 | This is an archive of past discussions about Winston Churchill. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
There's one anachronism in this article that I can't resolve at the moment: Churchill's Boer War escape from "South Africa" to Mozambique. I believe that he escaped from the Orange Free State -- soon to become part of South Africa, the country, but not yet -- but it may have been Transvaal. Anyone know for sure? -- PaulDrye
What does "self-proclaimed Afrikaaners" mean? -- Zoe
Removed.
It is illegal: 1.to permanently keep land militarily taken over 2.to expel and to replace the inhabitants. Therefore with the Potsdam protocol the USA, Britain and Soviet Union put the eastern part of Germany under (temporary) administration.
It violates the Geneva Protocols to do so during time of war, but this was post war. One could argue that it violates the United Nations Charter, but the United Nations Charter has a special exemption for settlements for World War II.
Also as far as I am aware, the Allied powers intended the movement to be permanent
(I tried for a long time to sign on, had to copy and lost a part H.J.)
This happend:
1. during the war, sample,see: Danzig Gdansk, where Soviets took over and a Polish major took office April 3, 1945 (war ended in May).
2. during occupation by Allies from 1945- 1949 and during continued occupation by Allies from 1949, when the GDR German Democratic Republic and FDR Federal Republic of Germany were formed under allied occupation until 1990's.
I have before me a copy of a speech of May 16, 1957. A few exerps:
"German Provinces East of Oder-Neisse Line. Economic, Historical,Legal and Political Aspects Involved.
Speech of Hon. B.Carroll Reece of Tennessee In The House Of Representatives Thursday, May 16, 1957
...Indeed, only the backing of the Soviet armoes can ultimately insure Poland in holding on to her war spoils. As long as Poland continues her occupation of the German provinces, she must go on playing ball with the Kremlin, she must do whatever is asked of her and, yet, never be sure. Kremlin policy is cynical and ruthless to the utmost. Moscow will not hesitate a moment to sell Poland "down the river" if, on some future day, the Soviet rulers can strike the right bargain. I sometimes wonder whether the present regime in Warsaw is not aware of the inescapable logic on this point.
This Congress, and, in fact, the entire American public, wants to know whether the new Polish Government is still a puppet of the Soviets or is indeed a patriotic Polish Government. One of the best ways to determine this is to observe whether it continues the Soviet policy of pushing Poland westward into German territory, or throws aside this suicidal policy... by continuing her illegal occupation of the German provinces east of the Oder and Neisse Rivers Poland acts, deliberately or unwittingly, as the servant of Moscow imperialism...."
This clearly states: Illegal Occupation.
This is now an irrelevancy, since the government of a reunited Germany clearly stated at the time of reunification that it had no intention of persuing a claim for lands lost to Poland during WW2. DJ Clayworth 15:26, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Wasn't he a reporter in Cuba during Spanish-American War? Did he learn there about concentration camps? Is he related to their introduction in South Africa? I seem to recall vague things. -- Error
Poison gas quote
""Poison gas would be a fine weapon against uncivilized tribesmen and recalcitrant Arabs... It should inspire a lively terror." Is this quote word-for-word correct? I've read that quote worded differently before; eg the word "primitive" rather than "uncivilized".
I will remove the quote about poison gas it seems that Churchill said something like that in 1920, but it also seems that he was referring to non-letal gas....
See : http://www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm
Ericd 10:24 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
Does it matter if the gas is lethal or not? Churchill said it, and he's still quoted for it once in a while. So I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in this article. Please come up with more plausible reasons (for or against putting the quote back). Guaka 14:51, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- There's a big difference between using gas to disable (such as tear gas) and to poison. DJ Clayworth 15:07, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- But somebody's talking about 'lively terror' it's doubtful that it's about the use of tear gas or similar gasses. Guaka 10:57, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I have provided a link to a source please read Ericd 11:07, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm putting back the previous photo-- in addition to the newer one, not instead of. I think he's important enough that the article can have two photos, and I think fewer people are familiar with his appearance when he was younger. -- Infrogmation 01:48 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
- I agree with that - but is it possible to move one of the photos (the second one, probably) to the left? It seems nicer, somehow, to have one photo on the right and one on the left, rather than both down the same side. I'd do it myself, but I've sworn off editing images - I'm hopeless with images. --Camembert
What is this some kind of winston churchill shrine? Juan Hernandez
The Yalta photo has probably some copyright issues. IMHO this is not the right place for this photo the WWII or Yalta Conference article would be more adequate. Ericd 23:45 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I agree. --Ann O'nyme 21:11, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Can we please add some better "notable quotes" to this page? The current quote is hardly notable or well-known, especially considering the plethoral of truley notable Churchill quotations. user:J.J.