“Churchill was a racist”

[Northern Monkey]

“We have nothing to lose but our chains”

So this is what the youth of today get up to when they’re bored?

Here is footage of a group of student protesters invading the Winston Churchill cafe in London
So what do you think,Is this a productive use of their time? :laugh:

Eux1qr6A65g

[Crimson Dynamo]

turn on the water canon

[Northern Monkey]

turn on the water canon

I think i’d have just drowned them out with the Dam Busters theme song until they left

[GiRTh]

Its another stunt by Afua Hirsch. She's been on GMB and SKY quite few times and is a bit of an idiot.

[Marches]

Yawn

[user104658]

The way to convince people that you're right is, apparently, by chanting like a cult :think:. Someone should tell them that all they're doing is tuning people out.

[user104658]

Also, Churchill was an aristocrat born in 1874. Of course he was a bit racist.

[Parmy]

They must have actually sat down at a meeting and decided who chanted what line...roll on the summer ffs.

[Maru]

The way to convince people that you're right is, apparently, by chanting like a cult :think:. Someone should tell them that all they're doing is tuning people out.

But being obnoxious is fun and a good way to pass the time

[jaxie]

They need more classes! :fist: Uni is a rip off! One day a week my son did in his final year! One day a week!

On a more serious note I don't really like the idea of policing the past. Times were different and you can't hold people of a different time to the same standards really. Churchill was a great leader when this country needed him. That's enough really.

[Maru]

They need more classes! :fist: Uni is a rip off! One day a week my son did in his final year! One day a week!

On a more serious note I don't really like the idea of policing the past. Times were different and you can't hold people of a different time to the same standards really. Churchill was a great leader when this country needed him. That's enough really.

Well, if they can hijack the narrative of the past, then they can invalidate other people's perception of the present/future, which must mean that other people's objectivity is flawed, i.e. leading that person to question their own realities... it's so you'll gaslight yourself into thinking you can't trust the things you've learned as an individual and so you'll become more dependent on group-think. So if you try to reason with this, they can say well it's your own privilege showing and this is actually proof of everything that we're saying.

I think it's meant to be a mind-trick to pray on the naive. If they can accomplish their goal of appearing "objective" enough to make you question your own reality, then they've accomplished their goal...

[Marches]

They need more classes! :fist: Uni is a rip off! One day a week my son did in his final year! One day a week!

On a more serious note I don't really like the idea of policing the past. Times were different and you can't hold people of a different time to the same standards really. Churchill was a great leader when this country needed him. That's enough really.

Uni IS a total rip off everything I’m learning for my degree I have to do outside of lectures literally what’s the point I skive some of them and don’t miss anything

[user104658]

Uni IS a total rip off everything I’m learning for my degree I have to do outside of lectures literally what’s the point I skive some of them and don’t miss anything

Yeah I did that, then got to my final year and was ****ed because I hadn't engaged with it properly in the earlier years and ended up leaving without a degree.

Just a heads up :joker:.

[Maru]

Uni IS a total rip off everything I’m learning for my degree I have to do outside of lectures literally what’s the point I skive some of them and don’t miss anything

When I was in my program, I couldn't wait to get out and do actual stuff with what we were studying. I do continuing education stuff on my own now with self-study and online courses. Like a good friend told me "Sometimes college gets in the way of your education" when it comes to your actual craft. I would've preferred to have done a fast track program than to spend 6 months learning the super basic stuff and stressing about how to pay tuition, when I can literally pick up a new language in a few weeks or learn to write code on a new platform... it's completely unnecessary.

[Marches]

When I was in my program, I couldn't wait to get out and do actual stuff with what we were studying. I do continuing education stuff on my own now with self-study and online courses. Like a good friend told me "Sometimes college gets in the way of your education" when it comes to your actual craft. I would've preferred to have done a fast track program than to spend 6 months learning the super basic stuff and stressing about how to pay tuition, when I can literally pick up a new language in a few weeks or learn to write code on a new platform... it's completely unnecessary.

I guess it’s only a few years but you’re not even guaranteed job security or opportunities like a few people were making out to me. The system is set up in a way now that you can’t get in certain professions without getting a piece of paper and paying an extortionate amount of money, especially since a good portion of the program you teach yourself. I’m the sort of person who likes to learn but I feel so unmotivated and drained with furthering certain skills because of assignments alas

[Kizzy]

He was yes, were it not for allied soldiers and a global effort the was would have been lost... none of his monologues deserve absolution.
He is touted as a great and conquering hero, he was just another colonialist.

[Oliver_W]

It doesn't matter whether he was racist or not. He was the leader the UK needed during WWII, and gave the odd speech which is remembered to this day. If people spend their time sitting down and discussing how "problematic" he was,and then arranging protests relating to him, they need to reevaluate their lives.

[MTVN]

There was hardly a politician of the early 20th century who wouldn't be judged as racist by today's standards but to say that Churchill had no impact on the outcome of the war is nonsense

[thesheriff443]

Humans are racists to differing degrees.

[Oliver_W]

RovF1zsDoeM

[arista]

There was hardly a politician of the early 20th century who wouldn't be judged as racist by today's standards but to say that Churchill had no impact on the outcome of the war is nonsense


Bang On Right MTVN

[Crimson Dynamo]

He was yes, were it not for allied soldiers and a global effort the was would have been lost... none of his monologues deserve absolution.
He is touted as a great and conquering hero, he was just another colonialist.

:facepalm:

[Kizzy]

:facepalm:

Do you have something to say regarding my comment LT?

[jaxie]

Do you have something to say regarding my comment LT?

Nice holiday?

[Kizzy]

Nice holiday?

Yes it was fantastic thank you :)

[Underscore]

he was tho

[Oliver_W]

he was tho

No-one said he wasn't?

[Tom4784]

Most people were racist those days, it seems a bit strange to protest that now when the world back then was a different place.

The only thing stunts like this achieve is cheapening protests that can actually affect and improve racial issues that are rampant in today's society.

[Crimson Dynamo]

he was tho

i doubt you have the faintest idea about him

[Underscore]

i doubt you have the faintest idea about him

Seen as I'm a Politics and History student and have studied him and his character and policies indepth as a mandatory part of my course, I think I know enough about him to form at least an opinion.

[Underscore]

But yeah you keep riding roughshod over peoples ideas and opinions when you don't have the faintest idea of that person.

Why did you support Ann Widdecombe again?

[montblanc]

they're protesting because they don't want to have a place named by a racist duh

[Crimson Dynamo]

But yeah you keep riding roughshod over peoples ideas and opinions when you don't have the faintest idea of that person.

Why did you support Ann Widdecombe again?

stay on your lane son

[Tom4784]

they're protesting because they don't want to have a place named by a racist duh

In fairness, if that's the case then very few places would be named after historical figures.

It seems to be a pointless thing to protest over when there are real issues of racism to protest and take a stand.

[Crimson Dynamo]

also to totally fail to grasp the period and try and judge it by today's standards is embarrassing

once they all get jobs and a mortgage and a partner they will find real things to worry about i guess

[bots]

That bloody Eve and her apple ....

[user104658]

In fairness, if that's the case then very few places would be named after historical figures.

It seems to be a pointless thing to protest over when there are real issues of racism to protest and take a stand.It's reminding me of Randy Marsh in South Park, going through the phone book to call everyone in Columbus, Ohio to tell them that their town is racist [emoji23]

[smudgie]

That bloody Eve and her apple ....

Don’t blame Eve....wasn’t there a snake involved somewhere:fist:

[bots]

it's pretty simple really, we shouldn't look to blame previous generations for our own failings. The fact that we still have racism etc, is our own failing, not generations gone by

[Kizzy]

Most people were racist those days, it seems a bit strange to protest that now when the world back then was a different place.

The only thing stunts like this achieve is cheapening protests that can actually affect and improve racial issues that are rampant in today's society.

I think apologist attitudes do nothing to make a case for excusing people in positions of power and influence. We had been through periods of great reform, as well as been aided during the great war by many nations with the promise of further autonomy, rights and respect...none of which were forthcoming after in fact the attitudinal shift became even more regressive with regard to supremacy.

We have the right to question our history, and how our supposedly 'civilised' establishment was constructed and governed. To simply sigh and say 'oh well, that's how it was' is a cop out .. it was then and it is today.

History is just the same, and so forever will be we are just as accepting of abuses in foreign lands today as we were then as long as they're dressed up as us pilgrims aiding the savages... nothing changes.

He was a supremacist.. He was not for rights or equality or anything remotely progressive in fact he was basically a eugenicist no wonder he is so popular recently.

'After the second world war, the Foreign Office forcibly repatriated 1,362 Chinese sailors who had settled in Liverpool after serving in the Merchant Navy. Government records don't mention their families but news reports indicate that at least 150 were married to British women and that between them they had up to 450 children.'

Why force feed kids that this was a 'great man' from another era, he wasn't he was one of the most powerful men in the world who had the chance to do the right thing and in the main he simply chose not to.. I see no reason to celebrate him or his beliefs.

History is not a stunt, those who have scratched beneath foundation GCSE history will be aware he was not how he is marketed in this 'cafe', kindly they choose to educate the clientele and for some reason they are happy to remain ignorant, which as we know is how the establishment prefer the great unwashed.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/oct/04/mixed-race-britain-social-history

[ethanjames]

but,,, he was

[Brillopad]

I think apologist attitudes do nothing to make a case for excusing people in positions of power and influence. We had been through periods of great reform, as well as been aided during the great war by many nations with the promise of further autonomy, rights and respect...none of which were forthcoming after in fact the attitudinal shift became even more regressive with regard to supremacy.

We have the right to question our history, and how our supposedly 'civilised' establishment was constructed and governed. To simply sigh and say 'oh well, that's how it was' is a cop out .. it was then and it is today.

History is just the same, and so forever will be we are just as accepting of abuses in foreign lands today as we were then as long as they're dressed up as us pilgrims aiding the savages... nothing changes.

He was a supremacist.. He was not for rights or equality or anything remotely progressive in fact he was basically a eugenicist no wonder he is so popular recently.

'After the second world war, the Foreign Office forcibly repatriated 1,362 Chinese sailors who had settled in Liverpool after serving in the Merchant Navy. Government records don't mention their families but news reports indicate that at least 150 were married to British women and that between them they had up to 450 children.'

Why force feed kids that this was a 'great man' from another era, he wasn't he was one of the most powerful men in the world who had the chance to do the right thing and in the main he simply chose not to.. I see no reason to celebrate him or his beliefs.

History is not a stunt, those who have scratched beneath foundation GCSE history will be aware he was not how he is marketed in this 'cafe', kindly they choose to educate the clientele and for some reason they are happy to remain ignorant, which as we know is how the establishment prefer the great unwashed.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/oct/04/mixed-race-britain-social-history

Not from the increasingly hard-left Guardian and their left-wing slants thanks.

[Kizzy]

Not from the increasingly hard-left Guardian and their left-wing slants thanks.

:laugh: see... even when presented with an historical fact the source of the information renders it unprocessable.

I could find that from somewhere else if you'd like? Or you could educate yourself.

[Oliver_W]

'After the second world war, the Foreign Office forcibly repatriated 1,362 Chinese sailors who had settled in Liverpool after serving in the Merchant Navy. Government records don't mention their families but news reports indicate that at least 150 were married to British women and that between them they had up to 450 children.'

Why force feed kids that this was a 'great man' from another era, he wasn't he was one of the most powerful men in the world who had the chance to do the right thing and in the main he simply chose not to.. I see no reason to celebrate him or his beliefs.
Clement Attlee (Labour Party) became Prime Minister in July 1945, and WWII fully ended in September of that year, so it wasn't Churchill who did those things.

It isn't Churchill's racism which he's admired for, his questionable attitudes are usually overlooked when he's talked about. To invalidate his contributions to winning WWII just because he held contemporary attitudes is just daft.

What were Winston Churchill's contributions to World War II? (https://www.quora.com/What-were-Winston-Churchills-contributions-to-World-War-II)

1) Not allowing Hitler supremacy over Europe by fighting off the Luftwaffe.
2) Harassing Hitler through North Africa.
3) Helping Russia through the US convoys in the North Atlantic.
4) The most important: bringing in the US on the Allied side.
There is no doubt that America played a crucial role in the war, and much of that would not have happened had it not been for the vigorous efforts of Churchill, who persuaded Roosevelt to convince the American people to weigh in on Britain's side. At the time, American foreign policy was largely isolationist, and it was persistent prodding from Churchill that helped the US make the decision to announce the historic lend-lease agreement (Lend-Lease), under which the US, while not directly getting involved in the war, would provide arms and food to Britain and the Soviet Union. Most Americans were also captivated by the determination, bravery, and tenacity that Britain, under Churchill unflagging leadership, showed in braving the German assault of 1940. Because of his personal example, Churchill was able to move American public opinion to his cause and get the USA to support Britian and Russia.

[Redway]

He was a man of his time.

[Kizzy]

Clement Attlee (Labour Party) became Prime Minister in July 1945, and WWII ended in September of that year, so it wasn't Churchill who did those things.

It isn't Churchill's racism which he's admired for, his questionable attitudes are usually overlooked when he's talked about. To invalidate his contributions to winning WWII just because he held contemporary attitudes is just daft.

In the early 1940s, an estimated 20,000 Chinese merchant sailors were recruited into the British Merchant Navy and, almost entirely based in Liverpool, around 300 of these married or cohabitated with local women. Although the Chinese sailors played a vital role in Britain’s warfare, their demands for the same pay and equal treatment as local sailors in 1942, which led to strike action, saw them labelled as troublemakers. Post-war, the government, in collusion with the shipping companies, were keen to rid Liverpool of what they saw as an ‘undesirable element’ and, in October 1945, the Home Office opened a file on ‘the compulsory repatriation of undesirable Chinese seamen at Liverpool’.

The wheels were in motion way before, maybe the new govt could have saved them who knows, it has no baring on the rest of his views as expressed at the time.

He did not 'win the war'... the troops, cabinet office, and allied forces worldwide won the war he was advised and he as you say made contributions to decisions.

His views were rather contemporary weren't they? There was someone else who thought that one race were superior to another, he was also a eugenics advocate... though for some reason he's not half as popular :/


http://www.mix-d.org/museum/timeline/compulsory-repatriation-of-chinese-seamen-in-liverpool

[user104658]

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.

[Oliver_W]

His views were rather contemporary weren't they? There was someone else who thought that one race were superior to another, he was also a eugenics advocate... though for some reason he's not half as popular
Yeah you'd almost think one caused millions of deaths, and one led the war against him!

Even if he did believe in selective breeding, as far as is known Churchill never advocated for killing the "inferiors".

[Kizzy]

“The improvement of the British breed is my aim in life,” Winston Churchill wrote to his cousin Ivor Guest on 19 January 1899, shortly after his twenty-fifth birthday. Churchill’s view was reinforced by his experiences as a young British officer serving, and fighting, in Arab and Muslim lands, and in South Africa. Like most of his contemporaries, family and friends, he regarded races as different, racial characteristics as signs of the maturity of a society, and racial purity as endangered not only by other races but by mental weaknesses within a race. As a young politician in Britain entering Parliament in 1901, Churchill saw what were then known as the “feeble-minded” and the “insane” as a threat to the prosperity, vigour and virility of British society.'

https://www.winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour-extras/churchill-and-eugenics-1/

[Oliver_W]

“The improvement of the British breed is my aim in life,” Winston Churchill wrote to his cousin Ivor Guest on 19 January 1899, shortly after his twenty-fifth birthday. Churchill’s view was reinforced by his experiences as a young British officer serving, and fighting, in Arab and Muslim lands, and in South Africa. Like most of his contemporaries, family and friends, he regarded races as different, racial characteristics as signs of the maturity of a society, and racial purity as endangered not only by other races but by mental weaknesses within a race. As a young politician in Britain entering Parliament in 1901, Churchill saw what were then known as the “feeble-minded” and the “insane” as a threat to the prosperity, vigour and virility of British society.'

https://www.winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour-extras/churchill-and-eugenics-1/
This does nothing to detract from Toy Soldier's post. If I'd spent extended time in muslim lands, I'd probably have high praises for the UK as well!

[Kizzy]

This does nothing to detract from Toy Soldier's post. If I'd spent extended time in muslim lands, I'd probably have high praises for the UK as well!

It does everything to detract from it as it specifically contradicts it. Have you any plans to visit a Muslim land?

[Tom4784]

I think apologist attitudes do nothing to make a case for excusing people in positions of power and influence. We had been through periods of great reform, as well as been aided during the great war by many nations with the promise of further autonomy, rights and respect...none of which were forthcoming after in fact the attitudinal shift became even more regressive with regard to supremacy.

We have the right to question our history, and how our supposedly 'civilised' establishment was constructed and governed. To simply sigh and say 'oh well, that's how it was' is a cop out .. it was then and it is today.

History is just the same, and so forever will be we are just as accepting of abuses in foreign lands today as we were then as long as they're dressed up as us pilgrims aiding the savages... nothing changes.

He was a supremacist.. He was not for rights or equality or anything remotely progressive in fact he was basically a eugenicist no wonder he is so popular recently.

'After the second world war, the Foreign Office forcibly repatriated 1,362 Chinese sailors who had settled in Liverpool after serving in the Merchant Navy. Government records don't mention their families but news reports indicate that at least 150 were married to British women and that between them they had up to 450 children.'

Why force feed kids that this was a 'great man' from another era, he wasn't he was one of the most powerful men in the world who had the chance to do the right thing and in the main he simply chose not to.. I see no reason to celebrate him or his beliefs.

History is not a stunt, those who have scratched beneath foundation GCSE history will be aware he was not how he is marketed in this 'cafe', kindly they choose to educate the clientele and for some reason they are happy to remain ignorant, which as we know is how the establishment prefer the great unwashed.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/oct/04/mixed-race-britain-social-history

Okay, calm down, you aren't a scholar of the subject just because you've done a google search on it after watching the video so don't look down at me or anyone else just because you think that you are.

Who said we don't have the right to question our history? Can you point that out to me? Go no, quote it for me. I'll wait. These entitled white people looking to be offended on anothers' behalf are entitled to their offense and everyone is entitled to question history but this isn't about that, it's about protesting the name of a cafe which is utterly pointless and does nothing to solve racial issues that we phase today.

Nothing will ever change regarding Churchill's legacy, for better or worse, people of all colours and creeds will put more focus on the war side of things than his questionable views, if he was alive today and spouting those views I'd be right there shouting 'Get her, Jade!' but he's either ashes or mulch at this point so what is the point of protesting the name of a cafe? What racial issues does this fix? They are entitled to waste their time, I am entitled to call it a waste of time.

Newsflash Kizzy, marketing and history is not the same thing. Che Guevara was problematic as **** but did that stop people from wearing clothes and bags with his face on it? Did the fact that he executed people without due course or even knowing they were guilty stop Cuba from putting his face on their currency? did the fact that he believed in censorship and ideals that are typically more right leaning stop the worship of him as a Left icon? No, because people bought into the image and not the reality.

When you put all the 'great leaders' of history under a microscope, they never come up clean. History remembers the best about these people but rarely the worst. I'm not defending him or being an 'apologist' I just think this protest is a complete waste of energy by a bunch of people that look for stupid reasons to be offended instead of caring about the important issues.

You can't rewrite history, you can only learn from it, if people in today's world hold the attitude that Churchill had then go ahead, protest them but protesting a time period that, if you were born in, you'd probably be raised sharing that mindset is pointless. These people aren't interested in making a difference, they are only interested in being offended and drawing attention to themselves and not the cause. I have no time for posers like this whose efforts are only skin deep.

[Alf]

Why is White supremacy so diverse?

All these so called White supremecist countries are the most diverse countries on Earth, why is that?

[Kizzy]

Okay, calm down, you aren't a scholar of the subject just because you've done a google search on it after watching the video so don't look down at me or anyone else just because you think that you are.

Who said we don't have the right to question our history? Can you point that out to me? Go no, quote it for me. I'll wait. These entitled white people looking to be offended on anothers' behalf are entitled to their offense and everyone is entitled to question history but this isn't about that, it's about protesting the name of a cafe which is utterly pointless and does nothing to solve racial issues that we phase today.

Nothing will ever change regarding Churchill's legacy, for better or worse, people of all colours and creeds will put more focus on the war side of things than his questionable views, if he was alive today and spouting those views I'd be right there shouting 'Get her, Jade!' but he's either ashes or mulch at this point so what is the point of protesting the name of a cafe? What racial issues does this fix? They are entitled to waste their time, I am entitled to call it a waste of time.

Newsflash Kizzy, marketing and history is not the same thing. Che Guevara was problematic as **** but did that stop people from wearing clothes and bags with his face on it? Did the fact that he executed people without due course or even knowing they were guilty stop Cuba from putting his face on their currency? did the fact that he believed in censorship and ideals that are typically more right leaning stop the worship of him as a Left icon? No, because people bought into the image and not the reality.

When you put all the 'great leaders' of history under a microscope, they never come up clean. History remembers the best about these people but rarely the worst. I'm not defending him or being an 'apologist' I just think this protest is a complete waste of energy by a bunch of people that look for stupid reasons to be offended instead of caring about the important issues.

You can't rewrite history, you can only learn from it, if people in today's world hold the attitude that Churchill had then go ahead, protest them but protesting a time period that, if you were born in, you'd probably be raised sharing that mindset is pointless. These people aren't interested in making a difference, they are only interested in being offended and drawing attention to themselves and not the cause. I have no time for posers like this whose efforts are only skin deep.

I'm not looking down on you... Maybe it was a waste of time, but it is never past a time when someones questionable views are beyond analysis ... even when they are dead, which is what they are doing, in a very amdram way but it got some coverage so :shrug:

I only used the term apologist as it seemed appropriate with regard to this whitewashing of the views he had which I don't feel were as mainstream as you believe ... if they were wouldn't they be acted on more overtly than they are? Wouldn't those views be more readily acceptable in modern civilised society? They aren't so that suggests to me that the ideology he had of imperialism and colonialism aside from the eugenicist aspect were not what society wanted, as in it was not popular culturally post war.

[Scarlett.]

They can feel free to protest him, but they should also remember that if it wasn't for Churchill, we'd have probably been under Nazi rule now, its thanks to people like Churchill that we have the right to express our selves the way we do.

[Kizzy]

Doubtful, we were saved by allied forces. He could talk the talk is all.
Following the war he was straight out on his ear again.

[Scarlett.]

Doubtful, we were saved by allied forces. He could talk the talk is all.
Following the war he was straight out on his ear again.

The Allied Forces only gained a foothold because the UK was still standing, can hardly mount a meaningful offensive from across the Atlantic.

[user104658]

The end of WWII sparked the decline of colonial Britain, a lot of changes in society, and people's worldview though... And Churchill was 70 years old in 1945. I know it might be "ageist" to say this but... People that sort of age have entrenched views and very, very rarely change them. You can't point out postwar societal attitudes and expect that Churchill should have shared them, he grew up pre-war, pre 1st World War even, when British colonialism was still swinging away. He had the attitudes of an 1800's British colonialist, because that's what he was.

You can't plonk any historical figure into another timeline and expect to come out with anything other than utter nonsense to be honest. Trying to use modern day values to assess someone born 150 years ago is meaningless.

[Maru]

I don't think most people have enough appreciation for public figures and what public office actually entails. I've been thinking about this topic recently. Folk such as Prime Ministers, Presidents, etc... as swampy as politicians are, it's not like we don't help to create that very same swamp. We treat them like celebrities on the cover of tabloids now more-so than generations passed. It's like we want them to fail. Yes, this sort of vulturous culture has always been there, but it seems to have really kicked up in the past 10 or so years.

So it's not surprising that the types who could very easily manipulate the public (Donald Trump and his Twitter feed) and abuse this type of mania would of course come to power. We've turned politics into a circus, complete with a throne made of excrement. I wonder how many brilliant minds have passed on public office because of the spectacle it's become. I wouldn't want to go anywhere near public office seeing how things are done...

Truthfully, it's not easy to be in public office and we couldn't pick just anyone off the street to try to run a country, much less to make a speech... Too many say they can do them better, that they know just how to solve all the issues of the world. That's obviously not true. Once they found out how much sh*t it actually takes to run things and how much work is involved, how much actual headache it is to run such large and complex systems (much less getting people to work with them to run things their way), they wouldn't even bother.

We were very fortunate that the right mix of people, Churchill included, were around when we needed them the most. They weren't perfect human beings and none of us are. However,it's not like the human race has stopped evolving and hasn't tried to move beyond it's flaws. I don't think anyone past or present would argue what we had was enough and we could stop progressing now. We're always in danger of stepping backwards, and I think real leaders know that more than average folk. The situation was not ideal then, and it's not necessarily any more ideal now, but it's certainly progress...

[user104658]

Everybody just gets so indigenous about these things.

[Crimson Dynamo]

i think we should kill him just to be on the safe side

[user104658]

i think we should kill him just to be on the safe sideThat's a bit much, closing his Café should be enough. Hit him in the pocket where it hurts.

[bots]

The end of WWII sparked the decline of colonial Britain, a lot of changes in society, and people's worldview though... And Churchill was 70 years old in 1945. I know it might be "ageist" to say this but... People that sort of age have entrenched views and very, very rarely change them. You can't point out postwar societal attitudes and expect that Churchill should have shared them, he grew up pre-war, pre 1st World War even, when British colonialism was still swinging away. He had the attitudes of an 1800's British colonialist, because that's what he was.

You can't plonk any historical figure into another timeline and expect to come out with anything other than utter nonsense to be honest. Trying to use modern day values to assess someone born 150 years ago is meaningless.

I'm not even going to mention today's Mr C's age :hehe:

[James]

One of the greatest Britons, no doubt about it. Just for leading the country, when it was on its own in standing up to probably the worst regime that's ever existed - when they were controlling almost all of western Europe in 1940-41.

[user104658]

I'm not even going to mention today's Mr C's age :hehe:Well it is relevant, it's not even really a criticism in itself, just is what it is. Corbyn (and May, to be fair, and most of government, none of them are exactly spring chickens) hold the beliefs that they do and whether they're right / agreed with or not... The point is, it's very unlikely that they're going to significantly CHANGE at this point.

[Kizzy]

The end of WWII sparked the decline of colonial Britain, a lot of changes in society, and people's worldview though... And Churchill was 70 years old in 1945. I know it might be "ageist" to say this but... People that sort of age have entrenched views and very, very rarely change them. You can't point out postwar societal attitudes and expect that Churchill should have shared them, he grew up pre-war, pre 1st World War even, when British colonialism was still swinging away. He had the attitudes of an 1800's British colonialist, because that's what he was.

You can't plonk any historical figure into another timeline and expect to come out with anything other than utter nonsense to be honest. Trying to use modern day values to assess someone born 150 years ago is meaningless.

The quote in my post he made when he was 25, the mid 1800s were the time of the great reformists and the chartists... the progressives, then there were the colonialists and imperialists.

It is ridiculous to lump all of society into one box, high society or the public they were diverse in their values.

Yes he was a colonialist, he chose to have those beliefs others did not hold those views from the same era, although to suggest that he may have been in any way less than golden is met with cries of derision due to his inflated status specifically in relation to the war.
In all other aspects of governance he garnered no public confidence due to his sociopolitical stance.

[Kizzy]

One of the greatest Britons, no doubt about it. Just for leading the country, when it was on its own in standing up to probably the worst regime that's ever existed - when they were controlling almost all of western Europe in 1940-41.

During that time he was in an allied strategy with Roosevelt ...and Stalin.

[user104658]

to suggest that he may have been in any way less than golden is met with cries of derision due to his inflated status

Where, exactly, do you imagine this to be happening? It certainly hadn't happened in this thread, nor would it happen when discussing the history of WW2 in an academic setting... Maybe in the mainstream media? Though I can't imagine he's mentioned much in this day and age. Social media, then? I can't picture many historical discussions of Churchill on there either :think:.

Gosh darnit, IIRC even Doctor Who, which has on a few occasions depicted Churchills achievements in WW2, has featured scenes of the Doctor arguing with him / telling him off for some of his views.

Honestly? I don't think that these "cries of derision if he's painting d as less than golden" actually happen, other than in the imaginations of those who want to be black-and-white in the other direction. Most of the discussion I've seen - both here and in general - is quite accepting of the nuanced facts; that people with some distasteful opinions and behaviours can nonetheless still do great things, and likewise, people who are generally fair and morally upstanding are capable of doing bad things.

The unfortunate and complicated truth is that "good and evil" just do not exist. He had some abhorrent beliefs. Yet he had many great achievements. He WAS instrumental in turning the tide of the war. He can be applauded for his achievements whilst still criticising other aspects of his politics. I feel like that's something you struggle with on general, Kizzy... You do maybe have a tendency to make politics (both current and historical) into a "good guys versus bad guys" thing, when the reality is always murky.

[user104658]

During that time he was in an allied strategy with Roosevelt ...and Stalin.This would be a prime example I suppose. Without the western Allied Forces alliance with Stalin, Hitler would have conquered Europe. No way around that. Allying with an individual like Stalin, who was guilty of unspeakable things, was entirely necessary at the time.

[Kizzy]

Where, exactly, do you imagine this to be happening? It certainly hadn't happened in this thread, nor would it happen when discussing the history of WW2 in an academic setting... Maybe in the mainstream media? Though I can't imagine he's mentioned much in this day and age. Social media, then? I can't picture many historical discussions of Churchill on there either :think:.

Gosh darnit, IIRC even Doctor Who, which has on a few occasions depicted Churchills achievements in WW2, has featured scenes of the Doctor arguing with him / telling him off for some of his views.

Honestly? I don't think that these "cries of derision if he's painting d as less than golden" actually happen, other than in the imaginations of those who want to be black-and-white in the other direction. Most of the discussion I've seen - both here and in general - is quite accepting of the nuanced facts; that people with some distasteful opinions and behaviours can nonetheless still do great things, and likewise, people who are generally fair and morally upstanding are capable of doing bad things.

The unfortunate and complicated truth is that "good and evil" just do not exist. He had some abhorrent beliefs. Yet he had many great achievements. He WAS instrumental in turning the tide of the war. He can be applauded for his achievements whilst still criticising other aspects of his politics. I feel like that's something you struggle with on general, Kizzy... You do maybe have a tendency to make politics (both current and historical) into a "good guys versus bad guys" thing, when the reality is always murky.

Wasn't there recently a hollywood blockbuster movie made about the man?...That aside from his 'British bulldog' assimilation.
Thanks for the psychoanalysis TS, it's always a pleasure being patronised for my views in SD

Out of interest with regard to the allied strategy who would you say were the 'good guys and bad guys' Churchill, Roosevelt or Stalin?
Because as we know the decisions he made he did not make alone did he.. in a world war that would be silly talk to suggest that one man was responsible for the overall outcome wouldn't it?

[James]

During that time he was in an allied strategy with Roosevelt ...and Stalin.

That wasn't until December and June 1941 when the US and Soviet Union joined the Allied side?

[Kizzy]

That wasn't until December and June 1941 when the US and Soviet Union joined the Allied side?

So in 41 he was allied with them, and I suspect diplomatic talks began in the months prior to that. I wouldn't have thought Churchill rocked up one day with a cunning plan :/

[user104658]

Thanks for the psychoanalysis TS, it's always a pleasure being patronised for my views in SD


To address this part quickly - this is just your usual attempt to shut down anything I have to say that is in disagreement with you. It's boring and from this point I'm ignoring this and similar.


Out of interest with regard to the allied strategy who would you say were the 'good guys and bad guys' Churchill, Roosevelt or Stalin?
Because as we know the decisions he made he did not make alone did he.. in a world war that would be silly talk to suggest that one man was responsible for the overall outcome wouldn't it?

I feel like you've missed the point. There are no such things as "the good guys and the bad guys" unless you get your history from primary school level textbooks or - as you mention - from Hollywood movies.

As for if one man was responsible for the outcome? That's a tough one to answer really. WW2 could very well have gone either way at certain points. Germany was defeated by a combination of efforts. Despite the popular American perception that they "stepped in to save everyone", the fact is that America couldn't even have gained a foothold in Europe without the allied forces, and Britain would have eventually folded without the US, AND neither of them could have completed the final push without Russian forces from the east dividing the German front.

Churchill was instrumental in gaining early US logistical support. Would it have come without him? Possibly, possibly not, possibly too late. It's guesswork because it didn't happen. But yes there is a distinct possibility that without Churchill, specifically, the war would have gone the other way.

[edit] To be more specific, it's very possible that without Churchill gaining logistical support from the US - which came long before their physical involvement - British military resources would have run dry fairly quickly and Germany would have taken control of all of Western Europe. The US would then have had no staging ground for landing ground forces in mainland Europe and would most likely have stuck to their, at the time, isolationist politics and focused on mainland defence of the US.

[Kizzy]

To address this part quickly - this is just your usual attempt to shut down anything I have to say that is in disagreement with you. It's boring and from this point I'm ignoring this and similar.




I feel like you've missed the point. There are no such things as "the good guys and the bad guys" unless you get your history from primary school level textbooks or - as you mention - from Hollywood movies.

As for if one man was responsible for the outcome? That's a tough one to answer really. WW2 could very well have gone either way at certain points. Germany was defeated by a combination of efforts. Despite the popular American perception that they "stepped in to save everyone", the fact is that America couldn't even have gained a foothold in Europe without the allied forces, and Britain would have eventually folded without the US, AND neither of them could have completed the final push without Russian forces from the east dividing the German front.

Churchill was instrumental in gaining early US logistical support. Would it have come without him? Possibly, possibly not, possibly too late. It's guesswork because it didn't happen. But yes there is a distinct possibility that without Churchill, specifically, the war would have gone the other way.

[edit] To be more specific, it's very possible that without Churchill gaining logistical support from the US - which came long before their physical involvement - British military resources would have run dry fairly quickly and Germany would have taken control of all of Western Europe. The US would then have had no staging ground for landing ground forces in mainland Europe and would most likely have stuck to their, at the time, isolationist politics and focused on mainland defence of the US.

You got personal TS.. You can't blame me for highlighting that :/
You can choose to ignore what you like... you can't dictate what I comment on in relation to my suggested flaws.
It has zero to do with your opinion on the topic in discussion or whether I agree or disagree with you.

'There are no such things as "the good guys and the bad guys" unless you get your history from primary school level textbooks or - as you mention - from Hollywood movies.'

And yet I apparently reduce things down to good guys v bad guys... Do I get my history from primary school level books then... or as I mentioned hollywood movies?

Is this your attempt to shut me down...Or have I 'missed the point'?

If you are referring to lend lease then that was in the interest of the US also to enter that, it wasn't a personal favour to Churchill.
They were not isolationist the American peoples wanted to help if only financially initially.

[user104658]

You got personal TS.. You can't blame me for highlighting that :/
You can choose to ignore what you like... you can't dictate what I comment on in relation to my suggested flaws.
It has zero to do with your opinion on the topic in discussion or whether I agree or disagree with you.

'There are no such things as "the good guys and the bad guys" unless you get your history from primary school level textbooks or - as you mention - from Hollywood movies.'

And yet I apparently reduce things down to good guys v bad guys... Do I get my history from primary school level books then... or as I mentioned hollywood movies?

Is this your attempt to shut me down...Or have I 'missed the point'?

If you are referring to lend lease then that was in the interest of the US also to enter that, it wasn't a personal favour to Churchill.
They were not isolationist the American peoples wanted to help if only financially initially.

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?

[Kizzy]

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 :laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

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 :laugh:

It depends what you even mean by racist anyway

The whole thread is a hot mess


:skull:

[Kizzy]

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 :laugh:

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

[Vicky.]

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
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 D:

[Kizzy]

:laugh: 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..:laugh:...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]

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-islam-is-more-dangerous-in-a-man-than-rabies-in-a-dog-winston-churchill-146-31-72.jpg

[Oliver_W]

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-islam-is-more-dangerous-in-a-man-than-rabies-in-a-dog-winston-churchill-146-31-72.jpg

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]

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.

[bots]

Well said Livia

[Alf]

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]

...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..:laugh:...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...

https://www.shemazing.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/mrs_doyle_gif.gif

[Brillopad]

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! :hehe:

[Northern Monkey]

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.

:worship:

[Alf]

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.

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_small/public/thumbnails/image/2016/03/09/15/Wheres-Wally.jpgNo! A picture of Wally isn't going to change my opinion on this one.

[user104658]

No! A picture of Wally isn't going to change my opinion on this one.Who is "Wally"? That's Jacob Rees-Mogg :think:

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://www.shemazing.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/mrs_doyle_gif.gif

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



:idc:

[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



:idc:

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/television/bbc-historian-blames-winston-churchill-for-war-crimes-in-africa/


https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/bbc-historian-blames-winston-churchill-for-war-crimes-in-africa/

[Crimson Dynamo]

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/television/bbc-historian-blames-winston-churchill-for-war-crimes-in-africa/


https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/bbc-historian-blames-winston-churchill-for-war-crimes-in-africa/

"said he believes"


:rolleyes:

[Parmy]

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 :)

:clap1:

[Kizzy]

"said he believes"


:rolleyes:

ok

[bots]

"The dead cannot currently be defamed under English law. This is because defamation, whether it is libel or slander, is a personal action which cannot be assigned or brought on someone's behalf"

just saying

[Kizzy]

"The dead cannot currently be defamed under English law. This is because defamation, whether it is libel or slander, is a personal action which cannot be assigned or brought on someone's behalf"

just saying

Savile... Just saying