i was replying to des i didnt see your comment until after i replied just coincidence i had the ^^^ on your comment... no harm intended
.. agreed about thatcher
You are very quick (with what seems to be a fair bit of foul language) to insult me for pointing out that not everything we know about an hero is always so cut and dried
In fact I believe and accept that he was an heroic figure to millions for his contribution in the war years and those millions still remember with gratitude the role he played and I for one applaud them for being true to their history
He was the perfect type or character to lead Britain during dire times and I,
not being a German, appreciate that his leadership during those years was vital and helped the country succeed
Now back to what I intended,to show that not all is roses in the Churchill garden
As a politician before and after the war he was an abject failure,even the appreciative electorate dumped him because he did not have the talent that would be needed for a leader in times of peace
He was a single minded,win at all costs figure,that happened to be the character of that man of privilege
That type of character was also the reason 30+ years before WW2 that he is not remembered here with so much gusto
The tactics he used successfully to help the country win WW2 were the same he used to win against workers trying to survive poverty,and I mean starvation type poverty,when there was a strike in the mining industry that closed a pit
My fathers description of the events that tarnish the man went along these lines
The reaction of the mine owners to the strike was to sack 800+ workmen who were not on strike in order to put them all in their place
They cared not for the people,only the profit margin that could be squeezed from them,remember there was not a social security net for these people just despair
Also remember at this time the worker had to live in the mine owners propety,eat food bought from the mineowners shop and were but slaves in all but name in this wonderful country that Churchill would go on to lead
The miners fought with the only weapon they had,their labour,they went on strike throughout the area
Churchill being the Home secretary in far away London agreed to assist the mine owners to defeat the workers by sending in hundreds of mounted police from a county force far away from that area
The mounted police obviously acting under instruction from above were described as acting like an invasion force with brutal tactics against ordinary folk who dare protest
The people in the area fought back and control was lost by that force and request was made to Churchill for armed troops to put down these people
He dispatched hundreds of troops to the area and the community was bullied into submission
He would have little hestitation in permitting the use of the live ammunition that they carried and would have won this battle with whatever it took to do so,that just so happened to be the character that served him and the country well years later
His actions in WW2 were heroic,the same actions against his own people years before can only be described as shameful
That is the reason he may not be so endearing here,however,that is not to say that I don't respect the people who hold the man in awe,they just happen to have a different view of the man to me
