|
" If I don't putsch, I don't accomplish anything "
" Youth is Everything "
" For Evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing."
" Democracy is a dictatorship periodically renewed at Election time."
" I am responsible for everything, except my own responsibility."
" I have no affection to be of a party."
"Ireland is the graveyard of English reputations "
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"
"Freedom is ownership of land and the means to defend it." "Lord Henry by God's ungrace King of England knowingly and consciously fabricates lies against the majesty of my King in Heaven, this damnable rottenness and worm. I will have the right, on behalf of my King, to bespatter his English Majesty with muck and shit and to trample underfoot that Crown of his which blasphemes against Christ." Martin Luther on King Henry 8th in 1522 ; Henry complained to the Duke of Saxony that Luther was "threatening the social fabric of Christendom." Which was a fine comment coming from the murderous Grandson of a Welsh hedge robber. (nb) This article was included as a fine example of 16th century diplomatic language.
"The World is my Country and to do Good is my Religion"
Adages
Anyone got any ideas for Man or rather, Person of the (last) century? Offhand I'd nominate Claus Schenk Von Stauffenberg, who made the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of justice, (not wishing to demean any of the participants in the July '44 plot to kill Hitler in mentioning only his name) and he was fortunate enough to have been shot out of hand, but there are so many that would have to be considered: Nelson Mandela whose dignity and resolution in the face of tyranny has set such an example to so many; Mother Theresa whose life was devoted to helping the sick; Winston Churchill without whose personal courage, tenacity and vison the British Empire might never have striven to resist Nazism, let alone succeed and preserve the World from fascism; Alexander Fleming for his discovery of life preserving antibiotics; Woodrow Wilson for his vision of a World free of Nationalistic strife; George Orwell for his uncanny literary insights into human failing; HG Wells for the accuracy of his prohecies; Rasputin has been overlooked by many insofar as he was a licentious character and a convenient scapegoat for Romanov incompetence, it also being the case that they still have living relatives but I feel he deserves a mention in particular for his uncanny ability to give to the poor without offending the rich, an ability all to absent in modern day idealogues who like to think they are admired for their humanity and insight. There are many plausible cases. Churchill will obviously win most such contests but I feel that in many ways the jury is still out in the case of Winston Churchill: his achievements can seem disproportionally great as they have occurred in the era of mass communications and as part and parcel of a World War or two, his failings have been arguably largely overlooked as a result of that War's outcome. He can be portrayed quite convincingly as a careless adventurer who was fortunate enough to have been given an opportunity by the rise of European fascism to redeem a reputation extremely tarnished by the fiasco at Gallipoli in WW1 and could be accused of many precipitate acts not the least of which was the unconditional surrender of the secrets of radar to the Americans, which was not entirely a strategic necessity for the British Empire as it then was, and out of which they made great capital. The Japanese were effectively blind in contesting for the Pacific, this piece of British intelligence made the American victory, which without radar could easily have taken twenty years into a formality of a few seasons campaigning. My vote for man of the (last) Millenium goes to Oliver Cromwell for his singular unique achievement in establishing the only successful revolution in English History and for his hugely significant role in defining the nature of subsequent colonial civilisations alongside which his uninspiring oratory seems an almost unimportant detail. I do suppose many of the French however, would nominate Napoleon and one would have to concede the achievements of his European Military successes which only Hitler could really challenge in terms of magnitude and the . We could say in evaluating such criteria that Habsburg Empires for example lasted much longer than Napoleon's conquests and that we shouldn't underestimate the 'achievements' of these 'civilisations' just because they weren't devoted to expansionist militarism.
|