by The Archregimancy » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:42 am
by Burchadinger » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:45 am
by West Failure » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:48 am
by Daemonicai » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:50 am
by The imperian empire » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:52 am
by The Archregimancy » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:05 am
West Failure wrote:Anthony Eden and Neville Chamberlain were both pretty bad. I suspect earlier ones might be worse but my knowledge gets a little sketchy...
It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart—the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.
by The Archregimancy » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:09 am
The imperian empire wrote:I find it disgusting that a man who wasn't voted in remains in power.
by Krypton-Zod » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:13 am
by Tagmatium » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:16 am
North Calaveras wrote:Tagmatium, it was never about pie...
by West Failure » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:25 am
The Archregimancy wrote:West Failure wrote:Anthony Eden and Neville Chamberlain were both pretty bad. I suspect earlier ones might be worse but my knowledge gets a little sketchy...
I have some sympathy for poor Chamberlain. Yes, he was terribly wrong about appeasement, but how many who had lived through the terrible carnage of the First World War would have wanted him to do differently?
by Bears Armed » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:35 am
by The Archregimancy » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:43 am
West Failure wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:
I have some sympathy for poor Chamberlain. Yes, he was terribly wrong about appeasement, but how many who had lived through the terrible carnage of the First World War would have wanted him to do differently?
I suppose hindsight is a wonderful thing - it is difficult for me at this point in history to look back and imagine seeing Hitler as anything other than what I know he became. However, surely there must have been clues obvious to anyone that Hitler was a wrong'un?
Today it is the turn of Czechoslovakia. Tomorrow it will be the turn of Poland and Romania. When Germany has obtained the oil and wheat it needs, she will turn on the West. Certainly we must multiply our efforts to avoid war. But that will not be obtained unless Great Britain and France stick together, intervening in Prague for new concessions but declaring at the same time that they will safeguard the independence of Czechoslovakia. If, on the contrary, the Western Powers capitulate again they will only precipitate the war they wish to avoid.
by The Archregimancy » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:52 am
Bears Armed wrote:If I remember my history lessons correctly then Spencer Perceval didn't exactly cover himself in glory during his short (and, for the only time in British history, cut short by assassination...) tenure of the job.
by The imperian empire » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:59 am
by Pure Metal » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:12 am
by The Archregimancy » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:12 am
The imperian empire wrote:
Well, when there is a war on some things can't be helped and Churchill wasn't exactly unpopular either, but yes, generally I do not like idea at all of someone being in power who is not put there by popular vote.
by Unchecked Expansion » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:14 am
The imperian empire wrote:(Hell he shouldn't even be in power, election please? I find it disgusting that a man who wasn't voted in remains in power.)
by Tagmatium » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:14 am
The Archregimancy wrote:If Churchill was so popular, why did he lose the 1945 election by such a massive margin?
North Calaveras wrote:Tagmatium, it was never about pie...
by The Archregimancy » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:16 am
by Cabra West » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:19 am
Pure Metal wrote:Margaret Thatcher.
by Tagmatium » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:28 am
North Calaveras wrote:Tagmatium, it was never about pie...
by McPsychoville » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:29 am
by Polythinia » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:31 am
Daemonicai wrote:Gordon Brown, obviously.
by The imperian empire » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:55 am
The Archregimancy wrote:The imperian empire wrote:
Well, when there is a war on some things can't be helped and Churchill wasn't exactly unpopular either, but yes, generally I do not like idea at all of someone being in power who is not put there by popular vote.
If Churchill was so popular, why did he lose the 1945 election by such a massive margin?
Do you generally agree with democracies suspending the electoral process during wartime?
And would you therefore argue that our American cousins should have suspended Abraham Lincoln's second election and Roosevelt's fourth election?
And I take it you disagree with the Westminster political theory that we vote for parties, not Prime Ministers, and that the mandate to govern belongs to the party, not its leader?
by The Archregimancy » Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:31 am
The imperian empire wrote:Churchill was a fantastic war time leader in terms of fighting the war. However he neglected the home front and I believe this is why he lost the election when it looked like the war was won. As far as I am aware he headed a coalition government during the war, so no sole party was in charge. Seems pretty democratic to me.
Whilst I believe that democracy in this country should be maintained as long as the situation allows, I also accept that sometimes that this may need to alter.
Admittedly I do not know much about American politics apart from Racial/Civil rights. So I try not to have an opinion, I thought presidents can only stand for 2 terms and Roosevelt (who served an extended term because of the war) was replaced by Truman because he died. If your statement was the case, then I'd say that the situation in America was very different from ours and in that case they didn't need to suspend democracy.
As much as I dislike the fact Labour are still in power, they did win the election and the party should be there, I don't think Gordon Brown should have been allowed to have been unopposed, even though Gordon Brown was the only candidate their still should have been a yay or nay vote.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Almighty Biden, Amjedia, Ancientania, Bimflurpity, Cyptopir, DutchFormosa, Free Toast, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Ifreann, Immoren, Ineva, Kannap, Kareia, Khoikhoia, Lycom, Nanatsu no Tsuki, New Westmore, San Lumen, Shrillland, The Holy Therns, The Jamdoin, The Jamesian Republic, Three Galaxies, Tiami, Tungstan, Uiiop, Uvolla, Vikanias, Zurkerx
Advertisement