Who are the Most Overrated Historical Figures?

[discodown]

Then you say billions. Especially if you are a pedant.

Possibly, but an american billion is different to a UK billion so you might still say millions if you weren't sure

[Radomu]

No. After Churchill in 1945, Clement Attlee came to power started what Gorbachev did in the late 80's: he dismantled the British Empire to save Britain, both financially and diplomatically. The biggest foreign policy decision made by Attlee was, of course, the independence of the British Raj. India experienced the worst eras in their history under British rule, with three of their worst famines ever. They faced further problems after the independence, but at least the tyrannical free market exploitation of the British were ending.

 

But Winston Churchill, as the Tories were all hellbent on the subject, returned as Prime Minister in 1950. He did several things and one was him overthrowing the first democratically elected leader of Iran alongside Eisenhower, just because the new Iranian leader was nationalizing the oil in the country. That threatened British interests in Iran because the Anglo-Iranian Oil company (now we know them as BP) held the assets. He and Eisenhower instated the Shah in Iran, who became one of the worst US-UK backed dictators of the region.

 

There was also the violent crackdown on the Malaysian independence movement and the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya. Tens and thousands of people died under Churchill's desperate struggle to keep the Empire alive.

 

Refer to this post that I made a page ago.

[Shogun]

No. After Churchill in 1945, Clement Attlee came to power started what Gorbachev did in the late 80's: he dismantled the British Empire to save Britain, both financially and diplomatically. The biggest foreign policy decision made by Attlee was, of course, the independence of the British Raj. India experienced the worst eras in their history under British rule, with three of their worst famines ever. They faced further problems after the independence, but at least the tyrannical free market exploitation of the British were ending.

 

But Winston Churchill, as the Tories were all hellbent on the subject, returned as Prime Minister in 1950. He did several things and one was him overthrowing the first democratically elected leader of Iran alongside Eisenhower, just because the new Iranian leader was nationalizing the oil in the country. That threatened British interests in Iran because the Anglo-Iranian Oil company (now we know them as BP) held the assets. He and Eisenhower instated the Shah in Iran, who became one of the worst US-UK backed dictators of the region.

 

There was also the violent crackdown on the Malaysian independence movement and the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya. Tens and thousands of people died under Churchill's desperate struggle to keep the Empire alive.

You can also look at Gallipoli that was his idea 100,000 men died there brave young men from New Zealand and Australia not to mention how many Turks died in that blood bath for nothing at all , Dieppe in the second world war a nut-her waste of brave young men,s life's Canadians that time, invasion of Italy was his idea as well.

[Grahame]

Well no, if you are a pedant, you could say either, considering that they are both perfectly correct.

 

Except you wouldn't call a billionaire a millionaire. It would be like saying the pole vaulter jumped ten inches when he crossed the bar at ten feet, even though technically he vaulted ten inches it would be wrong.

 

[teenyweeny]

But they did. My point was that people loved The Beatles. If The Beatles were 50% great McCartney songs and 50% terrible Lennon songs the point would stand. That isn't the case. They were at their best together, and both were hit and miss on their own. McCartney had more star factor, and seemed happier with the fame. Lennon had the heart, and was happy playing odd with his new wife.

 

mcartney did well with wings,lennon probably didnt enjoy the fame bit, so i agree with you.nonetheless he was still brilliant in his own right.he wrote some wonderful songs.. woman springs to mind.

[flamingjimmy]

But they did. My point was that people loved The Beatles. If The Beatles were 50% great McCartney songs and 50% terrible Lennon songs the point would stand.

 

But that doesn't make any sense, he didn't actually claim that Mcartney was a better songwriter than Lennon, just that that was apparently the perception amongst the public until Lennon died.

 

How good the songs actually were or not has nothing to do with the point he was making.

[manofstrad]

i agree with you.lots of people have forgot the sacrifices that britain made to win the war,without winnie we probably be all talking german now.

 

It seem that it was all a waste of time and lives anyway, as we have ended up giving this country to the foreigners without a fight!

[teenyweeny]

You can also look at Gallipoli that was his idea 100,000 men died there brave young men from New Zealand and Australia not mention how many Turks died in that blood bath for nothing at all , Dieppe in the second world war a nut-her waste of brave young men,s life's Canadians that time, invasion of Italy was his idea as well.

 

 

these men that died were happy to give their lives for our country, they believed the germans should be brought down..the life we enjoy now is all down to these men and winnie.

[Grahame]

Robin Hood was actually a thief you know!

 

In that case anyone who returns stolen possession is a thief?

 

Seriously I have been finding out new things. "Read the page a legend is born."

 

http://robinhode.webs.com/

 

[teenyweeny]

It seem that it was all a waste of time and lives anyway, as we have ended up giving this country to the foreigners without a fight!

 

 

true true,we need more men like winnie to stand up and be counted,it seems the politicians are pushovers and pander to the whims of pollitacally correctness.they dont make men like winnie anymore.this country has no backbone anymore.