[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I have no idea where you get your history from Kizzy, I just know that if you do believe in the concept of "good guys and bad guys" - or believe that a historical figure (e.g. Churchill) can't have contributed positive things on the grounds that they had other character flaws, then I don't agree with your view of history. So no, it's not an attempt to shut you down, it's an attempt to illustrate my belief that history (and people, past and present) are nuanced and complicated and that attempts to look at it in a black-and-white manner are misguided. So I suppose, then, yes, you have missed the point.

Also, yes I was referring to lend-lease, which I am aware was in the interests of the US, but Churchill was instrumental in securing it and in negotiating the ways in which it would be beneficial. Like I said - it's possible that the same would have come about without him, it's also possible that it wouldn't have, and it's possible that without his input it would have taken longer to secure and therefore have been too late. WW2 wasn't clear cut at any point and a delay could certainly have affected the outcome. Obviously, no one can say for sure... but if you could go back in time and remove him, would you be willing to risk it?

Is my history different from yours... Oh yours must be right then eh?
I don't, you 'suggested' I did.

I haven't suggested history isn't nuanced in any way have I? moreover I have pointed out the use of people from differing spheres of politics were allied at times to facilitate an end to war, that is not to say he was personally ideal as a peacetime PM due to his personal ethics in particular.

It is not wrong to suggest that this wartime effort overshadows the shadows of the man...It would be misguided not to acknowledge those so no I don't believe I missed the point as I raised that point initially didn't I?

Churchill asked Roosevelt to gift things initially, that's some negotiating skill, no I wouldn't remove him I haven't proffered that here. All I have done is give my opinion that the modern view of the man can be a little rose tinted in relation to his personal ideals and counter the opinion that colonialism was an accepted social norm in post industrial Britain, therefore he can be vindicated as a world leader expressing that attitudinal mindset.

[Vicky.]

I don't really know that much about Churchill, but weren't most people back in his day pretty racist?

Today, 02:22 PM ToySoldier...sounds very informative.

I may look into this when I get time to just check my opinion. No idea why I am posting on here given I don't know anything about him really

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't really know that much about Churchill, but weren't most people back in his day pretty racist?

Today, 02:22 PM ToySoldier...sounds very informative.

I may look into this when I get time to just check my opinion. No idea why I am posting on here given I don't know anything about him really

It depends what you even mean by racist anyway

The whole thread is a hot mess

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't really know that much about Churchill, but weren't most people back in his day pretty racist?

Today, 02:22 PM ToySoldier...sounds very informative.

I may look into this when I get time to just check my opinion. No idea why I am posting on here given I don't know anything about him really

What him telling me what I 'struggle' with? Thanks Vicky :/

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

What him telling me what I 'struggle' with? Thanks Vicky :/

Oh wow, this is maybe why I should quote the actual post I am on about..

I meant Yesterday, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Churchill was a cultural white supremacist and a colonialist Kizzy, that much is true, but he was patently not a eugenicist. If you're going to focus on his ... less admirable ... attributes, at least make sure you have the history right. He believed that white people were more civilised and more intelligent than other races, and essentially that Britain was "doing the world a favour" by colonising Africa and the Americas because we were bringing a more civilised lifestyle to a more primitive brand of humanity. He didn't believe that it was a world only for white people, he didn't want to kill off other races (as Hitler did)... in fact he had no malice or hatred for other races at all. He simply and genuinely believed that white people were more advanced. I believe he actually spoke a few times about how white British people actually had a duty to support and protect "disadvantaged" races and countries and, like I said, he believed that colonialism was morally correct in that it actually provided a superior lifestyle. I guess you could say... he was sort of like a white supremacist vegan? He believed that they were inferior but didn't believe that they should be harmed for that.

Was he correct? No. And yes it is unquestionably a racist and small-minded attitude. However, it's not close to the same thing as Hitler's eugenics ideas and genocide. Trying to make out that it is, is just as much butchering true history as it is to suggest that he wasn't racist at all.

Also, it's not so much an excuse as a flat-out fact to say that the VAST majority of people born in the late 1800's - of all classes and positions - would have held, by todays standards, pretty racist and white-supremacist ideas. Not from a place of anger or hatred, people just mistakenly believed that it was cold hard fact... and as others in this thread have said, trying to get on a moral high-horse about historical figures is utterly pointless. All that's really required is a "thankfully things are dramatically improved, let's make sure they keep improving". It doesn't, and can't, over-write the REST of history... or else every examination of every historical figure would just read "YEAH BUT THEY WRR RACIST THO!!" in block capitals.

**** knows why i didn't actually quote rather than doing this, its not my style at all..so its..weird that i felt the need to do that instead of quoting

[Kizzy]

Thanks, it's I feel misinformation as there is evidence he was a eugenics advocate...but meh

[Ammi]

...I agree with TS, that people..even the most significant and influential ‘great’ people in History are very complex in their views and their character, so there will always be negatives as well and those negatives would often be ‘of a time’ in their influence...mind you, I agree a bit with Kizzy as well.....because those negatives of the ‘greats’ in history, have to be looked at and scrutinised also so that this old world keeps progressing, rather than regress and to try to prevent regression as time ticks along...I think both are important and both are essential...so it’s a good discussion topic, to ‘humanise’ Winston Churchill...



...I wonder how the influential and significant people of our here and now, will be portrayed in future history...will the focus be only and mainly on the achievements or changes etc..or will we get more of the whole person, the flawed person...hopefully, the flaws are something that will be recorded as well, because despite those flaws and imperfections, as it were etc..those changes and achievements etc, still happened..that person was still very significant in a positive way in our history...

[Liberty4eva]

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Well it's not the best culture, now, is it...

[Livia]

Churchill was a man of his time. Judging people in the past by today’s standards is insane. When Churchill took over in 1940, he headed a coalition wartime government. It wasn’t a great start for him considering that pacifists had spent the 1930s pressing for huge disarmament… which sadly had left our services severely depleted. Churchill was a fighting old b*stard. And what we needed right then was a fighting old b*stard. I can’t imagine what would have happened with anyone else at the helm.

There have been comments made about Roosevelt and Stalin and I want to throw some light on that. Russia had signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939, which Germany broke in 1941 when they invaded Russia under Operation Barbarosa. Stalin didn’t join up with us to fight a common enemy, he was pressed into it by having his own country invaded. Similarly, Roosevelt wanted the Russians’ help in the Pacific against the Japanese. Churchill had been trying to get the USA on board since the beginning of the war, but they didn’t join until they themselves were attacked in December 1941. So any help we got from Stalin or from the Roosevelt didn’t happen until 1942. Between 1939 and 1942, we borrowed from the USA. Borrowed. We didn’t finish paying back those war debt to the USA until 2006, so any talk of them swooping in and saving the world is a bit far-fetched, they only entered when they themselves were attacked, and after watching its allies, namely us, stand up to Germany virtually alone for three years, during which time the civilians of the UK were bombed mercilessly. I say we stood “virtually” alone because the Canadians joined us without even waiting for an invitation. Similarly the Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Indians, West Indians… countries from all over, what was then the Empire, were the first to stand up. Also smaller countries like Nepal declared war on Germany, although their impact was obviously limited. But I never hear any of those countries claiming they won the war for us. The Allies won. No one country can take credit.

Churchill lost the General Election in 1945 to Labour, who promised they would build a home fit for heroes. And that went so well that the public voted Churchill back in in 1950.

Had Churchill not been at the helm during WW2 I’m firmly convinced Germany would have taken this country. Furthermore, as a descendant of Holocaust survivors it makes me shake my head to hear people call Churchill a racist when he was fighting Hitler, and when we allied ourselves to Russia out of necessity… and Stalin went on to murder more people even than Hitler (and I should say that far-Left Labour supporters in the UK still carry Stalinist banners today). And let’s look at Roosevelt’s history with people of colour… When Jessie Owens won the 100m at the Berlin Olympics in the 30s, Owens himself said that Hitler, although he did not actually meet him, raised his hand to Owens in recognition. On his return home, Roosevelt ignored him completely, and when he was invited to a reception for medal winning Olympians, he had to enter the hotel through the servants’ entrance. American forces in the UK tried to get pubs and dance halls to segregate the black servicemen and the Brits refused.

Churchill is one of the Greatest Britons because of his service to our country during wartime. We’d tried the appeasers, the talkers, the “I have in my hand a piece of paper” merchants…. And in the end, luckily for us, we got Churchill.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Churchill was a man of his time. Judging people in the past by today’s standards is insane. When Churchill took over in 1940, he headed a coalition wartime government. It wasn’t a great start for him considering that pacifists had spent the 1930s pressing for huge disarmament… which sadly had left our services severely depleted. Churchill was a fighting old b*stard. And what we needed right then was a fighting old b*stard. I can’t imagine what would have happened with anyone else at the helm.

There have been comments made about Roosevelt and Stalin and I want to throw some light on that. Russia had signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939, which Germany broke in 1941 when they invaded Russia under Operation Barbarosa. Stalin didn’t join up with us to fight a common enemy, he was pressed into it by having his own country invaded. Similarly, Roosevelt wanted the Russians’ help in the Pacific against the Japanese. Churchill had been trying to get the USA on board since the beginning of the war, but they didn’t join until they themselves were attacked in December 1941. So any help we got from Stalin or from the Roosevelt didn’t happen until 1942. Between 1939 and 1942, we borrowed from the USA. Borrowed. We didn’t finish paying back those war debt to the USA until 2006, so any talk of them swooping in and saving the world is a bit far-fetched, they only entered when they themselves were attacked, and after watching its allies, namely us, stand up to Germany virtually alone for three years, during which time the civilians of the UK were bombed mercilessly. I say we stood “virtually” alone because the Canadians joined us without even waiting for an invitation. Similarly the Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Indians, West Indians… countries from all over, what was then the Empire, were the first to stand up. Also smaller countries like Nepal declared war on Germany, although their impact was obviously limited. But I never hear any of those countries claiming they won the war for us. The Allies won. No one country can take credit.

Churchill lost the General Election in 1945 to Labour, who promised they would build a home fit for heroes. And that went so well that the public voted Churchill back in in 1950.

Had Churchill not been at the helm during WW2 I’m firmly convinced Germany would have taken this country. Furthermore, as a descendant of Holocaust survivors it makes me shake my head to hear people call Churchill a racist when he was fighting Hitler, and when we allied ourselves to Russia out of necessity… and Stalin went on to murder more people even than Hitler (and I should say that far-Left Labour supporters in the UK still carry Stalinist banners today). And let’s look at Roosevelt’s history with people of colour… When Jessie Owens won the 100m at the Berlin Olympics in the 30s, Owens himself said that Hitler, although he did not actually meet him, raised his hand to Owens in recognition. On his return home, Roosevelt ignored him completely, and when he was invited to a reception for medal winning Olympians, he had to enter the hotel through the servants’ entrance. American forces in the UK tried to get pubs and dance halls to segregate the black servicemen and the Brits refused.

Churchill is one of the Greatest Britons because of his service to our country during wartime. We’d tried the appeasers, the talkers, the “I have in my hand a piece of paper” merchants…. And in the end, luckily for us, we got Churchill.

Who has suggested any one country in the alliances did win the war? How were were many of those who fought from the 'empire', principalities or British territories overseas treated post war?...Can the academic article you referenced shed any light on that?

Not sure what the subtext is with regard to Roosevelt and Stalin monologue, who has advocated either? ... they were only brought into the discussion to show Churchill did not make all wartime decisions in isolation.

[bitontheslide]

Well said Livia

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Livia

Churchill was a man of his time. Judging people in the past by today’s standards is insane. When Churchill took over in 1940, he headed a coalition wartime government. It wasn’t a great start for him considering that pacifists had spent the 1930s pressing for huge disarmament… which sadly had left our services severely depleted. Churchill was a fighting old b*stard. And what we needed right then was a fighting old b*stard. I can’t imagine what would have happened with anyone else at the helm.

There have been comments made about Roosevelt and Stalin and I want to throw some light on that. Russia had signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939, which Germany broke in 1941 when they invaded Russia under Operation Barbarosa. Stalin didn’t join up with us to fight a common enemy, he was pressed into it by having his own country invaded. Similarly, Roosevelt wanted the Russians’ help in the Pacific against the Japanese. Churchill had been trying to get the USA on board since the beginning of the war, but they didn’t join until they themselves were attacked in December 1941. So any help we got from Stalin or from the Roosevelt didn’t happen until 1942. Between 1939 and 1942, we borrowed from the USA. Borrowed. We didn’t finish paying back those war debt to the USA until 2006, so any talk of them swooping in and saving the world is a bit far-fetched, they only entered when they themselves were attacked, and after watching its allies, namely us, stand up to Germany virtually alone for three years, during which time the civilians of the UK were bombed mercilessly. I say we stood “virtually” alone because the Canadians joined us without even waiting for an invitation. Similarly the Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Indians, West Indians… countries from all over, what was then the Empire, were the first to stand up. Also smaller countries like Nepal declared war on Germany, although their impact was obviously limited. But I never hear any of those countries claiming they won the war for us. The Allies won. No one country can take credit.

Churchill lost the General Election in 1945 to Labour, who promised they would build a home fit for heroes. And that went so well that the public voted Churchill back in in 1950.

Had Churchill not been at the helm during WW2 I’m firmly convinced Germany would have taken this country. Furthermore, as a descendant of Holocaust survivors it makes me shake my head to hear people call Churchill a racist when he was fighting Hitler, and when we allied ourselves to Russia out of necessity… and Stalin went on to murder more people even than Hitler (and I should say that far-Left Labour supporters in the UK still carry Stalinist banners today). And let’s look at Roosevelt’s history with people of colour… When Jessie Owens won the 100m at the Berlin Olympics in the 30s, Owens himself said that Hitler, although he did not actually meet him, raised his hand to Owens in recognition. On his return home, Roosevelt ignored him completely, and when he was invited to a reception for medal winning Olympians, he had to enter the hotel through the servants’ entrance. American forces in the UK tried to get pubs and dance halls to segregate the black servicemen and the Brits refused.

Churchill is one of the Greatest Britons because of his service to our country during wartime. We’d tried the appeasers, the talkers, the “I have in my hand a piece of paper” merchants…. And in the end, luckily for us, we got Churchill.

Good post


And just as Churchill was the best person for us in war-time, Jacob Rees-Mogg is the best person for us in Brexit-time (he'll eat the EU for elevenses)

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...I agree with TS, that people..even the most significant and influential ‘great’ people in History are very complex in their views and their character, so there will always be negatives as well and those negatives would often be ‘of a time’ in their influence...mind you, I agree a bit with Kizzy as well.....because those negatives of the ‘greats’ in history, have to be looked at and scrutinised also so that this old world keeps progressing, rather than regress and to try to prevent regression as time ticks along...I think both are important and both are essential...so it’s a good discussion topic, to ‘humanise’ Winston Churchill...



...I wonder how the influential and significant people of our here and now, will be portrayed in future history...will the focus be only and mainly on the achievements or changes etc..or will we get more of the whole person, the flawed person...hopefully, the flaws are something that will be recorded as well, because despite those flaws and imperfections, as it were etc..those changes and achievements etc, still happened..that person was still very significant in a positive way in our history...

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Alf

Good post


And just as Churchill was the best person for us in war-time, Jacob Rees-Mogg is the best person for us in Brexit-time (he'll eat the EU for elevenses)

Oh I do like the sound of that!

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Livia

Churchill was a man of his time. Judging people in the past by today’s standards is insane. When Churchill took over in 1940, he headed a coalition wartime government. It wasn’t a great start for him considering that pacifists had spent the 1930s pressing for huge disarmament… which sadly had left our services severely depleted. Churchill was a fighting old b*stard. And what we needed right then was a fighting old b*stard. I can’t imagine what would have happened with anyone else at the helm.

There have been comments made about Roosevelt and Stalin and I want to throw some light on that. Russia had signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939, which Germany broke in 1941 when they invaded Russia under Operation Barbarosa. Stalin didn’t join up with us to fight a common enemy, he was pressed into it by having his own country invaded. Similarly, Roosevelt wanted the Russians’ help in the Pacific against the Japanese. Churchill had been trying to get the USA on board since the beginning of the war, but they didn’t join until they themselves were attacked in December 1941. So any help we got from Stalin or from the Roosevelt didn’t happen until 1942. Between 1939 and 1942, we borrowed from the USA. Borrowed. We didn’t finish paying back those war debt to the USA until 2006, so any talk of them swooping in and saving the world is a bit far-fetched, they only entered when they themselves were attacked, and after watching its allies, namely us, stand up to Germany virtually alone for three years, during which time the civilians of the UK were bombed mercilessly. I say we stood “virtually” alone because the Canadians joined us without even waiting for an invitation. Similarly the Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Indians, West Indians… countries from all over, what was then the Empire, were the first to stand up. Also smaller countries like Nepal declared war on Germany, although their impact was obviously limited. But I never hear any of those countries claiming they won the war for us. The Allies won. No one country can take credit.

Churchill lost the General Election in 1945 to Labour, who promised they would build a home fit for heroes. And that went so well that the public voted Churchill back in in 1950.

Had Churchill not been at the helm during WW2 I’m firmly convinced Germany would have taken this country. Furthermore, as a descendant of Holocaust survivors it makes me shake my head to hear people call Churchill a racist when he was fighting Hitler, and when we allied ourselves to Russia out of necessity… and Stalin went on to murder more people even than Hitler (and I should say that far-Left Labour supporters in the UK still carry Stalinist banners today). And let’s look at Roosevelt’s history with people of colour… When Jessie Owens won the 100m at the Berlin Olympics in the 30s, Owens himself said that Hitler, although he did not actually meet him, raised his hand to Owens in recognition. On his return home, Roosevelt ignored him completely, and when he was invited to a reception for medal winning Olympians, he had to enter the hotel through the servants’ entrance. American forces in the UK tried to get pubs and dance halls to segregate the black servicemen and the Brits refused.

Churchill is one of the Greatest Britons because of his service to our country during wartime. We’d tried the appeasers, the talkers, the “I have in my hand a piece of paper” merchants…. And in the end, luckily for us, we got Churchill.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Oh yes, I mean just look at him, an absolute warrior that one is. Listen to him speak, nay, roar in his meek, simpering little interviews.

No! A picture of Wally isn't going to change my opinion on this one.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Alf

No! A picture of Wally isn't going to change my opinion on this one.

Who is "Wally"? That's Jacob Rees-Mogg

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I seem to remember you saying that gifs had no place in SD

oh wait, its because someone agreed with a tiny aspect of your lone wolf stance

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I seem to remember you saying that gifs had no place in SD

oh wait, its because someone agreed with a tiny aspect of your lone wolf stance

This is me mocking the brown nosing in the thread actually.

I'm very proud of my lone wolf stance, as opposed to a flock mentality it's preferable

[smudgie]

Great man, with a VERY interesting mother.

[Kizzy]

Historian David Olusoga has said he believes Winston Churchill was complicit in a number of atrocities committed in Africa in the early 20th century. Speaking at the Oxfordshire Literary Festival Mr. Olusoga, who co-presents Civilisations on the BBC alongside Simon Schama and Mary Beard, says claims about the darker side of the former Prime Minster’s past are often drowned out by his status as a wartime leader. Mr. Olusoga argued that although Churchill was remembered as being a great politician, he was “largely responsible” for war crimes in Africa, as well as the Bengal famine of 1943-44 in India.

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/culture/televisi...mes-in-africa/


https://inews.co.uk/culture/televisi...mes-in-africa/

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Historian David Olusoga has said he believes Winston Churchill was complicit in a number of atrocities committed in Africa in the early 20th century. Speaking at the Oxfordshire Literary Festival Mr. Olusoga, who co-presents Civilisations on the BBC alongside Simon Schama and Mary Beard, says claims about the darker side of the former Prime Minster’s past are often drowned out by his status as a wartime leader. Mr. Olusoga argued that although Churchill was remembered as being a great politician, he was “largely responsible” for war crimes in Africa, as well as the Bengal famine of 1943-44 in India.

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/culture/televisi...mes-in-africa/


https://inews.co.uk/culture/televisi...mes-in-africa/

"said he believes"

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

This is me mocking the brown nosing in the thread actually.

I'm very proud of my lone wolf stance, as opposed to a flock mentality it's preferable

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

"said he believes"

ok