
I see that David Irving's back in the fold as a respectable historian. In the Guardian, of all places.
When did that happen?
( , Tue 19 Jul 2016, 13:52, Reply)

16 years old or not, I didn't know this. Interesting article.
But even in 2000 Irving's name was mud, wasn't it?
( , Tue 19 Jul 2016, 14:12, Reply)

Lauded by numerous members of the British public because "He won the war, innit?", accused of having someone else do all his hard work.
Well I never!
( , Tue 19 Jul 2016, 14:40, Reply)

Churchill drove him mad with frustration. Here's a quote:
"He knows no details, has only got half the picture in his mind, talks absurdities and makes my blood boil to listen to his nonsense...And the wonderful thing is that 3/4 of the population of the world imagine Winston Churchill is one of the great Strategists of History, a second Marlborough, and the other 1/4 have no conception what a public menace he is."
( , Tue 19 Jul 2016, 14:58, Reply)

but was over ruled and had to settle for the italian campaign instead.
He was the man this country needed at the time and drew enough support from accros the board to get us in a position to kick old uncle adolf in his knackers after swaying the Americans that germany first was the way to go and not not Japan first as most of the American military wanted
( , Tue 19 Jul 2016, 16:48, Reply)

Was the will to go on in 1940, the speeches, and the tireless fostering of the alliance. He's constantly sailing the Atlantic to see Roosevelt, or taking the North Cape route to Moscow, or flying to Casablanca, Tehran, Yalta for conferences. No wonder he had a couple of strokes during the war, which is never talked about.
When it came to strategy, though, he was a menace. Simple concept: maximise concentration of force against enemy. All his plans for peripheral operations in Norway and the Balkans were either romantic, or strategically foolish, or both.
( , Tue 19 Jul 2016, 16:57, Reply)

way back....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwx4x76oW9Q&list=RDowvVzSAKQRw
( , Wed 20 Jul 2016, 0:30, Reply)