Comments by "Andy Monaghan" (@229andymon) on "" video.

Not that I like Churchill, but he was the master of the one-liner. He said “the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with an average voter”.
111
@edsteadham4085 You're much too kind. Actually, I believe the rich and powerful control of mass media to be a huge problem in many democracies.
20
@callumginbey2369 Are you referring to Winston Churchill? If so, look up his opinion of Indians.
5
You’re OK with Campbell’s complicity in the illegal Iraq war?
5
@ Yes, he did, but he wasn’t just a product of an era, not everyone considered Indians and other peoples in as vehemently derogatory terms as he did. He was worse than most. And that’s just in terms of his undeniable racism, his other faults were often as bad. He was a rabid right wing Tory of the worst type, sending in troops to violently stop strikes and he was criticised for taking “gifts” for political influence. He was anti-Islam and his actions in Ireland were barbaric. He was complicit in an unnecessary famine in Bengal that killed around 3m people. He supported the use of poison gas in WW2 and had to be restrained by his generals from flooding Germany with gas, he supported the unnecessary firebombing of Dresden. Had the Germans beat UK, they would have undoubtedly hanged him as a war criminal. As far as his military skills are concerned, the Americans were unimpressed with him, and no wonder, the architect of the Gallipoli disaster in WW1 was also the architect of the mistake that was the invasion of Italy in WW2. He was no military strategist. He was no hero, and his bad much outweighs any good he might have done.
3
@ Even by the standards of his day, he can be described as a malevolent, elitist, narcissistic, right wing zealot with sadistic tendencies and no talent for military strategy. That he can be considered in such terms at all is testimony to how bad a person he was. His only talents lay in demagoguery and populism.
1
@ If we view him by the terms of his day, he’s still overall a bad person.
1
@Harry-TramAnh who's would you prefer?
1
@Harry-TramAnh Mine hated him. “old Tory ratbag” I remember was his favourite description.
1
@ His record as a military strategist is very poor, if your Grandfather (mine fought in WW1) fought for a better leader the Allies would have fared better. But…. he was a very good demagogue and populist. People saw in him what they wanted to see and the media of the day (and to this day) hid his many obvious and glaring faults. The Russians worshipped Stalin, they didn’t see the whole picture either.
1
@ What you say about his motivations for his “soft underbelly” debacle is even more critical of him than I’d be prepared to be. All war leaders have to be ruthless, but only when necessary. Churchill, like Stalin, overstepped that and also was ruthless when unnecessary. But even I’d baulk at proposing the soft underbelly was a strategy aimed at letting more Russians die than necessary. Was he capable of doing that? 100% yes, in fact I believe he relished when it was happening and deliberately resisted Stalin’s desperate pleas for a Second (French) Front with that in mind. But, considering it his only reason for the Italian campaign is to ignore another aspect of his character, which was his ineptitude for military affairs. Let’s not forget the soft underbelly was pretty much a replica of his disastrous Gallipoli campaign. He had form for terrible strategies. Churchill was happy to see his ally’s blood flow like rivers, but he also knew that ally would soon be entering Western Europe. Like the Americans, the idea of Russians in Paris wasn’t one that gave them a good night’s sleep. I doubt he’d have risked Paris to see a couple million more Russians die, however appealing that would’ve been to him. Perhaps it was both ineptitude *and* barbarism.
1
@Harry-TramAnh I don’t believe I am. I don’t see any “value” in his strategy at all, I’m highlighting his values, not mine. Your comments are predicated on the inevitability of a war between the allies and the Soviet Union after WW2. To point to the obvious this wasn’t inevitable and in fact didn’t happen. Churchill’s let them bleed strategy would only have “worked” were that war inevitable. He was happy to let them bleed - while allied to them. To fancy that such a war only didn’t happen because of Churchill’s bleeding of the Soviet military would be a difficult fancy to evidence. In any case, the Soviet forces were nonetheless at their height at the end of the war and it’s doubtful the allies could’ve stopped them taking Paris at that point should a shooting war have broken out. His strategy was IMO due to his ineptitude, while acknowledging his relish at Soviet losses, that’s all. You’re crediting him with clairvoyance - and aptitude, he didn’t have.
1
@Harry-TramAnh That’s a bit unfair, you have your opinion of him, I have mine. He did indeed “see us through” but I think his good qualities that helped him do that are far outweighed by his bad ones, that have been conveniently papered over and hidden over the years. Anyway, I’m not going to change you nor you me, so, enjoy your day.
1