Nelson voted greatest British military hero of all time

[pate]

As a fisherman, I'll bite.

No google, facebook etc.

1 c.

2 c. (Third time around; surely someone will be griping(sp) enough to make the books, right?)

3 c

4 b

5 c (the only one I can claim to have heard of... Winston was awesome, but not for his feats on any battlefield...)

6 a (a great sauce, word has it that the W-sauce had its roots in Roman tradition, not what they 'borrowed' but their own, like soy-sauce... The Frenchman in me says that a sauce should legally cling to the back of a spoon...)

7 c (The Great Battle of Preposterous shall forevermore be recalled by all great scholars.)


Seriously (how did I do?) and, the battle-cry of 'Preposterous!' shall ring forevermore when people of the 'brain' do gather, and all have fear....

Always pick your ground. I think you win this battle on the technicalities... How'd I do? Will history remember me? ;)

[redco]

Annoyed, but not surprised

Dowding is not on the list.


ps; On a couple of other choices;

Churchill was a political leader not a military one.

Monty deserves to be on the list. I wouldn't put him in the top 3 but he's far better than most Americans give him credit for. They seem to be under the impression that only their generals are allowed to be arrogant SOB's ;)

[Ironduke]

Still would have gone for Churchill. The way he was chastized and ridiculed for sounding the alarm when Chamberlin was being nothing but compliant to the Germans. But yet he returned to the admiralty and basically carried the people to victory during WWII. Without Churchill IMO Britan would have fallen to the Germans.

*Personally I dont think Nelson or the others should be in the same catagory.

I don't see how the Germans would have taken Britain in any event. I think the historical record shows that the Germans were quite keen on negotiating a peace with Britain, to free their hand in the East. The conquest of the Soviet Union is what Hitler was truly keen on, and war with the Western Allies in 1939 was overall an unwelcome development. What that would have meant for the course of world history, however, is altogether a different matter.

[DragoonGuard]

Without Churchill IMO Britain would have fallen to the Germans.

Sorry Dreadnought, - There's not a single Brit on here who will agree with that.

[Kernow]

Annoyed, but not surprised

Dowding is not on the list.


ps; On a couple of other choices;

Churchill was a political leader not a military one.

Monty deserves to be on the list. I wouldn't put him in the top 3 but he's far better than most Americans give him credit for. They seem to be under the impression that only their generals are allowed to be arrogant SOB's ;)

Go look at the History of Churchil and see his Militarty Conquests.

[redco]

Go look at the History of Churchil and see his Militarty Conquests.

We are talking about Winston S Churchill not his ancestor the Duke Of Marlborough.

[Kernow]

We are talking about Winston S Churchill not his ancestor the Duke Of Marlborough.

Winston S Churchill.

During his army career, Churchill saw action in India, in the Sudan and the Second Boer War. He also served briefly in the British Army on the Western Front in World War I, commanding the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers.

[redco]

Winston S Churchill.

During his army career, Churchill saw action in India, in the Sudan and the Second Boer War. He also served briefly in the British Army on the Western Front in World War I, commanding the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers.

I never said he wasn't a brave man, but his importance was in the political sphere, not the military.
Commanding a battalion during a quiet period on the Western Front doesn't really qualify you as one of Britain's greatest military hero's

[Kernow]

I never said he was a hero or be considered to be one. He did distinguish well in Battle though.

[Dreadnought]

Without Churchill IMO Britain would have fallen to the Germans.

Sorry Dreadnought, - There's not a single Brit on here who will agree with that.

Really? Personally I can't think of another British leader that could have seen that country through some of its darkest days. And he did so after being removed from service posts a few different times. And yet they reappointed him. Chamberlain would have given the Nazi's anything they wanted. He was an appeaser to state the least and more then likely would have submitted or sued for peace. Churchill grabbed the reigns again and became on of the most dominate political figures during WWII. A fact that was not realized until well after WWII. Without Churchill, chances are the US would have never have entered the war until attacked by Japan nor supplied England with resources becuase they would have had no faith in Chamberlan whatsoever with his background. Churchill did much more then he was ever given credit for and it is highlited every time a twentieth century leader invokes his name and many have done this.

In relation to the Royal Navy and what it has meant to Great Britan, Admiral Nelson included,

Churchill once wrote:

" It is upon the Royal Navy under the good providence of God, That the health, wealth and safety of this kingdom, due chiefly depend".

I don't doubt that Monty was a good General or Patton or any others, but they could not fill Churchill's shoes when it came to leading and inspiring a nation to victory. There is simply no comparrison IMO.

[mikado]

Winston S Churchill.

During his army career, Churchill saw action in India, in the Sudan and the Second Boer War. He also served briefly in the British Army on the Western Front in World War I, commanding the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers.

I thought he was a journalist during the Boer War? And his stint in WWI was something of a sabbatical from his job as First Sea Lord - it wasn't as if he went "over the top" personally. He saw action at Omdurman, which was a walkover. I don't know what action he saw in India.

So yes, he did fine in battle, but I'm not sure his personal bravery ranks any higher than, say, George H Bush.

[redco]

Really? Personally I can't think of another British leader that could have seen that country through some of its darkest days. And he did so after being removed from service posts a few different times. And yet they reappointed him.

Churchill's leadership did keep Britain in the war, but the claim that Britain would have 'fallen' without him is incorrect as both the RAF and RN were far too strong to allow even the possibility of a successful invasion. Its far more likely that without Churchill Britain would have negotiated a peace which kept Germany out of Britain but allowed Germany a free hand in continental Europe

I don't doubt that Monty was a good General or Patton or any others, but they could not fill Churchill's shoes when it came to leading and inspiring a nation to victory. There is simply no comparrison IMO.

Indeed there isn't.
However, Churchill's importance was as a political leader, not a military one. He would have probably have been as bad in a military role as Monty and Patton were in politics

[DragoonGuard]

Really? Personally I can't think of another British leader that could have seen that country through some of its darkest days. And he did so after being removed from service posts a few different times. And yet they reappointed him. Chamberlain would have given the Nazi's anything they wanted. He was an appeaser to state the least and more then likely would have submitted or sued for peace. Churchill grabbed the reigns again and became on of the most dominate political figures during WWII. A fact that was not realized until well after WWII. Without Churchill, chances are the US would have never have entered the war until attacked by Japan nor supplied England with resources becuase they would have had no faith in Chamberlan whatsoever with his background. Churchill did much more then he was ever given credit for and it is highlited every time a twentieth century leader invokes his name and many have done this.

In relation to the Royal Navy and what it has meant to Great Britan, Admiral Nelson included,

Churchill once wrote:

" It is upon the Royal Navy under the good providence of God, That the health, wealth and safety of this kingdom, due chiefly depend".

I don't doubt that Monty was a good General or Patton or any others, but they could not fill Churchill's shoes when it came to leading and inspiring a nation to victory. There is simply no comparrison IMO.

Thats not where I'm coming from, - I'm not having a go at a great statesman as you appear to have understood, - I'm saying that he had the British people behind him. It was the British people who kept up the fight against the might of the Luftwaffe in 1940. Thats what stopped Operation 'See Lowe'.

Barbarossa was another big break for the Brits.

(also I feel it was in the interests of the USA to provide unofficial 'assistance' to the UK up until the USA had a chance to join in)

[Dreadnought]

Indeed there isn't.
However, Churchill's importance was as a political leader, not a military one. He would have probably have been as bad in a military role as Monty and Patton were in politics

*Certainly agreed. Could you imagine those two in politics?:))

(also I feel it was in the interests of the USA to provide unofficial 'assistance' to the UK up until the USA had a chance to join in)

*I agree with this point also, the only thing we cant account for would be Roosevelts feelings towards Chamberlan had he still been the British PM. He may however have undertaken it on his own account. Things we shall never know I guess.

[Dreadnought]

Thats not where I'm coming from, - I'm not having a go at a great statesman as you appear to have understood, - I'm saying that he had the British people behind him. It was the British people who kept up the fight against the might of the Luftwaffe in 1940. Thats what stopped Operation 'See Lowe'

*Another factor in the British people was the fact that King George VI and Queen Elizabeth refused to leave England although they were offered safety here in the US.