Churchill a myth?

Discussion in 'General' started by Slipdigit, Feb 4, 2008.

?

Was Winston Churchill 'real' ?

  1. Yes.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No.

    71.7%
  3. I do not understand the question.

    6.5%
  4. I am a UKTV watching under 20 year old and refuse to believe in the existence of anybody.

    21.7%
  1. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    I honestly think there's now something of a problem with the term though Gibbo.
    I, like you, saw it as an entirely reasonable historical term until realising recently just how varied it's interpretation had become. It now does seem to simply mean 'lying' to many, it's a shame I reckon but mybe also a good reason for discarding it completely and using a less muddied terminology?
     
  2. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Discharged

    the last time i revised,was for my geography exam,ha.lee.
     
  3. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    Looks like I joined a year too late :lol:

    Yes he was real by the way :D
     
  4. DoctorD

    DoctorD WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

  5. Ron Goldstein

    Ron Goldstein WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran Patron

    DoctorD

    It's no good talking to me mate.................. I'm also a myth :)

    Ron
     
  6. -tmm-

    -tmm- Senior Member

    78.3% of statistics are made up on the spot, and there's an 93.7% chance of that article being completely false also. Fact.



    Also, those surveyed were probably the audience of the jeremy kyle show, which is of course a perfect cross section of our country's population :rolleyes:
     
  7. DoctorD

    DoctorD WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    If Churchill is a myth - then what about his cigar butt, that I bought on eBay in 1944, for £2000, - don't tell me it's a FAKE!! Oh! No!!! I'll have to get him exhumed from the grave I visited at Bladen for a DNA check. Otherwise, anybody got a light?;(;(;(
     
  8. Ron Goldstein

    Ron Goldstein WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran Patron

    To digress slightly from Churchill as a myth, what about the original moon landings as a myth ?

    Last Saturday photos were published in the Saturday Times which claimed to show debris left on the moon after the Apollo II mission. Will this now spark off a new conspiracy theory ?

    This new conspiracy theory will have to claim that the unmanned satellite shots taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter were never actually taken and that the photos shown are just part of another FBI conspiracy to cover up the original one.

    Dear Lord, give me strength !!!!!!!

    Ron
     
  9. DoctorD

    DoctorD WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Ron
    Don't tell me my moon dust is fake, too!!:(:(
     
  10. Ron Goldstein

    Ron Goldstein WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran Patron

    DoctorD

    :) :) :) :) :)

    Ron
     
  11. -tmm-

    -tmm- Senior Member

    Flat Earthists/Moon landing conspiracy theorists make me angry.

    Don't forget of course about USSRs Luna 16 mission which took soil samples from the moon...that was all a hoax too, just to support USAs hoaxed landings. And we all know how buddy-buddy USSR and USA were at the time. :D
     
  12. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Which moon?
     
  13. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    Which moon?

    Alfie Moon
    [​IMG]
    With his nana :D
     
  14. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Moon dust? Pah, beginner's stuff! I OWN one square mile of the Moon! Title deeds and mineral rights.

    but I can't ever see myself moving there. It's a bit boring - no atmosphere.
     
  15. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    Bar Boom Tishhhhh !
    [​IMG]

    :lol:
     
  16. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Tishhhhh !

    Re the picture...are you spelling with a lisp??? :lol:
     
  17. Auditman

    Auditman Senior Member

  18. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Yes, revisionism has it's usefulness. There is no denying that recent Russian, etc., history seen from the West has been somewhat one-sided. Thinking of it, recent and not so recent.
     
  19. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    The Russians have been preparing for the anniversary of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact for some time now ;)

    Russian Defence Ministry has accessed Poland of being responsible for World War II in an article published on its official web site.

    The article was written by Colonel Sergey Kovalov from the Institute of War History at the Russian Defence Ministry and published in a War Encyclopedia under the title “History – against lies and falsification”.

    “Everyone who studies the history of WW II without prejudice knows that the war started because Poland refused to satisfy German claims. However, not everyone knows what exactly Adolf Hitler wanted from Poland. His claims were rather moderate: to incorporate the Free City of Danzig (currently Gdansk) into the Third Reich and to let Germans build exterritorial motorway and a railway [through Poland] which would join East Prussia with the rest of German territory,” writes the Russian historian. In his opinion, “it is hard to regard these claims as unjustified”.

    “Poland aimed at becoming a regional super power and by no means wanted to play the role of a younger partner to Germany. That is why on 26 March 1939 it finally rejected German demands,” argues Kovalov.

    Russia knows better

    The Russian historian also justifies the attack of the USSR on Poland on 17 September 1939. He claims that Josef Stalin had no choice but to sign a non-aggression pact with Hitler in order to postpone, at least in the short term, war with Germany.

    The Russian daily Wriemia Nowostiej has criticized the article published by the Defence Ministry, saying that “the war against falsification of history ‘to the detriment of Russia’, proclaimed by the highest state authorities, is grotesque.”

    The daily ironically predicts that “soon Adolf Hitler will turn out to be an effective manager and East European countries, smashed by Soviet and Nazi ‘effective management’, will be found guilty for getting in their way,” writes Wriemia Nowostiej.

    In May, the President of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, created the Committee for the Counteraction against Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia. The committee consists of Russian politicians, historians, officials and secret service agents and its goal is to investigate ‘distortions of the historical record’ caused by Polish, Ukrainian, Latvian and Estonian historians.

    The Russian Defence Ministry’s deputy spokesman Aleksandr Petrunin refused to give thenews.pl a commentary on Kovalov’s article.

    Russia: Poland responsible for WW II - TheNews.pl :: News from Poland

    A nice whitewashing....or should that be Red-washing? [​IMG] Which explains why it was therefore okay first to be allied with the Germans against the villainous Poles...
     
  20. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    “Everyone who studies the history of WW II without prejudice knows that the war started because Poland refused to satisfy German claims. However, not everyone knows what exactly Adolf Hitler wanted from Poland. His claims were rather moderate: to incorporate the Free City of Danzig (currently Gdansk) into the Third Reich and to let Germans build exterritorial motorway and a railway [through Poland] which would join East Prussia with the rest of German territory,” writes the Russian historian. In his opinion, “it is hard to regard these claims as unjustified”.

    It takes some bloody nerve!

    I certainly don't sympathise with the chauvinistic and fascsit Poland prewar, but quite frankly the Germans were pointing a gun at Poland and it's Poland fault to start a war for not yielding to Hitler's blackmail?

    "His claims were rather moderate". Yeah, also moderate were the USSR claims on Finnish territory, a pity the bloody peasants provoked a war by not yielding to us.

    Disgusting. Short memory and disgusting!
     

Share This Page