Re: Republicanism and Liberalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fisherking
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.
Hang on. That's not the only distinguishing feature of Fascism, otherwise Communism and other utopian ideologies would fit into your definition. There's also stuff about the nation myth, relationship between corporate interests and ruling elite, and so on.
Re: Republicanism and Liberalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LittleGrizzly
Hmm, im not so sure, i have always felt chamberlain was made out to be far worse than he actually was, peace in our time was what everyone wanted, and so he delivered it, after the outbreak of war i assumed it would have been more strongly (in general population and political circles) felt that peace in our time was not possible and chamberlain would have seen this... the putting of winston into pm position shows the war mindset britian and parliment had got in to...
I have seen theorys that suggest peace in our time was a play for time, as at this point the uk economy was already gearing up for the war, i don't think chamberlain is the avoid war at all costs type of character he's made out to be...
It's true that his part in the Appeasement is often overstated; he was only continuing what his predecessor was doing and realized his mistake after the Chzechoslovakia debacle (less than two years after he took office)
Nevertheless, when confronted with the situation Churchill found himself in (France subjegated, a German attack by air and possibly sea imminent) I think Chamberlain would have accepted Hitler's proposals for an armstice. I don't know what his opinion on it was for a fact.
Re: Republicanism and Liberalism
Churchill was a solid strategist, at least on a macro level. Also, fortunately for England, he tended to avoid involving himself on tactical decisions (Gallipoli was instructive in this, no doubt).
Churchill's single greatest contribution to Britain's success was to help manipulate/team up with FDR to bring the USA in on Britain's side. Months before Pearl Harbor, the USN was already coordinating and to some extent fighting the Battle of the Atlantic with the UK. With US resources available, it became almost impossible for Britain to lose. Hiter's decision to declare war on the USA after Pearl Harbor made it that much easier -- but Churchill had already worked that field and was bringing in the harvest.
Re: Republicanism and Liberalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
Churchill was a solid strategist, at least on a macro level. Also, fortunately for England, he tended to avoid involving himself on tactical decisions (Gallipoli was instructive in this, no doubt).
Churchill wasn't that bad militarily, as long as one remembers he was an old fashioned English Liberal (with capital L). The kind that expanded the Empire like crazy, bringing English civilisation to the benighted savages whilst bringing back their wealth to Britain. They were good at seeing opportunities, as the Dardanelles undoubtedly was, and they had a habit of throwing resources at a problem until they succeeded, with complete disregard for what the locals might feel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
Churchill's single greatest contribution to Britain's success was to help manipulate/team up with FDR to bring the USA in on Britain's side. Months before Pearl Harbor, the USN was already coordinating and to some extent fighting the Battle of the Atlantic with the UK. With US resources available, it became almost impossible for Britain to lose. Hiter's decision to declare war on the USA after Pearl Harbor made it that much easier -- but Churchill had already worked that field and was bringing in the harvest.
Churchill was more romantic than most British politicians were, identifying himself wholeheartedly with America's nation myth and their and Britain's shared liberal (lower case l) heritage. This helped us gain America's support.
Re: Republicanism and Liberalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
Churchill wasn't that bad militarily, as long as one remembers he was an old fashioned English Liberal (with capital L). The kind that expanded the Empire like crazy, bringing English civilisation to the benighted savages whilst bringing back their wealth to Britain. They were good at seeing opportunities, as the Dardanelles undoubtedly was, and they had a habit of throwing resources at a problem until they succeeded, with complete disregard for what the locals might feel.
Churchill was more romantic than most British politicians were, identifying himself wholeheartedly with America's nation myth and their and Britain's shared liberal (lower case l) heritage. This helped us gain America's support.
He was very well thought of here in the USA. Had he wanted to slip over here once the UK decided for Atlee in 1945, he'd have been a Senator in a hot minute and could have had the Presidency in 1948 if he'd been able to sell the "My Mom was a yank so I qualify" thing well enough.
Can you imagine Churchill/MacArthur dealing with Korea? :shocked2:
Re: Republicanism and Liberalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
Churchill wasn't that bad militarily, as long as one remembers he was an old fashioned English Liberal (with capital L). The kind that expanded the Empire like crazy, bringing English civilisation to the benighted savages whilst bringing back their wealth to Britain. They were good at seeing opportunities, as the Dardanelles undoubtedly was, and they had a habit of throwing resources at a problem until they succeeded, with complete disregard for what the locals might feel.
And Australia celebrates that fact very year.
Re: Republicanism and Liberalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CountArach
And Australia celebrates that fact very year.
I knew the sun hadn't completely addled your brains down there.:2thumbsup:
