What was Winston Churchill's radical proposal during WW II?

Question

What did he propose that was so radical during the WW II ?
Help, please?
Thank you >_<

Answer 1

One proposal was to keep the Australians fighting in Europe and let the "Japs" capture Australia. "After we win in Europe we will get Australia back".

The Australians didn't like this idea much, as you would suppose. However we kept some forces in Europe but fought in the Pacific, too.

Answer 2

Winston had a number of radical proposals some of them such as the mulberries (artificial harbors) which were used. His most radical was probably making aircraft carriers out of artificial icebergs. Though some preliminary work was done (if was the PM's idea after all) nothing much came of it.

Answer 3

-he told the troops to retreat to south!

The military history of France during World War II covers the period from 1939 until 1940, which witnessed French military participation under the Third Republic, and the period from 1940 until 1945, which was marked by colonial struggles between Vichy France and the Free French Forces under Charles de Gaulle, fighting in Europe, the eventual Liberation of France by Allied and Free French forces, and French participation in the final phases of the war against Nazi Germany.

France, along with the United Kingdom, was one of the first participants in World War II after declaring war on Nazi Germany following its invasion of Poland in 1939. After the Phony War from 1939 to 1940, the Germans conducted a brilliant campaign in the Low Countries and, in the Battle of France, managed to inflict a brutal defeat on the forces of the Third Republic. France formally surrendered to Germany on June 25, 1940, and a collaborationist government, led by Philippe Pétain and centered in Vichy, France, was established. On June 18, 1940, Charles de Gaulle gave a memorable speech to the French people over BBC Radio, telling them that "France has lost the battle, but France has not lost the war." De Gaulle did not recognize the legitimacy of the Vichy government and went on to found the Free French as the true government of France. The number of Free French troops grew with Allied success in North Africa, Italy, and the invasions of France in 1944. On October 23, 1944, Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union officially recognized de Gaulle's regime as the provisional government of France. Recruitment in liberated France led to notable enlargements of the French armies. By the end of the war in May 1945, France had 1,250,000 troops, ten divisions of which were fighting in Germany.

pls check the source out !

Answer 4

Churchill's Speeches

I say "great sovereign state" with design and emphasis,
for I reject the view that Britain and the Commonwealth
should now be relegated to a tame and minor role in the world.

Our past is the key to our future, which I firmly trust and believes, will be no less fertile and glorious.

Let no man underrate our energies, our potentialities and our abiding power for good.

Winston Churchill.

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/Webmap.html

http://www.churchill-speeches.com/

http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/museums/exhibitions/churchill/speeches.html

Search Results

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?search=Churchill%27s+famous+speeches&ei=UTF-8&fr=ks-ques&p=Churchill%27s+famous+speeches

Good luck.

Kevin, Liverpool, England.

Answer 5

his most radical proposal was to continue the war after germanyhad fallen and take it to the communists they would have had no chance .
Ime not stating I agree with his proposal just that with the west having nukes the USSR would have fallen easily but agreat cost

Answer 6

Perhaps the most insidious domestic enemy that confronted Churchill in wartime was the spirit of defeatism. There was lots of it in the early days of the war, when Britain stood alone against the Nazi juggernaut. There were proposals to sue for peace with Hitler, fears of a successful German invasion of England, and military blunders that cost thousands of British lives. Churchill never lost heart. “The prime minister expects all His Majesty’s Servants in high places to set an example of steadiness and resolution,” he said. “They should check and rebuke expressions of loose and ill-digested opinion in their circles.”

The loose and ill-digested opinions about the Iraq war could fill volumes. No matter what the sign of progress in the country — fair elections, a liberal constitution, a representative government — some detractors seem seized by an almost pathological gloom. The late Edward Said, a scholar at Columbia University, expressed his outrage a month after the invasion with a disdain that has entered the bloodstream of the liberal political establishment. The Iraq war is “a grotesque show,” he said, part of a U.S. pattern of “reducing whole peoples…to ruin by nothing short of holocaust.” As Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean put it a few months ago, the very idea of victory in Iraq “is just plain wrong.”

The answer to defeatism, of course, is not a policy of denial. The administration is right to describe Iraq as “the central front in the war on terror.” But it emerged as this violent epicenter only after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, a metamorphosis for which most Americans were totally unprepared. Vice President Cheney’s insistence last summer that the insurgency was in its “last throes” — even as terrorist attacks were plainly intensifying — surely undercut the credibility of the cause in Iraq. Only in the last several months has President Bush offered a more substantive public account of the fierce difficulties that remain.

Churchill’s first wartime speech to the British people as prime minister was shocking for its sobriety: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” He later warned the House of Commons: “Death and sorrow will be the companions of our journey, hardship our garment, constancy and valor our only shield.” And, while England rejoiced over the escape of thousands of British troops from a German onslaught at Dunkirk, Churchill injected his usual dose of realism: “Wars are not won by evacuations.”

The strength of a great leader, Martin Gilbert suggests, is his ability to frame the horrific realities of war within a larger moral vision. In this regard, no political figure of the 20th century possessed both the bearing and the eloquence of Winston Churchill. None understood better why Hitler and his ideology had to be confronted — and utterly defeated.

“People say we ought not to allow ourselves to be drawn into a theoretical antagonism between Nazidom and democracy,” he said in a radio address during the Munich crisis of 1938. “But the antagonism is here now. It is this very conflict of spiritual and moral ideas which gives the free countries a great part of their strength.” Once war was declared, Churchill kept reminding the country what the conflict was fundamentally about. “We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defense of all that is most sacred to man.”

For all his faults, President Bush sees correctly what is now at stake in Iraq: The forces of decency and democracy against the macabre vision of al Qaeda and Islamic fascism. His determination to stay the course is grounded in a set of moral and democratic ideals. “As we fight the war on terror in Iraq and other fronts, we must keep in mind the nature of the enemy,” Bush told Air Force graduates two years ago. “The terrorists who attacked our country on September 11, 2001 were not protesting our policies. They were protesting our existence.” He has repeated the message, in various forms, dozens of times. He did so again during his recent visit to Baghdad, in a commencement address this week to the U.S. Merchant Marines, and at a Republican fundraiser. “We’re going to win the war on terror,” Bush said, “if we don’t lose our nerve.”

As the debate in Congress makes painfully clear, too many war critics still fail to admit the blackness of the threat — the hideous inhumanity of radical Islam — that confronts us in Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world. Without this moral realism, detractors have allowed their qualms about the conflict to degenerate into fatalism and defeatism. No surprise, then, that they now lack the resolve to carry on.

It was once said of Winston Churchill that he had “enough courage for everybody.” Churchill’s steadfastness, however, must not be confused with empty bravado. His strength of character was rooted in his life experience, moral clarity, and spiritual conviction. We will need more of that courage in the difficult days ahead, not less.

Answer 7

dilute the beer

Answer 8

you must sink the Bismark ?