Originally Posted by Der Alte

Honor and devotion means probably not a lot to you but for some of us it is the code we live by. It is a fine to be critical but there is also something called good manners and you Sir, have failed them both.


I would call that person "Narcissistic".
Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence or strong self-esteem, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence and self-esteem into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal. In contrast, people who have healthy confidence and self-esteem don't value themselves more than they value others. The only thing you really can do is just not take him so seriously. Obviously he enjoys arguing, but nothing diffuses a person like this better than to treat them like the child that they are being. Don't let it annoy you, because that's exactly what he wants.

I am somewhat stumped in that I find myself in part agreeing with him but the way that he delivers the message makes it impossible to support or even develop a constructive argument around his views.

A good example is Churchill, I do not like the guy I think he was a warmonger and was very prone to "flights of fancy" operations that got people killed for no real gain but I also believe that it was his doggedness and spirit that motivated Britain and the Commonwealth to fight it out at a time that it would have been easy to just call it a day.

Essentially he was a great politician and a lousy General, he had his good and bad points and in the end came out on top, I am unsure whether there is anyone else out there that could have done better.

Personally I think if Sam just calmed down a little he would have a good future here rather than a lifetime on an ignore list, as I was once told "it doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong if you are not getting your point across you are wasting your time".

Hi 84RFK,
Maintaining a bridgehead in Calais-Dunkirk would have required months of supplies, that is where a merchant fleet is invaluable. By the way in crossing the 36 km of the Strait of Dover, it does not make much difference whether you use coal or oil. Actually, using coal would be advantageous since Britain produced plenty of it and a smoky sky caused by heavy traffic would make visibility low for the German planes trying to sink the ships.
Even the Italian navy was far more successful crossing the much shorter route to Tunisia than that to Tripoli. The huge allied navy should have been quite successful crossing such a short strait.

Hi Alte,
If I didn't appreciate the achievements and tribulations of the people in both world wars, I wouldn't be spending my time reading and talking about them. What amazes me is how such competent and valiant people had to cope with such leaders. I have repeated to exhaustion that I am simply criticizing their leaders, which has only won me all kinds of insults from cretin to narcissistic and lacking honour and courtesy although I do not remember having insulted anybody personally in the forum other than the dead leaders.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

A preacher or an orator provides hope with words, a leader with victories.

Exactly. Churchill delivered . His opponents failed.

He filled his people with more than hope. He filled them with determination and steel; when they heard Churchill they rolled up their sleeves and took up the cudgels. What an inspiration to men, women and children.

He was the architect of an amazing, wonderful victory , against all odds. Bravo!

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Hi Alte,
If I didn't appreciate the achievements and tribulations of the people in both world wars, I wouldn't be spending my time reading and talking about them. What amazes me is how such competent and valiant people had to cope with such leaders. I have repeated to exhaustion that I am simply criticizing their leaders, which has only won me all kinds of insults from cretin to narcissistic and lacking honour and courtesy although I do not remember having insulted anybody personally in the forum other than the dead leaders.

Churchill made his mistakes like any other leader, he also inherited situations not of his making like the forgotten 14th Army in the Far East. Singapore was lost not because of Churchill but because of previous governments who cut back military spending after WW1. Churchill had warned Parliament of the dangers of Hitler, but he was ignored.

Churchill realised that Britain was on her knee's, the morale in Britain was at an all time low, Churchill speeches pulled the British people together and made them work together. He knew the hard task he had in front of them. Churchill inspired people, he raised morale. FDR said of Churchill, “He might be a drunk and a warmonger, but he's a fighter.” Exactly the sort of man Britain needed at that time. I firmly believe that if Churchill had not been PM, the US would not have helped us with the vital supplies we needed if Chamberlain had been PM. Yes Britain have the US a lot to thank for the help they gave us when they did, Britain simply didn't have the industrial capacity required to fight a war, neither did Britain have the man power to work in the factories to produce armaments and fight at the same time.

Yes people have insulted you, of that I am guilty, I insulted you because of your stupid outlandish statements such as pulling all the various fighter groups to 11 Group to fight the Battle of Britain. Only a fool would even consider such an idea, leaving sectors or groups unprotected would be suicide. Then there are the logistics of such an plan. Posting all groups to 11 Group including aircraft, ground crews and so on, where the hell would you put them all? If German bombers attacked the airfields, far more aircraft, spares, equipment and ground crews would have been lost. I have served on airfields as ground crew, I have a pretty good idea how they operate. Hugh Dowding and Keith Parks fought the Battle of Britain exactly how it should be fought, no one could have fought it better. Operational Squadrons made series errors when encountering the Luftwaffe for the first time, the Vic formation was deadly for the aircraft in the Vic, but they learned quickly off of the Luftwaffe who used the more sensible and workable finger four formation, yes the RAF made serious errors, but they were quick on the uptake, they learned and turned the Battle.

As Bomber Harris said, “You sowed the wind, now reap the whirlwind. The insults you have brought on yourself, you have insulted me with your stupid and unfounded arguments, you have insulted one of the greatest leaders in British history, you have insulted Monty another great leader in my eyes. Monty served in the trenches during WW1, he saw the carnage and total waste of human life. He didn't want that to happen to the men under his command in North Africa, so yes he was cautious.

As Der Alte said “You sit and clinically evaluate a profession you have never been part of and also has the audacity to contradict people who have a concrete knowledge. You demean an entire nation - the United Kingdom. A proud nation who paid in blood so you could grow up in a free world. Honor and devotion means probably not a lot to you but for some of us it is the code we live by. It is a fine to be critical but there is also something called good manners and you Sir, have failed them both.”

I couldn't agree more.

Spot on Brit. Churchill is still revered as the greatest Brit and I believe this to be true. It can be argued, as you point out, that the force of this man won WW11.

He may well have lost battles, but he won the War. Like my father and other workers who had dealings with him when he was Home Secretary, many refer to him as a war-monger, but throughout the 1930s
all of his important speeches, in Parliament, recorded word for word by Hansard and other world stage efforts, demonstrate how he sued for peace and desperately pleaded with Hitler to turn away from his dash for war, whilst at the same time spelling out Hitler's intentions and pressing for readiness and preparedness for what he knew was likely to become unavoidable.

At the same time, he recognised Hitler's plans and stymied them at every turn; he played the winning chess game.

When WW11 arrived, thank God we had the right man in the driving seat. When peace was won we threw him out, but his genius continued in all his work.

He was the ultimate statesman, a giant among pygmies politically; he was familiar with war throughout his career, but he left no stone unturned in order to persuade Hitler not to go there.

He was a giant; he was our giant, thank God. Remember in all this that we were the good guys and he enabled us to become the good guys who held the line & won the day. We bankrupted ourselves in doing so but we payed our debts and we suffered financially ever since for our efforts.

It seems that folk never forgive you for saving their arses. Ingrates spring to mind.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

I wouldn't be spending my time reading and talking about them.

That's all you have done, read. Many people on here have experienced first hand, they "Have seen the elephant," as the South Africans would say. Yet you continuously dismiss their experiences and knowledge out of hand, thinking you know better. Then you wonder why you get insulted.

I don´t know anybody who lived in Roman, Mongol, napoleonic, civil war or WW I times and yet have read excellent comments about those times, rarely by military men. I fail to see how having fought makes you better qualified to analize Churchill's of Hitler's mistakes. I have met several mercenaries, seals, veterans, etc, far more experienced in killing than in analizing, in tactics than in strategy.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

A preacher or an orator provides hope with words, a leader with victories.

And how is that leader going to get his victory with an army without hope?

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

I don´t know anybody who lived in Roman, Mongol, napoleonic, civil war or WW I times and yet have read excellent comments about those times, rarely by military men. I fail to see how having fought makes you better qualified to analize Churchill's of Hitler's mistakes. I have met several mercenaries, seals, veterans, etc, far more experienced in killing than in analizing, in tactics than in strategy.

People who experienced it know more than is written.

Fighting in the right place, at the right time, the right way. If Churchill had planned and executed well the Norway campaign, that victory would have increased British, French and Norwegian morale and damaged German morale, without the need for speeches. Finishing off the German navy and saving an ally says far more than a 2 hr speech.
By sending O'Connor to invade poorly defended Sicily, instead of causing a costly and demoralizing debacle in Greece (including Crete), that victory would have boosted British morale more than any speech and saved thousands of lives, hundreds of planes and dozens of ships trying to hold and supply Malta and to stop Italian ships from supplying Rommel for 2 years, with many motivational speeches in between.

One of Napoleon's, Lee's, Churchill's, Hitler's soldiers is not very likely to know much about the world situation, his leaders blunders, the value of his life to his leader than a person trying to learn about that time today.