Has Churchill said something like this?

Both Finland and Nazi Germany were fighting Russia, so they were on the same side.

Your remarks about Finland and Germany are more than a little fatuous and misleading. The Finns (the word is commonly spelled with two n's) fought their first war against the Soviet Union in late 1939 through early 1940--the Winter War. It is utterly false that the events were conditioned by the German invasion of Norway. Germany was pleased that the western Allies--France and England--proved so inept in forming a response to the Soviet invasion of Finland, but they were not allies of the Finns. The Finns did not become allies of the Germans until Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. Even at that time, the Finns simply recovered the territory which they had conceded to Soviet at the end of the Winter War, and would neither push any further into Soviet territory, nor acquiesce to German troops operating out of their territory. Finland's refusal to push any further than the recovery of Karelia meant that the Soviets had a tenuous supply line to Leningrad across Lake Ladoga when that lake was frozen, which was half the year. In fact, the alliance with the Finns did the Germans little material good, while the distraction of the Soviet Union by the German invasion allowed Finland to recover the territory they had been forced to cede. Finland remained in nominal alliance with Germany until late in 1944.

I don't know why you decided to seize upon the situation with Finland, but you ought not peddle nonsense for which you can provide no support. Simple web searchs for the Winter War and the Continuation War will proivde accurate information on Finalnd and her relationship to the Soviet Union and to Germany.

EDIT: In 1939, 1940 and the first half of 1941, not only was Germany not fighting the Soviet Union, they in fact had a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. It is completely misleading too come up with a statement that they were both fighting the Russians and so they were on the same side.

You really are full of it. I'm sorry that my failure to use the double N failed to meet your exacting standards, as I was a little tired when I wrote it. Nazi Germany wasn't pleased France and Britain failed to respond to the Soviet invasion of Finland,the non-agression pact with the Soviets was a ruse to buy time by Hitler, and Stalin fell for it. When Germany invaded Poland, so did the Soviets. We only declared war on Germany, mainly because Germany had proven they were the bigger threat, having already swallowed up Czechoslovakia the previous year. If we'd declared war on the Soviet Union as well it would have been considerably harder if not impossible to defeat Germany.

The Soviets invaded Finland about the same time Nazi Germany invaded Norway. The two events were only connected in that the Soviets saw it as an opportunity to grab more land, much in the same way as they had done in Poland. The allies were too preoccupied with Germany to do much about it leaving Finland fighting the Soviets on their own. When Germany attacked the Soviet Union the FinNs found themselves allied to Nazi Germany which is what I said previously. Churchill declared war on Finland as part of the rapproachment with Stalin. That is why it appeared as a question on QI as the only time two democracies were at war.

If you spent a lot less time staring at Liz's barking spider you might be able to think a bit more clearly.

The Soviets

For a clown who rants about the English language as though you owned it, it's hilarious to see you whining when you're subjected to correction yourself.

Germany was delighted that England and France failed to respond to the Soviet invasion of Finland as it was evidence of their confused counsels and lack of coordinated policy. Sure the non-aggression pact was a sham, but it's significant because you have just blandly and simplistically claimed that Germany and Finland were both at war with the Soviet Union, and were therefore "on the same side"--which is what you wrote which moved me to respond. That's false, over-simplified and the ugly step-child of you historical ignorance.

So, you don't consider the War of 1812 to have been a war between two democracies? I guess that's accurate, since one could hardly characterize England as having been a democracy before the first reform bill, and even then, the mantle of democracy probably didn't deserve to lie on English shoulders. You don't consider the Mexican-American War to have been a war between two democracies? You don't consider the War of the Triple Alliance to have been a war between democracies? Well, i suppose you get a pass because that was four democracies, not two.

This is on a par with your simple-minded comments on Puritans and "the Civil War" (hint: there were three civil wars in the 17th century in England, which English historians recognize, even if you don't) in another thread. I guess we can expect no better from someone whose source is television.

When you had provided the scholarly evidence of what speeches Churchill delivered after a certain date, you were done. However, you couldn't resist showing off an historical knowledge which you erroneously believed you possessed. You deserve to be ridiculed for having done that, since it was not only unnecessary, but it revealed your ignorance.

Well that's me telt. So you would not consider Finland and Nazi Germany to be allied at any point? This alliance was not even broken by Finland's secret services bugging Hitler, something the Nazis were aware of. The English civil war is commonly referred to as that, despite the amount of seperate conflicts that occured. You have absolutely no idea of my sources. You only tried to pick holes in my posting because it was my posting, and not anyone elses'. When talking about the 1812 war, you erroneously confused Britain and England. The Act of Union predated that conflict.

I don't mind having a spat with with an anal retentive, you might need to check for missing cushions,they're probably up your arse. You're not being honest with yourself, you're just jealous of my 'classy' accent. Still thanks for the Setantrum, it gave me a good laugh. Well done you.

I objected to your post because it was bullshit. Get over it.

I'm very sorry I apologise. I was forgetting that you were such an expert on bullshit.

British Civil Wars-dot-co-dot-uk is arguably the best source online for that period in English history. I also highly recommend the excellent biography Cromwell : Our Chief of Men by Antonia Fraser, London, 1973.

You quoted

The English Civil War of the mid-17th Century was part of a wider series of conflicts

Note English Civil War, not Wars. Glad we managed to sort that one out. You need to be congratulated for your meticulous research. Well done you!

I'm not surprised to see you display such poor reading skills, which is why i underlined the instances of civil wars in the text, and in the very name of the web site--that doesn't seem to have helped you, though. As usual, you hilariously claim that you've sorted something which you obviously don't understand.

You are quite right. I feel totally humiliated by your keen intelligence and razor sharp wit. I'm going to have a little cry now.

How very pathetic of you. You'd choke to death rather than admit that you were wrong, no?

I'm sorry I realise I'm encroaching into your territory again.

I said

The English civil war is commonly referred to as that, despite the amount of seperate conflicts that occured.

Now if you think that your quotation disproves that, good for you! I'm so humbled by your close attention to detail, and your powerful intellect.

Setanta is famous for his hypocrisy. He can contradict himself in the course of two postings, hell sometimes even with a single post.

Here he does it again; whining about a little typo when his posts are full of typos.

The Finns.

Now I know why this was tagged ESL

Your sneers are meaningless. As was the case with that bullshit of yours about the only war between democracies, the point was far less about how many civil wars there were in 17th century England than the bullshit you were peddling about the Puritans. It is true that you were wrong about there having been a single civil war, but more importantly, you posted a line of stereotyped bullshit about Puritans which ignored that they were not the only significant faction in the civil wars, and that they are not the black, dour characters that are portrayed in the popular imagination.

Whether its the civil wars or Finland, you have simply offered popular and false, simplistic views of history. In the process, you have displayed your ignorance.

Poor Beth. She must be constantly performing Heimlichs.

Has Churchill said something like this?

Ori, this is right on the cusp of being idiomatic. I hope that my explanation will help you better understand the present perfect [PP].

Yes, we use the PP for finished events but that's when those finished events have a relevance to now. As you already know, the PP has a strong connection to 'now'.

But I feel, and I'm certainly willing to hear other viewpoints, that this example is not the PP of current relevance/importance, rather, your example could be glossed as a PP of experience, in that you are asking if Churchill ever had the experience of saying such and such.

But because Churchill is dead, [this in itself doesn't preclude the PP] and more importantly, long dead, the tendency, I think, would be to use the simple past,

Did Churchill [ever] say something like this?

To me the connection to 'now' is sufficiently disconnected that I doubt you'd see the PP being used in this case.

The past perfect [PsP] wouldn't work here unless you were trying to point to a what he said in connection to another event at a different point in time.