LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Churchill was hated by his own party, opposition party, and press. Feared by King as

B

BeeZeBody

Literotica Guru
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Posts
1,351
:cool: But unlike Neville Chamberlain, he didn't retreat.


:cool: We had a Chamberlain for 8 yrs; in @realDonaldTrump we have a Churchill.
 
Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter in 1941, and that was the end of the empire he had set out to preserve. He may not have appeased Hitler, but he certainly appeased Roosevelt.
 
bluekitty69 said:
Oh fucking please! I think I just threw up a bit!
Click to expand...

Trouble is it's closer to the truth than you want to admit. Obama was worse than Neville Chamberlain, he actually labored to help the enemies of the United States.
 
Comparing Trump to Churchill is like comparing a lump of coal to a diamond: they're both a lump of carbon but that's pretty much all they have in common.
 
Churchill became Prime Minister in May 1940, before the retreat from Dunkirk.

Before the retreat from the Channel Islands.

Before the retreat to Singapore and the surrender of the same.
 
Chamberlain knew Britain wasn't equipped to fight Nazi Germany in 1938 and the French wouldn't fight then. He had no choice but to accept Hitler's false promise of 'Peace in our time' while the British armament factories were struggling to build aircraft and guns. There was no way that Britain could defend Czechoslovakia without allies on the European mainland.

Chamberlain oversaw the rearmament of Britain that Churchill had been pleading for. Earlier, because of the depression era, Britain didn't have the money or resources to match Hitler's arms race.

Chamberlain bought Britain valuable time. He knew that war was coming and Britain wasn't ready.
 
Ovidius said:
Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter in 1941, and that was the end of the empire he had set out to preserve. He may not have appeased Hitler, but he certainly appeased Roosevelt.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. From Wiki:

British Empire

Public opinion in Britain and the Commonwealth was delighted with the principles of the meetings but disappointed that the U.S. was not entering the war. Churchill admitted that he had hoped the U.S. would finally decide to commit itself.

The acknowledgement that all people had a right to self-determination gave hope to independence leaders in British colonies.[19]

The Americans were insistent that the charter was to acknowledge that the war was being fought to ensure self-determination.[20] The British were forced to agree to these aims but in a September 1941 speech, Churchill stated that the Charter was only meant to apply to states under German occupation, and certainly not to the countries who formed part of the British Empire.[21]

Churchill rejected its universal applicability when it came to the self-determination of subject nations such as British India. Mahatma Gandhi in 1942 wrote to President Roosevelt: "I venture to think that the Allied declaration that the Allies are fighting to make the world safe for the freedom of the individual and for democracy sounds hollow so long as India and for that matter Africa are exploited by Great Britain..."[22] While self-determination was Roosevelt's guiding principle, he was reluctant to place pressure on the British in regard to India and other colonial possessions as they were fighting for their lives in a war in which the United States was not a participant.[23] Gandhi refused to help either the British or the American war effort against Germany and Japan in any way, and Roosevelt chose to back Churchill.[24] India was already contributing significantly to the war effort, sending over 2.5 million men (the largest volunteer force in the world at the time) to fight for the Allies, mostly in West Asia and North Africa.[25]
Poland

Churchill was unhappy with the inclusion of references to peoples' right to "self-determination" and stated that he considered the Charter an "interim and partial statement of war aims designed to reassure all countries of our righteous purpose and not the complete structure which we should build after the victory." An office of the Polish Government in Exile wrote to warn Władysław Sikorski that if the Charter was implemented with regard to national self-determination, it would make the desired Polish annexation of Danzig, East Prussia and parts of German Silesia impossible, which led the Poles to approach Britain asking for a flexible interpretation of the Charter.[26]
Baltic states

During the war Churchill argued for an interpretation of the charter in order to allow the Soviet Union to continue to control the Baltic states, an interpretation rejected by the U.S. until March 1944.[27] Lord Beaverbrook warned that the Atlantic Charter "would be a menace to our [Britain's] own safety as well as to that of the Soviet Union." The U.S. refused to recognise the Soviet takeover of the Baltics, but did not press the issue against Stalin when he was fighting the Germans.[28] Roosevelt planned to raise the Baltic issue after the war, but he died in April 1945, before fighting had ended in Europe.[29]
Click to expand...

In short, the Atlantic Charter was a wartime policy agreement; not a treaty. Any British government has had the authority and ability to completely ignore it since World War II.

Please don't tell me you think you would still have an "empire" today but for the existence of the Atlantic Charter. :rolleyes:
 
Re: Your posts..

One difference in trump u have a moron and in Churchill a leader.
 
Some people can write speeches that move a populace to withstand an army that conquered countries in weeks sometimes days, some people have problems writing coherent sentences.
 
My comment was only about the people in the OP and now you start throwing others in the mix.

So no defense for 45 then?
 
Colonel Hogan said:
...

Please don't tell me you think you would still have an "empire" today but for the existence of the Atlantic Charter. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The British Empire was doomed from the start of WW1. The UK was bankrupt at the end of that war and the US was already the world's leading democracy. The change of status of Canada and Australia, among others, showed that the British Empire was changing to an association of independent nations.

In 1930s India there were already moves towards self-government although the British expected the timetable to last into the 1950s or 60s.

British politicians of the 1930s expected all of the Empire to become self-governing independent states - eventually. They just didn't expect it to happen as quickly as it did. There was no requirement for Canada and Australia to declare war at the start of WW2. They did so independently even if many Australians thought it was someone else's war - until Pearl Harbor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
George Wendt, actor who drank and quipped his way through 269 episodes of Cheers as the barfly Norm has passed Away
Replies
1
Views
220
Saint_Ann
Saint_Ann
JenniferSmithJones
Funny facts about humans, mammals, and genetics
Replies
3
Views
316
JenniferSmithJones
JenniferSmithJones
Penus_Flytrap
Being an adult is harder than I thought.
Replies
14
Views
716
strongnsensual
S
T
Sharing My Girlfriend (not by choice)
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
8K
JillPaula
JillPaula
Stopokochac
Seeking advise and feedback on a complicated situation?
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Noor
Noor
Back
Top