian
If, as you say, you leave in spelling mistakes to annoy people, let me congratulate you on your success. Unfortunately a large number of your errors are grammatical, making your text painful to read, and diluting your point. Still if you want to sabotage your own efforts....
If, as you say, you leave in spelling mistakes to annoy people, let me congratulate you on your success. Unfortunately a large number of your errors are grammatical, making your text painful to read, and diluting your point. Still if you want to sabotage your own efforts....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Being a great leader does not necessarily mean being a great general. I would like to make a comparison in the case of Churchill with George Washington, in view of his lineage I hope the Americans among us will not be offended.
Washington - Statesman:
As the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army the services and achievements of George Washington are unique in the world's history. He was much more than the Commander in Chief. He was the one necessary person, whose calm, unswerving, determined sense of patriotic duty to country, and ability put real backbone into the Revolution and kept it from collapsing or merging into a civil conflict, under the hardships and unexpected privations encountered during the eight years of war. Without General Washington at its head it could never have succeeded. His faith in the cause and his devotion to the ideals it embodied made him the symbol of America -- the spirit of the Revolution.
Washington - General:
While Washington was in overall command of the entire American war effort, simple logistics and the limitations of that era prevented him from personally managing the course of events in all the colonies. Consequently, he was in direct command of American troops in only a few battles of the Revolutionary War. He lost most of them. In fact, among the consequences of Washington being driven from the battlefield were the losses of America's most populous city (New York) and her capital (Philadelphia). Then and now, critics point to these sobering facts as a reminder of Washington's failures as a military commander. They go further, arguing that even his successes were relatively small-scale affairs (Trenton and Princeton) and resulted from the overconfidence or incompetence of his enemies as opposed to any brilliance on his own part. And they point to Yorktown, the crowning achievement of the American Revolution, as the best evidence that America could not have won the war without French assistance.
----------------------------------------
So I would rate both Churchill and Washington as being great leaders, but lousy generals. The two not being mutually exclusive
Washington - Statesman:
As the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army the services and achievements of George Washington are unique in the world's history. He was much more than the Commander in Chief. He was the one necessary person, whose calm, unswerving, determined sense of patriotic duty to country, and ability put real backbone into the Revolution and kept it from collapsing or merging into a civil conflict, under the hardships and unexpected privations encountered during the eight years of war. Without General Washington at its head it could never have succeeded. His faith in the cause and his devotion to the ideals it embodied made him the symbol of America -- the spirit of the Revolution.
Washington - General:
While Washington was in overall command of the entire American war effort, simple logistics and the limitations of that era prevented him from personally managing the course of events in all the colonies. Consequently, he was in direct command of American troops in only a few battles of the Revolutionary War. He lost most of them. In fact, among the consequences of Washington being driven from the battlefield were the losses of America's most populous city (New York) and her capital (Philadelphia). Then and now, critics point to these sobering facts as a reminder of Washington's failures as a military commander. They go further, arguing that even his successes were relatively small-scale affairs (Trenton and Princeton) and resulted from the overconfidence or incompetence of his enemies as opposed to any brilliance on his own part. And they point to Yorktown, the crowning achievement of the American Revolution, as the best evidence that America could not have won the war without French assistance.
----------------------------------------
So I would rate both Churchill and Washington as being great leaders, but lousy generals. The two not being mutually exclusive
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My posts have bad grammer and spelling because a) im in a rush to write them. B) because I don't have a spell checker on my PC and it takes to long to use internet ones. And c) because i have Dyslexia.
Some people belive that a post is worth reading only if it is has perfect spelling and grammer. Other's belive that a post is worth reading if it transfer's the author's intended opinion. The former people generally don't go very far in life.
Some people belive that a post is worth reading only if it is has perfect spelling and grammer. Other's belive that a post is worth reading if it transfer's the author's intended opinion. The former people generally don't go very far in life.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Irvine, California, USA
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Civilian,
I hope you are merely trying to provoke a response by your posts. However, it is good to see that with the benefit of decades of hindsight you are able to see the mistakes that Churchill made. Unfortunately for poor old Winnie, he had to react in real time. Anybody can be wise after the event and those that refuse to display any humility whatsoever when berating others' genuine efforts are beneath contempt.
You sound to me like a frustrated pseudo-intellectual who, having found an audience, is desparate to blurt out their ill considered tripe. ( The raving nutter to be found in every town centre springs to mind.)
Reference your last post:
a. Don't be in such a rush to write. Attempt to gather your thoughts into a coherent argument and write them down in slow time.
b. No comment.
c. You cant be dyslexic because if you were you wouldn't have spelt dyslexia correctly!
Now be a good chap and P*SS OFF.
Fay
I hope you are merely trying to provoke a response by your posts. However, it is good to see that with the benefit of decades of hindsight you are able to see the mistakes that Churchill made. Unfortunately for poor old Winnie, he had to react in real time. Anybody can be wise after the event and those that refuse to display any humility whatsoever when berating others' genuine efforts are beneath contempt.
You sound to me like a frustrated pseudo-intellectual who, having found an audience, is desparate to blurt out their ill considered tripe. ( The raving nutter to be found in every town centre springs to mind.)
Reference your last post:
a. Don't be in such a rush to write. Attempt to gather your thoughts into a coherent argument and write them down in slow time.
b. No comment.
c. You cant be dyslexic because if you were you wouldn't have spelt dyslexia correctly!
Now be a good chap and P*SS OFF.
Fay
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Civilian is entitled to his opinion, even though he expresses himself badly, and dyslexia is not to be laughed at.
However, 338,226 souls were taken off at Dunkirk, not 250,00, and while not a victory in the truest sense it was a victory over adversity.
ORAC, as usual, expresses himself well and sums up the issue very well too. A point that A Civilian seems reluctant to concede or just will not recognise.
In all battles, in all wars, in all of history you have to have ONE single element above all others. Not Generals, not Commanders but LEADERS. Churchill was a great leader and that sums up his part in winning the war. Leaders tell the commanders what they want, if they can't produce it they get fired. It happened to many such commanders at the hands of Churchill.
However, 338,226 souls were taken off at Dunkirk, not 250,00, and while not a victory in the truest sense it was a victory over adversity.
ORAC, as usual, expresses himself well and sums up the issue very well too. A point that A Civilian seems reluctant to concede or just will not recognise.
In all battles, in all wars, in all of history you have to have ONE single element above all others. Not Generals, not Commanders but LEADERS. Churchill was a great leader and that sums up his part in winning the war. Leaders tell the commanders what they want, if they can't produce it they get fired. It happened to many such commanders at the hands of Churchill.
Last edited by InFinRetirement; 29th Aug 2002 at 21:37.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Churchill was undoubtedly a flawed man. For example, had Dowding not stood his ground against Churchill, there wouldn't have been a Battle of Britain, because we wouldn't have had any fighters left. Dowding's reward? The chop.
What goes around comes around, however, and Churchill himself was chopped by the British electorate after the War.
Above all, he successfully led Britain through the War and inspired courage in a nation sometimes teetering on the edge of defeat.
He was no saint and those who treat him as such are missing the point. He was a man who thrived on controversy and would have enjoyed the cut and thrust of this thread.
I don't think anyone in this thread has spoken out of turn, except the school bully element, of whom Churchill would most definitely have disapproved.
What goes around comes around, however, and Churchill himself was chopped by the British electorate after the War.
Above all, he successfully led Britain through the War and inspired courage in a nation sometimes teetering on the edge of defeat.
He was no saint and those who treat him as such are missing the point. He was a man who thrived on controversy and would have enjoyed the cut and thrust of this thread.
I don't think anyone in this thread has spoken out of turn, except the school bully element, of whom Churchill would most definitely have disapproved.
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Civilian
While it is fair enough to knock Churchill on a number of areas
where he took direct control of British military policy,
- the commitment of POW & Repulse to Singapore without
a carrier escort,
- the involvement in Greece which turned a won position
in North Africa against the Italians into another two years
of hard fighting,
On the other hand the Norway campaign could be viewed as
a pyrric victory for the Germans...their navy lost 50% of its
destroyer strength and two major surface combatants - which
made Sealion improbable. While the Allies gained the Norwegian
shipping fleet which made a significant difference to the
Battle of the Atlantic.
As for Churchill pressing attacks in the desert, a lot of that
has to be due to him reading Ultra reports with Rommel saying
the Africa Korps had only ten running tanks, while his theatre
generals are telling him the Germans have hundreds of AFV's
so they can't attack...you can see his point of view!
If you compare him with Stalin / Hitler, both made a far worse
hash of leading their country in wartime.
I'll go with Scud-u-Like the right leader for the time but
not a military genius,
-- Andrew
While it is fair enough to knock Churchill on a number of areas
where he took direct control of British military policy,
- the commitment of POW & Repulse to Singapore without
a carrier escort,
- the involvement in Greece which turned a won position
in North Africa against the Italians into another two years
of hard fighting,
On the other hand the Norway campaign could be viewed as
a pyrric victory for the Germans...their navy lost 50% of its
destroyer strength and two major surface combatants - which
made Sealion improbable. While the Allies gained the Norwegian
shipping fleet which made a significant difference to the
Battle of the Atlantic.
As for Churchill pressing attacks in the desert, a lot of that
has to be due to him reading Ultra reports with Rommel saying
the Africa Korps had only ten running tanks, while his theatre
generals are telling him the Germans have hundreds of AFV's
so they can't attack...you can see his point of view!
If you compare him with Stalin / Hitler, both made a far worse
hash of leading their country in wartime.
I'll go with Scud-u-Like the right leader for the time but
not a military genius,
-- Andrew
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Civilian, some of the things you say about Churchill are undoubtably true, but at the time of his assuming the premiership was there a better candidate ?
The foreign secretary, Halifax, was favoured but he was a defeatist and an appeaser who actively conspired to make peace with Hitler. If he had achieved his aims you can bet your bottom dollar that it would have been on Hitler's terms.
Even after Churchill's "we shall never surrender" speech, Halifax, aided by others in the FO, was indicating to the Germans that peace proposals would be made.
The world would be a very different place if Churchill had not taken the reins of power because, as In Fin put it, he provided leadership when it was so desperately needed.
The foreign secretary, Halifax, was favoured but he was a defeatist and an appeaser who actively conspired to make peace with Hitler. If he had achieved his aims you can bet your bottom dollar that it would have been on Hitler's terms.
Even after Churchill's "we shall never surrender" speech, Halifax, aided by others in the FO, was indicating to the Germans that peace proposals would be made.
The world would be a very different place if Churchill had not taken the reins of power because, as In Fin put it, he provided leadership when it was so desperately needed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scud! You are dead right about Dowding and Churchill, and it is slightly miffing that Churchill took the credit. But nonethless his leadership took it through.
The rest of your post! Exactly on the money.
The rest of your post! Exactly on the money.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fay Deck
Wow. You almost caught me out with your subtle wordplay. Perhaps you should go join the police. Your ability to outthink people would certainly be respected.
Im not merely trying to provoke a response by my posts. Yes anyone can be wise after the event, but this is not the point im making. The point was does "Churchill deserve to be on the list of the top 100 Brition's" to do that you have to judge Churchill on his record and not on a stupid school boy notion of his greatness simply due to his "win" in WW2. IMHO it's common for British people to self-decive themselves regarding W.C. His mistakes were legion, was renowned for giving stand and die order's and often complained that sometimes "we did not suffered enough casualties" during battles. These same attributes are often quoted as being amongst the given reason's for Hitler's madness.
That he was determined to beat Hitler is one of his strongest positive points but he completely failed to do so in this regard. Because of this, and because of his prior record in government I certainly don't regard Churchill as being in the best one hundred.
That he was perhaps the right leader from 1940-41 during our time of retret, maybe. Was he the right leader afterwards I do not think so.
Wow. You almost caught me out with your subtle wordplay. Perhaps you should go join the police. Your ability to outthink people would certainly be respected.
Im not merely trying to provoke a response by my posts. Yes anyone can be wise after the event, but this is not the point im making. The point was does "Churchill deserve to be on the list of the top 100 Brition's" to do that you have to judge Churchill on his record and not on a stupid school boy notion of his greatness simply due to his "win" in WW2. IMHO it's common for British people to self-decive themselves regarding W.C. His mistakes were legion, was renowned for giving stand and die order's and often complained that sometimes "we did not suffered enough casualties" during battles. These same attributes are often quoted as being amongst the given reason's for Hitler's madness.
That he was determined to beat Hitler is one of his strongest positive points but he completely failed to do so in this regard. Because of this, and because of his prior record in government I certainly don't regard Churchill as being in the best one hundred.
That he was perhaps the right leader from 1940-41 during our time of retret, maybe. Was he the right leader afterwards I do not think so.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: whereeverimat.
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about adding two fine young British artists to the pantheon
of the worst 100:
Tracey Emin- Purveyor of 'pish' stained bed sheets.
Damien Hirst-Beef & wet fish dispoiler.
P.S. Almost forgot !,i would like to have seen Leonard Cheshire
and Gareth Edwards listed amongst the top 100 Britons.
of the worst 100:
Tracey Emin- Purveyor of 'pish' stained bed sheets.
Damien Hirst-Beef & wet fish dispoiler.
P.S. Almost forgot !,i would like to have seen Leonard Cheshire
and Gareth Edwards listed amongst the top 100 Britons.
Last edited by Aerodyne.; 30th Aug 2002 at 12:44.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerodyne.
Leonard Cheshire WAS among the top 100 Britons.
Don't think Gareth was though.
A Civilian
His mistakes were legion! Where did you dig that up from? Certainly Hitler gave those orders that every man must die and NOT retreat vis a vie Stalingrad, Bastogne, Normandy, Caen and many other theatres of war - but where and when did Churchill do the same?
Now don't start stretching the imagination. Remember your Dunkirk figures, which were hugely wrong.
Leonard Cheshire WAS among the top 100 Britons.
Don't think Gareth was though.
A Civilian
His mistakes were legion, was renowned for giving stand and die order's and often complained that sometimes "we did not suffered enough casualties" during battles.
Now don't start stretching the imagination. Remember your Dunkirk figures, which were hugely wrong.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>>>Remember your Dunkirk figures, which were hugely wrong.
Technically around 100,000 of those 350,000ish were French & some Belgians who were then re-landed back into France before the French surrender and subsequently became POW's
"we did not suffered enough casualties" is a direct quote from Churchill about a battle during the north african war. It was repeated by Alan Brook WC's Chief of staff if I remember correctly (i cant remeber excatly). This is a different quote from Alan Brooks diaries
"Churchill] has only got half the picture in his mind, talks absurdities and makes my blood boil to listen to his nonsense. I find it hard to remain civil. And the wonderful thing is that 3/4 of the population of this world imagine that Winston Churchill is one of the Strategists of History, a second Marlborough, and the other 1/4 have no conception what a public menace he is and has been throughout the war! It is far better that the world should never know and never suspect the feet of clay on that otherwise superhuman being. Without him England was lost for a certainty, with him England has been on the verge of disaster time and again ... Never have I admired and despised a man simultaneously to the same extent."
Churchill like Stalin and Hitler did not like to give an inch of ground. During 1st Torbuk it was under his advice that it would be turned into a fortress. At 2nd Torbuk even though it had been decided mot to repeat the fortress idea he changed his mind just before the germans attacked and resulted in substantional losses in men and equipment. Not only in Torbuk but in the supporting forces that had to keep the lines of communications open. Churchill was not a beliver in tactical retreat when the situation demanded it. The african army was often forced to fight battles that would of better been fought at different locations.
Technically around 100,000 of those 350,000ish were French & some Belgians who were then re-landed back into France before the French surrender and subsequently became POW's
"we did not suffered enough casualties" is a direct quote from Churchill about a battle during the north african war. It was repeated by Alan Brook WC's Chief of staff if I remember correctly (i cant remeber excatly). This is a different quote from Alan Brooks diaries
"Churchill] has only got half the picture in his mind, talks absurdities and makes my blood boil to listen to his nonsense. I find it hard to remain civil. And the wonderful thing is that 3/4 of the population of this world imagine that Winston Churchill is one of the Strategists of History, a second Marlborough, and the other 1/4 have no conception what a public menace he is and has been throughout the war! It is far better that the world should never know and never suspect the feet of clay on that otherwise superhuman being. Without him England was lost for a certainty, with him England has been on the verge of disaster time and again ... Never have I admired and despised a man simultaneously to the same extent."
Churchill like Stalin and Hitler did not like to give an inch of ground. During 1st Torbuk it was under his advice that it would be turned into a fortress. At 2nd Torbuk even though it had been decided mot to repeat the fortress idea he changed his mind just before the germans attacked and resulted in substantional losses in men and equipment. Not only in Torbuk but in the supporting forces that had to keep the lines of communications open. Churchill was not a beliver in tactical retreat when the situation demanded it. The african army was often forced to fight battles that would of better been fought at different locations.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100 Best and 100 Worst
One quote that I heard recently regarding Churchill was that, regarding appeasement amongst the countries of Europe when trying to come to terms with Hitler, he said "Each one feeds the crocodile, hoping that the crocodile will eat him last" There is no doubt that, without his leadership we, as a nation, would have been "eaten" eventually.
Turning to others who could have been on the list, among the 100 worst people in Britain I would place Doctor Beeching, who electrocuted the railways instead of electrifying them. Thanks to short sightednness by him,and successive Govts, the West Coast Main Line will be closed for months with very few alternative routes left, as he had them all dismantled.
Among the 100 best I would place Isambard Kingdom Brunel, George Jackson Churchward (Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Great Western Railway from 1902 until the 1920s) and the late Dai Woodham of Barry Scrapyard, South Wales, who never got round to cutting up 213 steam locomotives, thereby allowing idiots like me to buy one for restoration.
Oh yes, that chap Mitchell, who designed something called the Spitfire....:
Turning to others who could have been on the list, among the 100 worst people in Britain I would place Doctor Beeching, who electrocuted the railways instead of electrifying them. Thanks to short sightednness by him,and successive Govts, the West Coast Main Line will be closed for months with very few alternative routes left, as he had them all dismantled.
Among the 100 best I would place Isambard Kingdom Brunel, George Jackson Churchward (Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Great Western Railway from 1902 until the 1920s) and the late Dai Woodham of Barry Scrapyard, South Wales, who never got round to cutting up 213 steam locomotives, thereby allowing idiots like me to buy one for restoration.
Oh yes, that chap Mitchell, who designed something called the Spitfire....:
Last edited by Toddington Ted; 30th Aug 2002 at 20:12.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TT. Brunel IS on the 100 best Britons list. Mitchell and your others are not. Bader is though - him of Spitfire fame - it says.
Here is a list of them as published by the Daily Mail and taken from Google.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...E13780,00.html
Here is a list of them as published by the Daily Mail and taken from Google.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...E13780,00.html
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
george washington
what a lot of people dont know about washington is that he was an officer in the british army. he was the commander when the british army suffered its only defeat at the hands of native americans. on the subject of churchill, yes he was flawed(apart from aircrew arent we all?) but as they say"come the hour cometh the man". i was annoyed that bill slim and tom finney werent on the hundred greatest britons list.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly a nutter - he liked Dundee
Churchill was MP for Dundee (1908-1922)
Served with the Grenadiers until the new year (1916) when he was appointed Colonel of the Sixth Batallion Royal Scots Fusiliers serving in the line in Flanders
More Scotish PMs
(Blair - born and educated in Scotland
Campbell-Bannerman, Douglas Home, eh that's it....)
Churchill was MP for Dundee (1908-1922)
Served with the Grenadiers until the new year (1916) when he was appointed Colonel of the Sixth Batallion Royal Scots Fusiliers serving in the line in Flanders
More Scotish PMs
(Blair - born and educated in Scotland
Campbell-Bannerman, Douglas Home, eh that's it....)
