- May 2011
- Navan, Ireland
No I didn't I denied that he needed a stand in because he was drunk and incapable,First you claimed the stand in didn't happen. .
No I din't because I always knew that-- you didn't read your source that you posted in support of Churchill being drunk and incapable because it didn't mention it.Then when you checked, you changed your mind. .
In the middle of WWII yes he was rather busy to many things so getting a stand in to do a radio broadcast while he could do appearances (much harder to fake)Then you claimed it was explained since the Prime Minister had more important things to do. .
When did I say it wasn't-- but what more important--BBC address-- question time house of commons, cabinet meeting, touring bomb sights , meeting representatives etc?I'm saying that is flat out nonsense. Public addresses are one of the biggest roles of a PM..
None of these can be 'faked' (they were still his words) but a radio broadcast could.
Really?I did read history. .
Then you should know that Churchill trained and served as a junior officer and a battalion commander in WWI.
In many way the worst type of armchair generals --old soldiers.
None of which I challenged ,although I do think you exaggerate, Churchill did meddle but on the whole could be handled by his generals (unlike Hitler) sometimes for the good often not.Which is why I can say with all honesty, that while an absolutely outstanding politician (when he bothered to give public addresses himself and not delegate it to someone else), Winston Churchill was an utter disaster in military matters. When I say this know its not hyperbole. I hate Hitler, but I rate him higher than Churchill as understanding military art/science. Stalin too, FDR too as they largely listened to their generals (at least Stalin did after '42) .
Now your source that Churchill was so often drunk and incapable he needed a body double to operate?