Talk:World War Z/Archive 2

Human Death Toll
Fixed Death Toll section based on new data from the Randomhouse WWZ website (http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/worldwarz/). Click on the author tab and scroll down for the interview (Sorry, no direct link due to site being flash based)

I just read this book and I'm pretty sure there is a comment to the effect of 'back when the world's population was above a billion'. . . this implies an overall death toll of 5 billion people??? I am re-reading this again right now, and if I find this quote I will add to the article with citation, and if I don't I will delete this comment.
 * Well, it doesn't state what the world population was before World War Z, so it could have been more than 5 billion or less than 5 billion (logic dictates more, but that's speculation). The interview itself says "we lost 600 million people", though Brooks comments that the number is very low. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just did a quick check and I believe the subject being interviewed (Barati Palshigar, p.196) was referring to the Indian subcontinent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.135.169 (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

600 million seems too low. In the Xu Zhicai interview, he states "China lost over half its population." 600 million is about half of China's population, so the death toll should be much higher. Agent Chieftain 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In the final pages of the book, it's mentioned that 600 million is only the number of deaths caused directly by zombies (and therefore, I'd imagine, the total number of zombies) and doesn't count the deaths due to starvation, suicide, etc.


 * Actually, though there may have been sic hundred million deaths relating to the dead, that does not mean there are six hundred million zombies, as LaMOES, survivor groups, or primary human resistance would have killed off many zombie.


 * We get a firm number that there are 200 million zombies in the continental United States, of which maybe 25 million were refugees from Latin America. The rest were domestic.  Also, literally half of China's population were turned into zombies.  That's not even including India.  I think even a conservative estimate would put the global zombie count at somewhere over one billion.  YES, he does say that starvation, and the general breakdown of order, not to mention the Iran-Pakistan nuclear exchange and Chinese Civil War, killed a LOT of people...plus the LaMOES and "Rambo"-types ended up killing almost as many people as the zombies during the Panic when they started just shooting everything that moved. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 23:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Zombie Survival Underwater
--Johnathonm 07:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC) It could be because the zombie’s blood is a congealed, black mass. Thus, they can retain moisture better in all environments and further, this mass can stop their brain from imploding under water.


 * I've read the book and while zombies surviving underwater is not really new, I've always wondered how it worked. Yes yes, that's being too analytical of the whole lore of zombies and what have you, but come on, it was suggested there were millions of them on the ocean floor; evidently impermeable to pressure and all that. Who knows, maybe World War Z's zombies were something "evolved"? Shadowrun 23:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The zombies are immune to pressure due to their physiological makeup. Their lack of liquid/normal blood and bodily fluids that would be susceptible to pressure/pressure attacks - for example, the thermobaric bomb mentioned by the soldier who experienced the chaos in Jersey - prevents them from exploding.  Likewise, as they are already dead, nitrogen bubbles or anything of that nature (which is what causes the "bends") would not affect them.  Nor do they need to breathe underwater, of course.  If anything were to cause organs to be violently removed from the bodies (again, the thermobaric bomb interview) the zombies would still continue to have mobility and the desire to eat. Pejorative.majeure 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it still doesn't make much sense. Water pressure at the sea floor is enough to pulverize steel-submersibles have inches-thick armor to survive. Having said that, a brain would be flattened thinner than paper, unless it has the density of steel (more, actually). And a thermobaric blast-the air is compressed until it is several the density of steel, and it travels at the rate of a bullet. If an ordinary bullet can shred brain tissue to the point of killing the zombie, there's question as to what a bomb can do-forgotten about the fragments already, too? They are bullets-in and of themselves. 75.31.138.94 06:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason things like submarines implode underwater is because they're trying to keep the water out. The deeper you go, the water pressure increases. Well, zombies aren't exactly watertight. If the pressure inside the zombie is the same as the water pressure outside the zombie, the zombie is going to be okay. As much as I love the book, Max made a boo-boo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coelacanth1938 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Right, but for a zombie to survive underwater, all its organs would have to be as dense as steel. Otherwise, it'd explode at ordinary atmopheric conditions. The pressure would damage its brain badly enough to kill it-decapitation works, right? 'Sides, it still won't survive a FAB blast.

75.31.138.94 04:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * When a living human goes diving, the pressure inside the lungs must effectively equal the pressure outside the body, otherwise the lungs will collapse. Zombies don't breathe and they're dead anyways. Air spaces within living bodies provide no support against greater outside pressure. Zombies don't have to worry about that either because they're still not breathing and they're still dead. A zombie's organs need only be as dense as water which what they're primarily made out of. Funny thing that you should bring up FAB's. FABs kill mostly by damaging the lungs and the intestines, neither of which a zombie needs.   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coelacanth1938 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Ah, all right-the virus changes the body's physiology much more than I thought. But as for thermobaric weapons and FABs, I was under the impression that it was the blast wave that did most of the damage-i.e., flattening structures, et cetera, instead of primarily shrapnel, like in a regular bomb. The lung damage was a side effect. Now, the blast wave is the air, superheated. The heat and the blast causes the air to expand violently outward from the point of detonation. The air is, in effect, compressed to the density of metal (I'm repeating myself, aren't I?) and forced outward at the speed of a bullet. That is equal to slamming the zombie into a steel wall at several hundred miles an hour. The physical impact should fracture the skull and pretty much liquefy the brain. That's a kill. But, on a separate note, how does decapitation kill the zombie?

75.31.138.94 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you've read the book at all? The blast effect will knock them down, but it won't put them out. Fluid in a zombie body is reduced to a kind of gel and shock effects are minimized. Decapitation will not kill a zombie. The body will shut down, but the head will remain active. The only way to kill a zombie is to destroy the brain. PERIOD.

All right, calm down. I'll admit to not having read the book, but I'm trying to get things straight in my mind from the WP article and the section about the lobotomizer. So you are telling me that every bit of fluid, including what's in the brain, is turned into gel. I did not get that part earlier. But (please don't get impatient at me here), has the author said anything about how intact the brain needs to be? Since it's pretty much liquefied, I'll assume the answer is, not very.


 * If you didn't read the book, why are you discussing it? You could just as easily discuss Romero's zombies.


 * Okay, barely related but I can't help myself. The Italian movie Zombi 2 features a zombie vs. shark "fight".  So the viability of zombies under water has been around for decades, though that doesn't create a scientific rationale. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.34.245.86 (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm sorry but if you can't allow for suspension of disbelief up to a point, then you will never accept a great deal of this. First, zombies don't decompose because no lifeform will ingest its 'corpse', so they last for as long as the brain survives.  Secondly, and restricted to this topic, it has already been pointed out that since controlled diving will equilise pressure, zombies will not 'explode' underwater -- they don't have pressurised body parts, and the skull is certainly not pressurised, which is really the important thing. Piepants 21:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Piepants


 * The virus is at the frontal lobe of the brain, so I would suspect that zombies can at least take a little bit of brain damage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.143.44.198 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Barack Obama as first choice for VP?
Does anyone else think that the "Howard Dean" character suggests (p. 147) that Barack Obama was the Democrats' first choice to serve as VP under Colin Powell? Worth a mention?

I believe the President was Colin Powell. The key clue is saying that the President has relatives in Jamaica, where Powell's family emigrated from. Also, the VP (probably Howard Dean) mentions that the President was in the military.

Not my question. I agree with both of those. The VP says (p. 147): "I knew I wasn't the first choice. I know who my party secretly wanted. But America wasn't ready to go that far, as stupid, ignorant, and infuriatingly Neolithic as it sounds.  They'd rather have a screamind radical for a VP than another one of 'those people.'"

So the Democratic party's "secret" choice was also black. Is it bad that I assumed Obama? 165.123.184.181 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC) supercres


 * Really, all the speculation about who the unnamed characters are is original research, including the Colin Powell, Rudy Giulani, and Howard Dean characters. Unless someone provides a citation those statements should be removed from the article. Rray 15:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Although the Obama stuff is a stretch and original research, as he said, the book said the president was in the military and had family from Jamaica.  Obviously a Colin Powell ref, as well as the Howard Dean stuff.  They can't come out and say this because of legal stuff, but don't hide behind the anti-original research stuff; I have fun seeing what the book is saying, not in enforcing wiki-rules for the sake of wiki-rules.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While I agree that trying to figure out the real-world identities of some of the characters is speculation, I would keep it in so long as it makes reasonable, non-extravagant connections. The fact that Powell has relatives in Jamaica is hardly a secret or an unverified fact, and is therefore (in my opinion, at least), an reasonable connection to make. Jpouliot 21:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"Rolihlahla"
Just wanted to say that during the interview with the imprisoned "random government official" (his false name escapes me), he mentions a famous old leader hugging Paul Redeker. This leader was named "Rolihlahla" in the book. I don't think it's terribly common knowledge, but "Rolihlahla" is Nelson Mandela's middle name.

Shouldn't this get a mention in the "real life personalities" section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.99.137.233 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Effectiveness of air forces
It mentions in this article that convential air forces are next to useless. Thats a bit misleading, if anything air forces in this type of situation would be extremely valueble in the ground support role. They would blow hordes of zombies into peices. Goldfishsoldier 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, in the book, the air force was pretty useless. Not only do the planes and helicopters consume a lot of fuel, but their ordinance wasn't particularly effective against the zombies (a bomb may blow a zombie apart, but unless it destroys the brain, the zombie is still a threat). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is stated in both the article and the book that the Air Force was next to useless, as it guzzled up too many resources and, for reasons stated in the book, worthless for any direct military action. However, it should be noted that while the Air Force is deemed useless in a direct military role, it was extremely effective and almost crucial to air drop supplies into the numerous civilian Safe Zones.Hatedthirdborn 04:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Hatedthirdborn

Beleive me, ordinance used for ground support would vapourize a person if they were standing with in 20 yards of the explosion, depending on the type of bomb and even then the concusion or shrapnel would tear a person apart. A hand granade could tear a person apart at 10 yards. I could go on about this for ages, but there's plenty of things in this book that I could argue about. But then again whats been said has been said. Goldfishsoldier 08:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But thing of all the manpower that goes into a bomb. Think of the resources to build and maintain planes. The book said that the airforce used too many resources for every Zombie it killed. It was a better use of resources to have the manpower that is needed to fuel, equip and maintain a bomber on the ground with Lobotomizers and guns. User:Stargate70

This one almost has to be chalked up to literary convention as the answer to your question is, the manpower/resources to lethality bang for your buck actually still goes to the bomb. The ability to simply blacken large areas of land is tactically useful in the described premise.

~Actually you are wrong. 500 pound bomb would certainly kill everything only few meters away. Blast pressure is next to harmless for zombies as described in book and shrapnels won't kill as many as you would like. Basicly the bomb would do the job that squad of new model troops would do in minute. Worse it would mangle some of them, reducing them to crawlers, the kind of zombie that troops resented most. As for hand grenades, they kill with shrapnels, victims die from bleedings or damage to internal organs, therby they aren't dangerous to zombies however they can harm humans.~

Well, you are free to write your own book where zombies a)have internal organs and b)cannot operate without these specific organs, but in Max Brooks' World War Z universe, which is what this article is on, those facts are present, and furthermore, soldiers and government officials alike comment on the uselessness of the air force against the zombies. So arguing for the air force is rather useless in this forum. 140.232.201.66 02:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It mentions in this article that convential air forces are next to useless. Thats a bit misleading...

No, it's not the least bit misleading. That's how it is in the book. This article is not an article on the real-life physics of killing zombies, it is a synopsis of the book's key plot points. As 140.232.201.66 said, feel free to write your own book if you don't like the way this one portrays air force weaponry. — ceejayoz talk 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The world's air forces are next to useless against the zombies. By "next to useless", that's "towards winning the war and stopping the zombie hoardes".  An individual zombie won't do well against a Commanche helicopter, but that's what we learned the hard way at the Battle of Yonkers:  in terms of tank-rounds and artillery, depleted uranium armor piercing rounds and such, they either 1-went right through the zombies, or 2-zombies don't have the internal body fluids which are supposed to get boiled alive by the heat and pressure like a living human.  Zombies are tough.  Explosions rely on mortally wounding a human; zombies can survive anything except a headshot.  -->Well, that was the armor and artillery.  What Yonkers taught us about air power was obvious:  when the ground infantry (who were never expected to do more than "mopping up" fighting) ended up fighting for their lives and the zombies were starting to over-run them, a full-scale air-drop by joint strike fighters on the zombie hoarde was ordered.  What did this do?  It *did* destroy literally tens of thousands of zombies.  Then the planes ran out of bombs.  And there was a hoarde of millions of zombies, the entire zombified population of the New York City infestation, closing in.  They destroyed maybe the first 100,000 or something.  And more just kept on coming, sheer weight of numbers.  >The book explicitly makes the point that yes, zombies can get vaporized, literally vaporized by plane-dropped bombs (not just tank artillery, I mean the heavy bomb stuff).  Problem is, they worked it out and statistically, the amount of time and resources spent on creating those bombs and maintaining and refueling the planes...an equal amount of resources could have been used to outfit an entire platoon of grunt infantryment, and statistically they would actually end up killing more zombies.  One bomb kills a few dozen zombies?  Versus the resources to supply a squad of soldiers who could ultimately destroy several hundred in the long run?  It asn't worth it..........of course, that's what part of Max Brook's satire was.  We go into the Iraq War thinking "we have the technological edge, we have total air superiority and higher technology, we've already won"...the Zombie War is the story of how we nearly get overwhelmed by an enemy that doesn't even know how to use clubs and rocks.  We "overthought" everything.  That was the mentality that caused the disaster at Yonkers; everything thought "wow, our planes can blow up the zombies really good".  Our cruise missiles can blow up stuff better than anything the Iraqi insurgency has, but we're still losing there.  It was a waste of resources......a better analogy that springs to mind is how we dropped many more times the amount of bombs we dropped in World War II onto Vietnam, but still ended up losing.  Think "Apocalypse Now" when Kilgore and his team end the day with fresh steak barbecues and cold beer; they're just not using the resources effectively, and worse, have grown overconfident.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 23:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the statement is misleading, because the FAEs that were deployed during the Battle of Yonkers (which the books credits for the safe evacuation and retreat of American forces) were done so by USAF aircraft. Next to worthless? Not from the account of the Battle of Yonkers. Although the book doesn't explicitly imply it, many more would have died in the BOY had air support not been there. I think what Mr. Brooks was trying to drive home was that air power wasn't COST EFFECTIVE in terms of materials, man power, ect. - not that it was "worthless." --167.7.203.235 18:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's how it goes: Air forces as zombie stoppers, not going to happen with anything other than perhaps a fuel-air bomb. Conventional bombs, as well as other explosive weaponary are inneffective aganst a zombie hoard. One to one, the zombie would die, but this in itself is ineffetive resource wise, more on that later. Anyway, most of our explosives kill by two main methods in groups of enemies. The "Balloon" effect works when the shockwave impacts a human body, the shockwave increases the pressure of liquid in the body, and the body liquifies, leaving the shockwave free to travel more outward hitting more people. The other method is called "Sudden Nerve Trauma", when a shockwave hits the body, nerves will be overloaded by electrical impulses, and the brain will shut down major organs. Both of these will not work against the zombies of this book. The balloon effect is not effective as the blood and liquid in a zombie has congealed to a black "gel", therefore it is tougher for the shockwave to punch through zombies around the blast, thus even though many zombies would die, they would shield other zombies from the blast. Sudden Nerve Trauma does not occur as the Zombie does not need its organs anymore. Make no mistake, bombs would kill many zombies, but it just isn't the same effect as when they are dropped into a group of live humans. Not kill to cost ratio efective, as many zombies needed killing, and bombs were too expensive to use as they would kill not as many zombies as they wanted. The only way to kill a zombie is to destroy its brain. As for other air forces such as attack helicopters, they would kill more zombies as they have a cannon, and have a higher chance of hitting zombie brains, but they are still ineffective. They have limited ammunition supplies and the ammunition is not designed to exclusively destroy brains. It is more cost effective to use soldiers and for the same ammount of zombies killed, it would cost far less resources. Tanks would kill more zombies by running them over than with the cannon. At Yonkers for example, most of the tanks had their Anti-Armor rounds seeing use. The rounds would punch right through zombies before exploding, killing little as zombies would still be living unless their brain was hit by the round. The tanks carried few Anti-Infantry rounds. Those rounds use flechettes. Think shotguns on steroids, the round fire hundreds of tiny flechettes, and the more rounds they put into the hoards the higher the chance of brains getting hit. This is not to say the Air Forces were not useless, in fact they were vital. Just not in the manner that everyone wants, or expects. Air forces were vital in suppy and resupply of towns and other barricaded areas which were under perpetual seige by zombies. 72.234.47.11 09:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The main reason the air force wasn't very effective against the undead was the huge drain of resources required for every zombie kill. Think of all the metal in a single missle on an aircraft. You might kill even 500 zombies with one bomb, but you could make tens, if not hundreds of thousands of bullets out of the materials used to make that one bomb. If one bullet can kill one zombie, even with only 50% accuracy, 1,000 rds could kill 500 zombies, the same amount as more expensive methods of weaponry.67.142.130.49 03:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oceania?
Is there any mention of what happen's in Oceania in the book? Goldfishsoldier 23:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is part of the new "Pacific Continent" - a collection of islands and whatnot in the South Pacific. Grahamdubya 14:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm from Australia and i found the lack of discussion about an entire continent was a bit odd. I mean i accept that we have a very low population density, but the only mention of oceania (not including the pacific continent) was in the few lines from the interview with the last commander of the international space station when it was mentioned that the government of australia relocated to tasmania. and surely given our low population density we deserved a mention...i mean, high heat (good decomposition), one giant island, no large bodies of water, very few people outside of major cities...perfect hide-out people!

i added a section regarding the limeted information in the book on AustraliaBoatman666 04:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the low reference to the Oceanian countries is due to the affore mentioned low population density. There is however a whole chapter of an Aussies experience in space, and mention of the fact that UN election observers in Jakarta thought there was a political riot when infact it was Indonesias first major outbreak. There is also mention of how the Maori of New Zealand were relatively successful inc ombating the undead. Also, lets be realistic, its written by an American and set in America mainly-the book wont extensively mentionthe realtively insignificant parts of te wrold-ie, Australia and NZ having pre war economies that are minows compared to North America, Asia and Europe-as well as once again,the small population.


 * They do say that the Australian government relocates to Tasmania. It's not that Australia is a low-population island-continent....that's what the poor souls in Iceland thought.  You've got to think of the refugee problems.  Iceland seemed like the perfect hideout, so tons of refugees, many infected, ended up going there and many were infected, and now it's the world's biggest White Zone.  This is speculation, but I would guess that massive numbers of boat people from Indonesia tried to escape to Australia and only ended up adding to the zombie count on the island.  Yes, they do point out that the Maori managed to successfully fight off half of the Auckland infestation in a massive battle at One Tree Hill.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 23:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW-how do you actually add entirely new sections rahter than just add to pre existing sections

you put == either side of the title Sherzo 14:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ratio of resources expended to zombies "killed"
I noticed that in the "Total War" Section of the article, it says:

"Further, advanced technology such as 21st century air combat forces proved incredibly ineffective, with the ratio of resources expended per zombies killed being woefully low."

Wouldn't it make more since if it said "woefully high"? Since the supplies are being divided by zombies killed in this ratio: 1 gallon of fuel/100 zombies is lower than 100 gallons of fuel/10 zombies. I've gone and changed it to "Further, advanced technology such as 21st century air combat forces proved incredibly ineffective, with the ratio of zombies killed per resources expended being woefully low." --Foe666 08:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Need more information
We`need to mention quislings and laMOEs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.253.237.151 (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I agree, this section needs info about quislings, ferals, feral animals, and laMOEs (and possibly Robinson Curusoes). There is also no mention of the K corp in the military. Cokomon 02:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

added a relevent section under the north american headingBoatman666 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting a section
''One interviewee from India criticizes the guide as having been too tailored towards Western society, seemingly to the slight indignation of the interviewer, the guide's author. ''

I'm rewriting this sentence. Though in the real world both books were in fact authored by Max Brooks, it never implicitly states in World War Z that the interviewer character authored the civilian survival guide. If anything this was probably just an in joke for those who had read the Zombie Survival Guide. If anyone can find a specific passage that directly links the interviewer and the guide then feel free to put it back in. Levid37 11:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It says at the back "Working for the United Nations Postwar Comission, Max Brooks had unparalleled access to the architects of victory."
 * Also, in the "Radio Free Earth" section, when a man from India is being interviewed and says that the Zombie Survival Guide was very inadequate, "the interviewer" (Brooks) gets a little offended. The Indian man explains that, logically, the book was obviously written by an American for an American audience, and contained advise on things like how to use your SUV (not as many cars per capita in other countries) or just casually advises what kind of guns to use when in other countries it is sometimes difficult to even get any guns at all; he made a good point.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

pic removeal
Why was the picture removed from the wepons section? 75.0.59.61 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine because it was a poor-quality photo of someone holding some sort of gardening tool, which didn't match the description of the lobotomizer in the text, and added nothing to the article. --McGeddon 18:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean up
this article is lacking sections on critical response and other such entries you'd expect on a work of fiction. In Britain for example it was positive recieved though their was criticism of the historical innaccurate description of Clement Attlee and the portrayal of Britain part in the pacific theatre of WW2.

I did think that was an odd comment-Atlee, as much as he is a relatively low profile politician-being the immediate successor to Chruchil, is considered something of an understated hero as well-voted consistently as the best PM Britain had in the 20th century-due to his efforts to get Britains economy working again after the war, as well as establishing the jewell in the crown of the Britiah state-the NHS, hospitals free at the point of need, free from the cradle to the grave..........clearly the comments regarrding Attlee were written by an American lolGashmak 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Atlee was a much better prime minister than churchill whats this fuck wit on about trying to act smart because he can name more than one prime minister

well-im confirmed by the fact that

1-British parliamentarians have voted Atlee as the most effective PM in 100 years

2-if this `fuckwit` is so wrong, why then, fuckdust, did he get so summarilly dumped out of power in 1945-go read some history about post war Britain and what the British people actually wanted rather than taking the traditional BNP view that Churchil is a God who did no wrong-if Churchill for example were alive today, he would likely be in the BNP-a far right anti immigration, anti progess in general, party-and i say that as someone who admires Chruichil for his WARTIME policies-however,thats the point-he was suited to being a wartime PM only-and the people knew that, so thats why his party was dumped out of power in 1945Gashmak 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the "fuckwit" was the author since he supports your point about Atlee being better than Churchill however that could be a typo. Oh come on Churchill would never be that rightwing he was a liberal at heart and only joined the tories after there collapse, because he despised socialism, i always love that quote from his wife, "You may not like it Winston, but socialism as practiced in this country did an awful lot of people and awful lot of good without doing anyone any harm" and churchill did dump atlee out of power in 1951Sherzo 04:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well now im confused-as for Churchil being a liberal-clearly the past had different standards in terms of what makes a liberal then and now

perhaps your confusion is between how the term liberal is used in the USA and the rest of the world. but Churchill helped lay the foundation of the British Welfare state in the liberal government of 1906 as was a liberal MP and minister till the party's collapse. Sherzo 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)