Into the Storm (part 2)

[TheSdthomas74]

Defiant in War. Resolute in Adversity. Compassionate in Victory. These are qualities that leaders must have in grave moments of history. Churchill had these in spades, and England and the Commonwealth are better off for it today. As an African-American-whose father also fought for Freedom and Liberty in WWII, I doff my hat off to one of History's greatest fighters...Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, K.G. RIP, valiant son of England!!

[bxjam85]

Churchill was right about the welfare state and woman's suffrage.

[Ranillon]

@bxjam85 So, how do you enjoy living in the 19th century? Or, perhaps you live in the 18th when only land owners and the rich got to vote? The 13th when only the king and nobility mattered?

Churchill was a great man in many ways, but some of his views were almost literally medieval. Thank goodness those parts were generally ignored.

[bxjam85]

@Ranillon The socio-political developments of the 19th century are what led to the events of the 20th century; the century of the most atrocious warfare. I don't mind a state that only gives male land owners the right to vote, but I prefer a state where nobody, or only aristocrats, have the right to vote on policy decisions. If Churchill's views were medieval then mines are classical. I despise the politics of modernity and its hubris belief in the inevitability of progress.

[Ranillon]

@bxjam85 No doubt you assume you would naturally be one of the "aristocrats". Funny how people who talk nobly of such high-minded ideals always assume that they will, of course, be one of the "important people" who get to help make policy. Strange thing is that the reason everyone eventually got the vote is because so many people found to their dismay that they weren't one of the privileged few. So, how much would you like your anti-modernity politics if it meant YOU'D never be able to vote?

[bxjam85]

@Ranillon Responses such as these are so predictable.  Your envy of excellence speaks loudly. I don't assume that I would be one of the aristocrats/nobles, but I don't envy those who become, or are born, aristocrats. I believe that I should have to prove my worth in order to attain a noble rank. I don't mind not being able to vote, because I have nothing but contempt for mass politics. Being a statesman is not the only noble pursuit and politics is always a dirty business.

[Ranillon]

@bxjam85 I have no "envy for excellence" as in this case "excellence" and the ability to vote often did not go together historically. Rather, you had a so-called "ruling class" that pretended that it was somehow deserving over others when it was just a matter of the brute force of (usually hereditary and not earned) power to rule over others. Anyone who pays taxes and owes allegiance to a particular government deserves to have a voice in that government -- or else you just have a dictatorship.

[bxjam85]

@Ranillon The plebs always assume that it is force alone that defines the ruling class. Force is just one of the means by which a ruling class rules. The aristocratic ruling class was defined by individuals and families with intellect, military prowess, wealth, creativity and distinguished taste. In the case of egalitarian, liberal democracy, rule is in the hands of the plebeian masses and their sheep herding demagogues. continued. . .

[Ranillon]

@bxjam85 All you're doing is repeating Patrician mythology -- we're great and so we deserve to rule. But, that ignores the whole point that if a government is going to have influence over you it's only fair if you have influence over it (e.g. voting rights). Otherwise, the relationship is only one-way -- which is pretty much the definition of "tyranny". Likewise, your idea of Patricians is a sort of pie-in-the-sky version where they are so noble that they'd never abuse their power. Riiiight!

[bxjam85]

@Ranillon There are more laws and taxes under democratic nation-states than there ever were under aristocratic states. What you call "freedom" means nothing to me under this arrangement. The word 'dictator' is such a loaded term that you can use it according to your likes and dislikes. You can call rule by the whims of the masses and their representatives a populist dictatorship.

[Ranillon]

@bxjam85 "Populist dictatorship?" That's little more than sour grapes over a certain group/class not having the control it thinks it "deserves". Everything you say makes it clear you think you deserve to be one of the "rulers" yet it never occurs to you that maybe you wouldn't be. Elitism is great when you are the "elite", but such regimes always fail precisely because the non-elites won't stand for it over the long term -- mostly because the "elite" always abuse their position in the end.

[bxjam85]

@Ranillon Now we're getting into a game of tit for tat. You say I support your view of dictatorship and I say you support my view of dictatorship. You say that I want to be a ruler and I say that I don't. As I said, dictatorship is now a loaded term that serves little more than the purpose of arousing emotions. Continued. . .

[bxjam85]

@Ranillon Ruling classes never go away as long as there is a state. The ruling class is our modern, egalitarian, liberal democracies is a collection of mediocre politicians whose only excellence is in herding sheep. I called you an envious pleb because you think like one. Either way, that's beside the point. I do not wish to engage in a belligerent argument where we only exchange emotions. Thanks for the discussion.

[bxjam85]

@Ranillon One last point that I forgot to mention. Aristocratic social orders have existed since the first civilizations arose in ancient times. They have only "failed" in the last 200 or so years because of the influence of Christian slave morality on modernist political ideologies.

[Ranillon]

@bxjam85 Your basic problem is that you seem to be oblivious to the fundamental weakness of rulership by an elite and thus miss a fundamental truth -- any elite will INEVITABLY twist any system to serve their own ends, thus creating a de facto tyranny. Many of the problems of today are due to our modern quasi-(business) elite going corrupt and caring so much about wealth without end they are slowly destroying our economic and social system. Hardly good evidence for the virtues of a ruling elite!

[thschear]

Yes Winston, the welfare state has destroyed everything you and your people fought for. We are doing the same thing to the U.S.

[Halo4Lyf]

@thschear A horrible mistake of the last half-century, soon to be rectified. With blood and fire, if necessary.

[12from121]

Everything Hitler did was aimed at the showdown with Russia. He had no interest in the west and only fought Poland because the Poles were insane enough not to take a deal believing the then very weak western governments would charge to their rescue. The finance sector in the west wanted war with Germany and as such whipped up public opinion into a frenzy. But anyone who knew the facts knew Hitler only wanted war with Russia and that if why he needed Danzig.

[12from121]

Your all forgetting the war sent the British Empire down the toilet, completely broke. Germany came out of the war better in defeat then Britian did in victory. Nazism never would have outlasted Hitler and if Churchill had been smart he would not have handed their world position to America on a platter. By fighting on they only served the Americans in the longrun and the people that control the money.

[amartinjoe]

@12from121 dead on analysis! you nailed it.

[ChaseWilliams]

@12from121 Whilst I do agree with the underpinnings of your argument you forget one thing... Hitler wasn't know for keeping his promises and there would be no guarantees that the Japanese after attacking America would not have pushed forward further in the east to attack Singapore and so on. Overall it might have stalled and given us time to build up a momentum for arming ourselves better; but alas, even the US tried to avoid entering the war and failed - what makes you think we'd have managed?

[ChaseWilliams]

@12from121 Whilst I do agree with the underpinnings of your argument you forget one thing... Hitler wasn't know for keeping his promises and there would be no guarantees that the Japanese after attacking America would not have pushed forward further in the east to attack Singapore and so on. Overall it might have stalled and given us time to build up a momentum for arming ourselves better; but alas, even the US tried to avoid entering the war and failed - what makes you think we'd have managed?

[12from121]

@ChaseWilliams Hitler was an Anglophile something Churchill knew and Germany was in no position to take over the empire. Germany would have happily agreed to protect Britian's eastern posessions. Are you kidding?? The US were desperate to get into the war, look at how far they bended their neutrality they just had to find a way to sell it to their own people. America had everything to gain by war and the Japs did them a huge favour.

[bxjam85]

This man represented the aristocratic ideal with great form.

[Nikifuj908]

@markwain45 No, Halifax is the guy with the glasses who suggests they give up Malta. I'm talking about Hadley.

[Nikifuj908]

3:03 head of the Labor Party is hitting the table!

[avatus775544]

@Nikifuj908 thats how they clap, they still do that to this day. they did it when kate and william anounced their engment.

[IzzyJG99]

I like how Admiral Pim took his own ship to join in the evacuation flotilla. A true sailor.

[penguin1818]

What a great leader the world needs someone like him right

[SyberiaDreams]

@penguin1818 Yes ,churchill was great ,because few men have done more to overthrow the American Republic(s) and institute the great centralized global war machine that has taken its place.

[Axon36]

@SyberiaDreams

WTF are you talking about?.

[stradhex]

@penguin1818 you have obama, bitch!

[sadapindo]

good acting, but the cinematography and the editing weren't that great. A big continuity mistake at : 0:50 - 0:51

[catarininhah]

thanks for posting this which such a great image quality

[rileykernaghan]

Which service is the man with the wavy lines on the wrists from? Navy?

[digglyda]

@rileykernaghan: Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (RNVR) nicknamed the "Wavy Navy" 'cos of the wavy uniform sleeve rings you mentioned. It was an expansion of the original Royal Navy Reserve at the start of the 20th century. Guess that's a commanding officer but I don't know what his name is.

If you want a good read on the Royal Navy in WWII then I recommend "Engage the enemy more closely" by Corelli Barnett.

[ArmyJames]

@rileykernaghan Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve.

[socrateswept]

Would a Navyman say 'Boat'. I mean, what are we getting to!

[digglyda]

@socrateswept: Basically, YES: In Navy terminology a "Boat" is any vessel "incapable of undertaking independent operations/voyages upon the high seas". For example Motor Torpedo Boats.

Traditionally, submarines & aircraft carriers are called "boats" in the royal navy. Furthermore, to differentiate the terms, a "ship" is a vessel that carries "boats"

[leopictor]

Did Halifax really do one from the cabinet as at 3.00?

[KalashnikovBoy94]

Before WWII, Winston met with Hitler at a conference in Munich.

Hitler said something referring of the Bulldog as being a ugly Animal,

Winston says back to Hitler, "Yes, But.. The Bulldog could bite and breed at the same time"

Kick ASS QUOTE!!!

[leoamery]

Bunk. Churchill never met Hitler, though he almost did in 1932. Why bring up fairy stories when real history is so much more interesting, though it may not leave your ass tingling from the kick it seems to need?

[KalashnikovBoy94]

@leoamery Actually, Dumb Fuck, YES HE DID. LOOK UP YOUR HISTORY.

The meeting of Munich in 1938 to discuss the land of which Ger. and Russ. owned.

[leoamery]

Bunk. Churchill wasn't in office in 1938. "The meeting of Munich in 1938," sounds the ones Neville Chamberlain, not WSC, conducted. Are you saying WSC met Hitler as a private citizen? I repeat: WSC never met Hitler. Give us a date, place, and source. The official biography of WSC by Martin Gilbert doesn't mention it. Your tingling ass does not count. as a source of anything but amusement.

[13lackLight]

Yea, Churchill was the master of witt.

Apparently he was speaking to some lady (don't know who), and she said: If I were your wife, I would poison your tea.

To which Winston replied: If I were your husband, I would drink it.

I would die to have the wit of this dude.

[IzzyJG99]

Actually the proper quote "Do you know why the English Bulldog has a sloped face and jaw? So that it can breathe while hanging out." He said this to the German Ambassador to England.

[thajr]

Actually Churchill was in Munich when Hitler made is party HQ there. A mutal friend attempted to set up a meeting, but Churchill made comments critical of Hitler's anti-semetic policies and the meeting never took place.

The bulldog quote, if it ever happened, was to the affect that the reason the bulldog nose is canted backwards is so he can breath while holding on.

The later meeting that is being referenced was between Churchill and the Ger. Ambassador.

[Voice463]

If neccessary for years.....if neccessary......alone

[luke33]

If this island of ours is to end, at last, let it end, only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground