Answers are preferred from those who lived in both eras. No disrespect but young people do not have first hand knowledge of the WW 2 years. History books say so many different things!
2006-09-08 04:59:56 · 28 answers · asked by CurlyQ 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
i may be young and history books may say different things, but i have also listened to my grandparents which DO have 1st hand knowledge. Churchill was obviously by far a better prime minister than Blair can ever dream of being. for one Churchill made his own decisions based the situation in front of him. Blair makes his decisions based on what Bush says, does and thinks. he seems incapable of reaching his own decisions. secondly, churchill was and still is greatly respected by the people of Britain. where is the respect for blair?
2006-09-08 05:42:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Blair is an insignificant pipsqueak compared to Churchill. Winston was one of the 20th Century's greatest men and Blair will certainly not achieve that accolade in the 21st. Game, Set and Match to Churchill 6-0, 6-0, 6-0.
"I have waited 50 years to see the Boneless Wonder [Tony Blair]"
Said originally about Ramsay MacDonald in 1931
heavenlyhaggis
2006-09-08 06:05:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is there really any contest?
I know all about rose tinted glasses, but whatever happened to these big statements from Blair on his election.
"Whiter Than White"
"Education, Education, Education"
Churchill gave the country the will and desire to move forward after WW2, Blair has seemingly brought progress in the country to a grinding halt. So inflation remains low??? The fact that fuel and energy arent taken into consideration as well as a lot of other things, means that for your average family, inflation is in real terms about 9%, go figure!
2006-09-08 05:05:36 · answer #3 · answered by 6 hail marys 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am an American and I know that answer, Churchill. Of what I know of both men, Blair would not even be able to walk behind Churchill, let alone be in his shadow. He would have to walk 2 minutes after Churchill started walking. Then again, Churchill's shadow is huge and his shoes could never be filled.
2006-09-08 05:06:42 · answer #4 · answered by kepjr100 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Churchill
2006-09-08 05:11:43 · answer #5 · answered by Matthew H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am staggard beyond belief that you need to ask. Churchill, of course, but why do you think that Blair was even a contender? Churchill wouldn't give his country away to a foreign entity known as the EU.
2006-09-08 11:38:56 · answer #6 · answered by Veritas 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If Blair had half the brains Churchill did, He might reach up to Winstons elbows.
2006-09-08 05:29:33 · answer #7 · answered by peter gunn 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well it has always been said that a leader needs to be 10 years out of office to allow an objective view of their terms, so lets wait for 10 years and see how Blair's policies play out. That said he has done an admirable job in the face of a lot of criticism.
2006-09-08 05:03:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Churchill had a war forced on him but won it. Blair created a war but will never win.
2006-09-08 05:05:41 · answer #9 · answered by Tallboy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Churchill. His time was more troubled. The threats greater and more imminent. Although I don't think Blair is necessarly done writting his history yet.
2006-09-08 05:04:07 · answer #10 · answered by Zee HatMan 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋