Churchill is problematic LT just deal with it.

I suppose it can be forgiven for all the good he did...a bit like jimmy Saville.

I'm honestly not sure if you're joking or not Parm :joker:

All of royalty, all of the members of parliament, and 90% of the UK population had the same views as Churchill at the time. Go back a few years further and people were burned at the stake because of not conforming to religious beliefs in vogue at the time.

History is there to be judged and to be learned from. We do, thats how society progresses. We have come a long way in a relatively short period of time.

People can judge Churchill unkindly if they like, but circumstances brought him to be the PM at a time of war when we would absolutely have been overrun by the Nazi's if not for him. That doesnt make him a saint, it makes him the right person for the time. Nothing more, nothing less.

There's no point in attacking someone for pointing out facts too but that's not stopped you in at least two posts having potshots at the man for stating an actual fact. I'd say those insults are truly pointless because at least what Greer is saying is factual.

Hero worship is pointless and downright dangerous if people are insistent on pretending Churchill was perfect. He wasn't and it's not a bad thing to acknowledge the bad alongside the good. If anything, the big takeaway with this story is how much people will try to rewrite history to protect their heroes when it's healthier to accept the whole truth about historical figures and not a version that's been edited to suit agendas.

I don't think anyone pretends Churchill was perfect. Talking about the hand he played in the Allies victory in WWII doesn't really need to include how much of a racist he was, especially as his views reflected the "consensus" at the time - I'm not saying it's okay because everyone else though it, just that there's no need to point it out.

Judging a man who grew up in the Edwardian era by today’s super woke standards is obviously ridiculous.
I’m sure many many historical figures have skeletons in their closets.Ghandi?Mandela?
Besides that ginger turd would be speaking German and eating sourkraut for breakfast if it was’nt for Churchill.He wants to be abit more greatful.

That ginger wouldn't be speaking German. It's more likely that he, along with you, I and the rest of us, wouldn't have ever existed.

Only for kids looking for likes, not among grown ups he aint

Ghandi and Mandela are both great examples actually. They have skeletons, zombies, dead children, the works :joker:. Anyone who likes their history nice 'n' sweet might not want to look too hard at Mother Teresa, also.


See I personally think this is just as offensive to the memory of the British men and women who fought in the war as the oft-used "You would be German if we hadn't stepped in!!" jibes in American TV shows. There's just no way to assess whether it's accurate or not. We know that Churchill didn't LOSE the war for us, but we have no idea how things would have gone (better, worse, or just the same) with a different PM. There IS no way to know. And I think giving a huge chunk of the credit for sacrifices made by literally millions of people to one individual who, even when it came to tactics and strategy, was only one small piece of the equation, is a bit... off.

I also personally believe it's important to recognise that the VAST majority of historical success stories are stories of exemplary human cooperation and that myths, fables andtales of great heroes are just that. Stories. Half-truths, exaggerations and fictions.

You are being just like Churchill. Problematic.

Piers was right imo,Nelson Mandella is a hero to many but you could pick out parts of his life which were called terroism, the same could be said for many heroes, Churchill also did a lot of good ,none of the human race is perfect and the guy grinning like a Cheshire cat needs to read up the FACTS about the war years,to liken him to Hitler was pathetic.

What is this nonsense? Every so often some young person with no life experience bobs up to give us their version of history by using hindsight... which as we all know is 20/20 after the fact.

Can I remind everyone that this "white supremacist" was instrumental in ending Nazi Germany?

This is a tired, boring, meaningless argument that raises its head every so often. I hope next time they come up with a new angle because this one is getting old.

I'm with LT on this one.

I'm going to have to in a completely unexpected and uncharacteristic move say that I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle :joker:.

I think it's fine to acknowledge that Churchill (along with the rest of the ruling class across most of Europe at the time) had white supremacist tendancies. It's not irrelevant to understanding the history, in fact, it's quite relevant and important because it helps us to understand HOW something like Nazi Germany happened, when otherwise it seems unfathomable. Essentially that Hitler's ideology was a twisted, wildly exaggerated and violent offshoot of a mindset that was sadly not that uncommon at the time. Basically, a lot of people BELIEVED in racial supremacy and the "ubermensch" ideology (of selective breeding being ideal) was widely held as being scientific truth.

It's important to remember because if we re-write the history to be that Hitler was a lone crazy person with wildly unusual ideas who somehow got into power, we fail to understand that it could happen again.

It doesn't alter the facts when it comes to the military victory which really has very little to do with the ideologies of the people involved. It just opens up the very uncomfortable notion that someone could be BOTH a racial supremacist AND fighting for "good", when in a historical context, that's extremely likely... since most people believed it, and it stands to reason that they weren't somehow all evil.


I would guess it's simply "too recent" for the history of WW2 to be viewed in purely accurate / academic terms, though... in a few hundred years time, I would imagine that people will be far more comfortable discussing it in the same way we discuss Medieval wars and kings now, i.e. out of pure historical curiosity without the attached sentiment and "national pride" that comes with more recent history.

yes and when they do look at the history lets leave it do learned professors of History writing and researching peer reviewed academic papers and not some spotty 24 year old herbert trying to get likes on da socials

ur repeating yourself lol


i might not be a professor of history myself, but everything i learned about WW1, WW2, napoleonic wars i learned at school, history was one of my favourite subjects which i had good grades for

my point is maybe some of these people on ''da socials'' also have learned about all of this at school in history class

learned what?

To be fair though, there ARE peer reviewed academic papers on Churchill that focus on all aspects of the man's life and not the "censored for patriotism" public image version, as with pretty much everything else related to WWII, it's just that those discussions usually remain in academic circles where people can view them objectively and critically, and aren't thrown around on Twitter and morning telly for Piers and the viewing public to get wound up about :joker:. And to be fair, there's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing to be gained in airing these things for people who don't want to delve into real history and prefer the "edited for public consumption" version... but then likewise, that's no reason to argue that real history simply doesn't exist.

I believe arr Nicky will be referring to the fact that other countries receive a more open and well rounded education when it comes to WW2 than the UK does. Though to be fair; the US is worse... they don't really get told anything about America's stance before pearl harbour and US involvement is painted out to be wholly altruistic (when their policy was essentially isolationist until they realised that they were also a target and could indeed be attacked).

Also I mean... You have to admit... There's quite a lot of irony here.

"Millenial lefties are snowflakes who are offended by anything, not like us..."

"Churchill was a bit racist u kno"

"WHAT?? RrrrrEEEEeeeEeee!!! How dare! Very wrong! Not to say!"

Was Churchill racist? Yes, but we wouldn't have to go too many generations back in our own families to find some pretty heinous opinions on race. Some of us wouldn't even have to go back any generations.

Did Churchill win the war for us? No, the Ruskies were far more influential in winning WWII than we were.

I can understand that argument if he was besmirching te name of say John Craven but its not John is it and look at the twat who was doing it

TS even you must look at the guy and get what is going on?

Its perfect for Piers as his game is to mildly troll the audience and then act for them in their indignation

Its why the numbers are so good

:laugh:

yes true, US weren't involved in WW2 at all before pearl harbour, also seeing documentaries on how Japan prepared for the pearl harbour attack, they were well informed also how close the US ships were to each other like sitting ducks

and after that pearl harbour attack, US knew they had to join the fight with the allies of Canada, UK, and for their own reasons Soviet-Union who were also against the Axis of Germany, Italy and Japan after Germany invaded them (and broke their poland treaty)