Who is the most influential person to have walked this earth??

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

And not only would I be speaking german, but so would you Seamer (OK maybe japanese). Do you think Hitler would have stopped at Britain ? Your niaviety has sunk to new depths. Churhills "desire" for war indeed. More like churchills desire not be another France, Poland, Holland, Czechaslovakia etc. Perhaps he didnt care for Nazi death squads running around our green and pleasant lands !

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

And not only would I be speaking german, but so would you Seamer (OK maybe japanese). Do you think Hitler would have stopped at Britain ? Your niaviety has sunk to new depths. !

Not so RBLC. I am talking from a cold clinical hisorians point of view. In any case, i am not saying Churchill was wrong to defeat Hitlerism, to the contrary actually. I am just stating the net result of his actions which are pretty much fact, thus the original thread topic. WWII tore the heart out of Europe and they pretty much ended up losing all their overseas possesions not long after and thus their Empires. The USA and USSR became the sole superpowers and major beneficiaries of WWII which led to the cold war. Just outlining the facts.
England could have let Germany and Russia bleed each other white, while concentrating on Japan in the pacific and basically fighting a one front war. Remember, England declared war on Germany, not vice versa, England rejected peace overtures at the conclusion of the battle of france in 1940.
Once again i am glad that Churchill and Roosvelt defeated Hitler and in no way criticising his actions. It was Churchills desire to defeat Hitler when others may have accepted peace, that led to Hitler's downfall. I am not niave in this particular subject, in fact i have been studying this subject intensivelyfor the last decade. The question was asked in this thread and i gave my answer in a cold hard historians point of view.
No offence should be taken by anyone as it is unwarrented

[Milo]

Many historians and politicians have remarked that the end of the British Empire was at the forefront of US policy at the outbreak of WWII. Regardless of Churchill and Hitler's role in the war, the British Empire was destined to end by mid-century.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Seamer

How different things would have been had England and Germany had not fought each other in WWII.

Easily overstated. Stalin, the Russian winter and the Americans were the key to the defeat of Hitler and co... and whilst occupation ended up having terrible consequences for many in (for example) France... Churchill-led resistance to occupation arguably led to far greater suffering.

Churchill was basically a complete **** as a politician... and what's easily overlooked is his part in the path to war: he was an incorrigible scaremonger... on a par with nuts like Bill Cash and Ian Paisley today... and scuppered the best efforts at peace as well as the DUP have scuppered the Good Friday Agreement.

No surprise the guy was booted out at the earliest opportunity: he made Hague and IDS look eminently electable. His real strength was as an orator / spin doctor: the complexities and compromises involved in running the peace time were way beyond him.

Originally Posted by Milo

Regardless of Churchill and Hitler's role in the war, the British Empire was destined to end by mid-century.

It's probably fair to say that the great drive for a political voice that emerged in "nationalist" movements straight after the war owed a lot to the experiences of those Indians and sub-saharan Africans who fought in the war.. but in essence I'd agree that the age of empire was going to end whatever: Hitler couln't have sustained a west European one any more than the Soviets were able to sustain an east European one... and those in Africa and Asia were already doomed.

[Milo]

Do you actually know the first thing about modern day Northern Ireland Rachael, or did you just pick this up from listening to Radio Four when the cricket isn't on?

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

I agree with rachael there, stalin and russia as a whole did far more to stop hitler than we did and arguably the americans too. However, it could be said that hitler did a decent job of stopping old joe stalins thoghts on european domination as well.

As for NI, well I've totally lost track about whats going on yet still feel marginally uncomfortable/angry to see martin mcguiness as (i think) NI minster for education (well he was at some point) despite being a terrorist. Or should that be freedom fighter, or should that be politician, or should it be common criminal ? Go figure.

[Milo]

I did not disagree with Rachael's assessment of Stalin's impact on Hitler but I really do not know where she gets some of her soundbite opinions from. The unelectable Churchill? Is this the same guy that won the election in 1951? I'm sure the last two Conservative leaders she mentions would love to be as 'electable' as this.

There seems to be a lot of Religion and politics on this site recently. Roll on the Ashes. Please.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Actually I find the politcs and religion thing a bit of a sanctuary against tones of ex-aussie gob ****es and ludicrasly optimistic english press. But I agree, roll on the ashes so we can at least talk about whats happening rather than what likely/not likelt to happen !

BTW, Churchill may have won in 1951 but was hammered in the election immediatly after WW2, something I found rather surprising. And you try telling old people that when they start comparing churchil with blair etc etc -they dont like it !

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

As for NI, well I [...] still feel marginally uncomfortable/angry to see martin mcguiness as (i think) NI minster for education

Surely feeling "marginally uncomfortable/angry" is a pre-requisite for polical engagement: strikes me that the biggest problem with this country is that we don't have enough that unsettles people in that manner.

The one thing I find redeeming about NI politics is the way it revolves so much around finding a "usable past": there's no hiding from awkward bits, or skimping over raw bits.. and no one shies away from the difficulties of pardoning anything gone.. or from the difficulty of making that sort of gift. The fight for the Good Friday Agreement was, is, and remains not a battle over "guns".. but over the way the story is going to be told.. and specificaly whether it involves the defeat and ritual humiliation of Irish republicanism.

What saddens me is that the sophistication of the historical consciousness doesn't appear to spill over into political discourse.. which many have noted is sustained at a level that would never be tolerated even in Westminster (hardly a high benchmark)... or into ethics, where real world challenges (living with inadequate justice, etc) are routinely evaded by "leaders" who would rather flee into some utopian dream where compromise isn't necessary.

Now.. if we could just get the engagement with politics from Northern Ireland without the crudity of the political discourse from said province... even this country's Elections might get interesting :-)

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Had [Churchill] made peace with Germany in 1940, England would have kept their empire, Germany would have kept theirs ... Once again, how different things would have been had England and Germany had not fought each other in WWII.

Hmm. I know you're not saying that Churchill necessarily was wrong to continue a war with Germany to the end which history recorded, and I know it's a bit dangerous to use modern-day personal issues to justify historical political actions, but I have to point out that the country I presently choose to call home would not exist, and my ladyfriend's forebears would have been exterminated as Untermenschen by order of the management of the Reich (which, as I am sure you know, is German for empire). So, by now, would the other 10 million Czechs, 5 million Slovaks, 40 million Poles, 55 million Ukrainians, 140 million Russians and ... well, you add up the millions. And my ladyfriend would never have been born. Now, speaking purely from a personal viewpoint, I think that would have made the world a poorer place.