Churchill's Greatest Speech

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
Aufklarung
Financial supporter
Posts: 5128
Joined: 17 Mar 2002 04:27
Location: Canada

Post by Aufklarung » 10 Apr 2003 16:37

"Fight them on the beaches" Great and Inspirational then and now. 8)
Lord Gort wrote:.....of the dozens of countries only Canada, India and Australia made a sizeable contribution

I would have also included S Africa and New Zealand. Good poll.
regards
A :)

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Post by tonyh » 11 Apr 2003 10:02

Does anyone know how many of the above speeches were delievered by Churchill and how many were actually delivered by Norman Shelley?

Churchills voice double on many of hs speeches and Larry the lamb on BBC's childrens hour.

Tony

User avatar
Achtung Panzer Buff
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 02 Mar 2003 06:38
Location: United States of America

Post by Achtung Panzer Buff » 11 Apr 2003 15:06

Just reading the choices gives me goosebumps. Churchhill was an outstanding speaker!

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 11 Apr 2003 16:52

Another that I am fond of is the 1944 pre D-DAY speech....

"And soon the whole ring of avenging nations shall hurl themselves at the enemey and batter out the darkness that has sought to bar the progress of mankind!"


regards,

User avatar
Daniel L
Member
Posts: 9116
Joined: 07 Sep 2002 00:46
Location: Sweden

Post by Daniel L » 12 Apr 2003 00:29

Altough I'm not sure if I ever heard or read the 'breach' speech I voted for this one:

We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!

Best regards/ Daniel

User avatar
lisset
Member
Posts: 339
Joined: 10 Oct 2002 23:13
Location: U.K

Speech

Post by lisset » 15 Apr 2003 23:33

Churchill's speech warning of "the abyss of a new dark age" captured all that was evil about what was to come.
Karlowitz post which stated that Britain was runined by continuing the war crumbles in the face of Churchill's words.
The price of resisting Hitler was indeed high , but was nothing when you think what might have happened had he won in Europe in 1940.
Has Karlowitz considered what a German victory would have meant ?
A dismissive , off hand and largely ill considered rational considering Herr Hitler's track record up until July 1940 .
An old german proverb..."He who supps with the Devil needs a long spoon".

User avatar
mikerock
Member
Posts: 1144
Joined: 30 Mar 2003 04:47
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Post by mikerock » 16 Apr 2003 00:18

Lord Gort wrote:Oh, and contrary to popular opinion the Empire wasnt a buttress to GB strength but actually a drain, of the dozens of countries only Canada, India and Australia made a sizeable contribution.


Please do not forget that New Zealand, although small, contributed a great percentage of her population and resources to the war effort.

--Mike

User avatar
uk_student
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 15 May 2003 15:42
Location: Great Britain

Post by uk_student » 18 May 2003 14:35

I would pick "fight them on the beaches" speech. It is so inspiring and defiant.

Also, don't forget Rhodesia. 11,000 white Rhodesians saw active servive in the Second World War. Rhodesia supplied more troops per head of population then any other country in the British Empire.

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 18 May 2003 19:20

mikerock, I apologise, and it was a genuine omission. I believe that then and now the fate and security of the world depends and has depended upon the English speaking peoples of the world.



regards,

Hoth
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 14 May 2003 18:47
Location: UK

Post by Hoth » 18 May 2003 21:57

Churchill did make some fine speeches. My favourite is the "Never has so much been owed to so many by so few"

Still, I agree with Karlowitz, Britain sacrificed it's empire to finish Hitler, and some may say that it wasn't our fight. GB and Germany had completely different aims. Hitler wanted Russia, we wanted our Navy, and our island. I do not agree with many of the things Hitler did, but prior to 1939, what did he ever do to us?

User avatar
lisset
Member
Posts: 339
Joined: 10 Oct 2002 23:13
Location: U.K

Before 1939 what did he ever do to us ?

Post by lisset » 18 May 2003 22:18

For a start he planned to make war on Britain and to a Nation we were pledged to assist ...Poland.
He manipulated a British Prime Minister into dividing the Czech nation.
Just because no shot was exchanged don't think for a second that he would not have treated us the same way he disregarded the neutrality of other nations..........Hitler may not have wanted war with Britain but to what lengths did he go to avoid it , would it have been in the National interest to have made a peace with Hitler in June /July 1940 ?
Could you have slept safe in the knowledge that there was in Whitehall " A piece of paper signed by Herr Hitler" which assured us of his peaceful intent.

The Empire was by the start of the war an outmoded institution...it would not have surived much longer......the world was changing...Hitler and Stalin ...symptoms of that change.

Would still have to say that a peace with Germany would have visited evil on many more nations........what would have happened if say the price of peace was to give up Gibralter and Malta to Italy and to remove troops from Egypt ?

Hoth
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 14 May 2003 18:47
Location: UK

Post by Hoth » 19 May 2003 15:52

"For a start he planned to make war on Britain and to a Nation we were pledged to assist ...Poland"


If we were pledged to assist Poland, why did we then not declare war on USSR when they invaded two weeks after Germany?" Poland was a lost cause. It has been split between surrounding powers since the day it was formed. If Hitler hadn't have grabbed it, the Soviets would have.

"He manipulated a British Prime Minister into dividing the Czech nation."


The Czech nation would never have worked anyway. Look at Austria-Hungary. When there are people of many different nationalities, there is always going to be bitterness and hatred between them. Its human nature, and as much as we try and suppress it with our 'Political Correctness', it's always going to be there. In Czechoslovakia, there were Germans, Czechs, Slovaks, Austrians and others. Instead of having one crappy nation where nobody gets along, why not have each minority form its own country. There has been many examples of countries of mixed nationalities falling to pieces throughout history: Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, Serbia/Kosovo, Israel/Palestine, USSR and soon to become another example, the EU.

"Just because no shot was exchanged don't think for a second that he would not have treated us the same way he disregarded the neutrality of other nations"


I agree, he was wrong to disregard the neutrality of them countries, but he did not want war with Britain, and provided we didn't provoke him, he wouldn't have ordered an attack on us.

"Hitler may not have wanted war with Britain but to what lengths did he go to avoid it , would it have been in the National interest to have made a peace with Hitler in June /July 1940 ?"


If by accepting a peace treaty with Germany, less British soldiers, sailors, airmen and civilians died, less of our Empire was lost, less of our economy was ruined, then yes, it would have been in the National Interest.

"Could you have slept safe in the knowledge that there was in Whitehall " A piece of paper signed by Herr Hitler" which assured us of his peaceful intent."


If I was in Holland or Belgium, I would most certainly not sleep soundly at night, but I could have trusted Hitler's word about not attacking Britain. We had nothing which Hitler wanted. He wanted Europe, we wanted our island, and our Empire. He was willing to let us take French overseas colonies, and even keep control of German territories put under British protection in 1919 at Versailles.

"The Empire was by the start of the war an outmoded institution...it would not have surived much longer"


If we didn't have to fight anyone, then we could have retained our Empire, be it with the 'iron fist in the chainmail glove' or not.

"Would still have to say that a peace with Germany would have visited evil on many more nations."


As a British person, I care more about what happens in Britain than elsewhere in the world. If Hitler had decided to run amock in France, then thats their problem and not mine.

"what would have happened if say the price of peace was to give up Gibralter and Malta to Italy and to remove troops from Egypt ?"


We would never have had to cede any lands to Italy. If it came to it, Hitler would have sided with the British over the Italians anyday. He disliked and distrusted them, mainly because they declared neutrality in 1914 even though they were in the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary & Italy) and they joined the Allies in 1915. He'd seen their forces in action in Spain in 1936 and afterwards in Albania and he had no repesct whatsoever for them. On the otherhand, Hitler respected Britain. He respected its Navy, the skills of it's soldiers, it's history and it's national pride.

He only sided with Italy because we wouldnt ally with Germany, and also Italy was a fascist state. I am sure if Hitler secretly stated his intentions in Russia to Britain before the war started, we would have been quick to ally with him. Remember, Britian was the original anti-Communist country, helping Tsarist Russia fight off the revolutionaries in the rebellions before 1914.


Still, I have the greatest respect for Churchill. His speeches were some of the best I know of, especialy 'Never has so much been owed to so many by so few'. He did his best to achieve what he believed in, and he got it in the end. He was a great leader, and he is a great example of the British determindness and resolve. He must have had real guts to do what he did. Refusing the peace offer after the fall of France would most certainly have finished us off, if Hitler hadn't have gotten bored of waiting to attack Russia. I just think our nation was led in the wrong direction, and maybe the Soviet victory in Europe caused more problems than it solved.

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 19 May 2003 17:37

Great Britains power lay not so much in her Empire but how she communicated with that Empire: the sea. At the beggining of world two the British merhcnat fleet numbered over 20,000 ships. Today that merchant fleet is only 500 ships strong. The merchant ships all got insurance off the Government. Makes sense, not just their own government but the governmnet that controlled the largest fleet in the world. Millions rolled in a paid for the Navy through insurance premiums. But as the ships got sunk income was lost and mroe had to be paid out. A disaster!


regards,

User avatar
lisset
Member
Posts: 339
Joined: 10 Oct 2002 23:13
Location: U.K

Isolation !

Post by lisset » 19 May 2003 20:30

A number of points which I would not agree on , the decision not to declare war on Russia must been viewed was one based on National interest.
Britain and France did what they could and had to do , for Britain to say Europe can sort itself out would have played into Hitler's hands......I don't think that in the big picture Hitler would have been happy to leave Britain alone...sooner or later he would have seen us as a nation he had to settle with ...either we danced to his tune or he would declare war and go all out to destroy Britain.
No , Hitler proved beyond all doubt that he could not be trusted , to abandon our Allies to him would have been immoral.
Keeping the British Empire alive.......sorry it was on borrowed time since 1918....we had no devine right to rule other nations and deny them the right of self determination.
Small nations like the Poles and Czechs ........if they wanted to divide their own counteries ...well that's their own decision , German occupation that's a totally different matter , for us to have isolated ourselves so totally as you say ...heads in the sand....... trust Hitler....to quote Mr. McEnroe "You cannot be serious".

By declaring war on Germany we acted in our best interests and by not making an accomadation with Hitler we continued to act in our best interests.
Can't think why we would have wanted to get into bed with Germany in the 1930's........

Russia , Hitler was always going to make war on Russia the non-aggression pact was a time saver and a guard.

Hoth
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 14 May 2003 18:47
Location: UK

Post by Hoth » 20 May 2003 16:58

we had no devine right to rule other nations and deny them the right of self determination.


Then what right did we have in interfering in Central Europe in 1919? Creating Czechoslovakia and splitting up Austria-Hungary gave minorities no right to self determination, and forced millions of people out of their homes because the country they lived in suddenly was another country.

In 1634 Poland was Europes largest nation and had the most powerful land army. From 1772, a coalition of Prussia, Russia and Austria divided Poland between them. In 1917 the war in the East was won by Germany and Austria-Hungary, and millions of square miles of territory were given to them by the new Russian government at Brest-Litovsk. When Germany lost the war in the west, or rather, was starved into submission, Germany lost territory to tne north, west and south, and rightfully so, the victorious powers have a right to land as the victors. But to meddle in the East caused more problems. Germany and Russia had finished their war a year ago, and the borders had been settled. If we hadn't then disrupted them borders, WW2 might never had happened. Had a Hitler still got into power, he'd probably have invaded Russia first, with British and French neutrality and done the world a favour by smashing Communism before it really took hold after 1945.

Look at the picture below, and look at the mess in the East and the Balkans, which were part of the problems that triggered WW2

Image

to abandon our Allies to him would have been immoral


Like Petain did you mean? And since when were Britain and France best buddies. Remember Britain and Germany tried to establish and Alliance in 1902 but couldn't agree on the Naval side of things. It was only a few years before WW1 Britain on the spur of the moment decided to join France and Russia. If we had stayed a spectator back then things would have been a lot better in the 30's, and maybe the close to 100 million people that died might not have.
[/img]

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”