Alcoholism aside, the British people remember Churchill as the man who was proactive and recognised Nazi Germany for the threat it was long before the war came to Britain's borders.
Churchill's predecessor Neville Chamberlain was the diplomatic type who opted for treaties and appeasement – as part of the Munich Agreement, Chamberlain actually went to Germany and got Hitler to agree in writing that while the Nazis were allowed to have the Sudetenland, the rest of German-speaking Europe was essentially off-limits. Chamberlain came home to plaudits and acclamation from such varied individuals as Pope Pius XI and FDR's administration, while famously saying, 'My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time'.
Famous last words.
Granted, there were reasons behind Chamberlain's policy. Any confrontation with the Axis powers would very likely plunge Britain into war yet again, and Britain would probably lose. British military strength lay primarily in the Royal Navy, which would do little good if bombers and troop carriers could fly over their ships. With the memories of WWI still fresh in the older generation's minds and the debts incurred from it still outstanding, and an overall underestimation of the Nazi threat, it was no small wonder Chamberlain chose appeasement.
Compare with Churchill, as in the meanwhile Winston Churchill saw the Nazis for what they were and kept warning the British populace. When war broke out, Chamberlain's peace promises and political career were effectively over. Churchill came in and did what the British didn't think was possible; rearming Britain, improving the army and air force, centralizing the government as to create a more effective civil service, and ultimately having Britain hold up against Hitler's war machine as the sole power left in the West willing to fight against Germany until the Americans joined the war effort.
In other words, Churchill might have been too fond of drink, but he recognized the threats and was vocal about it. Once he succeeded Chamberlain as PM, Churchill knew how to take responsibility and get the job done. Such is his legacy that out of a list of 100 prominent figures, he was voted the Greatest-ever Briton back in 2002.
I'll reserve judgement on Ted Kennedy until if and when he is ever elected President.
2006-08-18 05:53:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by meilang 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ted Kennedy and Winston Churchill have nothing to do with each other.. so if you are trying to smite the Democrats next time be a little more clever.. Winston Churchill was the PM during England's Bleakest moment.. he was the voice of his people and not everyone loved him.. in fact he was despised by labor and the middle class.. but when Germany invaded his "speechworthyness" helped to galvanize a much needed sense of nation.. His private life was not an issue..
that's a modern-ism .. people were not as interested in peoples personal vices and Alcohol was not regarded as the devil It is today.
2006-08-18 12:05:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by hardartsystems 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
There are people out there who are functioning addicts. They do not let their addictions get the best of them. And Ted Kennedy sucking at politics is a matter of opinion. I am not saying that I agree or disagree with that it is simply a matter of opinion.
2006-08-18 12:07:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by Nicole C 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Winston was a more controlled alcoholic. He also didn't murder a young woman.
Besides that, Winston was actually smart. He had a brain something Teddy lacks completely.
2006-08-18 12:06:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Because Winston spoke his MIND, HE got the job done and he didn't care what people OR polls said. He knew what had to be done. Winston was brilliant and outspoken.
Teddy CAN'T speak his mind, and he wouldn't KNOW hwo to get any job done. (He was kicked out of Harvard for cheating)
He'll follow polls before he follows his heart (if he has one) AND he's a KENNEDY.
Remember, it took less time to take Iraq and get Sadaam then it took to find Mary Jo
2006-08-18 12:12:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Political insults aside, just because someone is an alcoholic doesn't mean they actually drink.
Alcoholism is an addition, a type of disease that means the brain is wired differently. But alchoholics can remain sober.
2006-08-18 12:05:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
i suppose being alcoholic and being a good prime minister is a different thing all together. one can be a bad teacher but a good father can't he?
2006-08-18 12:06:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by portivee 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You can type, but you suck at intelligence. Try using your brain for something other than a hat rest. bush IS an alcoholic and used cocaine, and he truly SUCKS AND BLOWS at politics, so why didn't you make a statement about that?
2006-08-18 12:12:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by linus_van_pelt68 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
winston said at a party once after being told "sir your drunk" he replied to the woman who'd said this to him " yes ma lady i'm drunk, but you my dear are ugly, and in the morning i will be sober
2006-08-18 12:11:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by phllipe b 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
because he led Birtain during WWII...he'a a Noble Price Winner..and I think he knows how to control his alcoholicism...
2006-08-18 12:07:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by hunter_1691 2
·
0⤊
0⤋