That's wacist.
Winston Churchill
- Thread starter Cascarino
- Start date
That's wacist.
I've probably just picked this up too late, never mind. Apologies!
Look back, I mentioned France eventually and it was then pointed out that after 7 weeks they had been forced to surrender. So picky picky.Good to see France doesn't count.
edit: saw your later post. Not that it did count anyway
No worries. It is a minefield in here
Trying to resist posting but there's so much crap in this thread.
Poland declared war first then Britain and France quickly followed by New Zealand and South Africa etc.
France surrendered in June 1940 (not 7 weeks later) after the Dunkirk catastrophe when Britain abandoned their military hardware and escaped back to Britain, the French having nowhere to run although some French did manage to escape with the British.
None of this of course takes into account Britain and France allowing to Hitler to construct a war machine and occuping lands in the years before the war and not taking into account that the UK is an island and thus more difficult to invade and Hitler making a catastrophic strategic decision for him to turn his attention to the Soviets instead of pressing on with the invasion of the UK when it was on its knees.
Do they teach real history in schools these days or make it up as they go along?
Poland declared war first then Britain and France quickly followed by New Zealand and South Africa etc.
France surrendered in June 1940 (not 7 weeks later) after the Dunkirk catastrophe when Britain abandoned their military hardware and escaped back to Britain, the French having nowhere to run although some French did manage to escape with the British.
None of this of course takes into account Britain and France allowing to Hitler to construct a war machine and occuping lands in the years before the war and not taking into account that the UK is an island and thus more difficult to invade and Hitler making a catastrophic strategic decision for him to turn his attention to the Soviets instead of pressing on with the invasion of the UK when it was on its knees.
Do they teach real history in schools these days or make it up as they go along?
The problem with going after Churchill at this time is the fact there is still a sizable population still alive who fought or suffered at the hands of Nazism. You then have to consider the families of this population who had fathers, mothers, grandparents, siblings etc killed in action, killed in camps or indeed the extensive bombing to which this country suffered.
To win a war you have to win hearts and minds and not build even more division.
To win a war you have to fight many battles along the way starting with the enemies weakest links, not go straight for the big prize.
There was hardly any kick back going for the likes of Colston and there are many such statues across the country which need to be brought down (forcefully if necessary).
I don't give a shit what happens to the Churchill statue, a vile man but he is still regarded as the saviour against Nazism whether rightly or wrongly by the big majority in the UK.
Education is key to the aims of any movement and even more so when going up a national icon.
This vilification of Churchill which I support 100% will not win hearts and minds and cause only more division.
I live in a town which was bombed regularly by the luftwaffe and trying to convince the children who had run to the Anderson shelters in the middle of the night, coming out to see whole streets obliterated and their children and grandchildren who were brought up on those tales that Churchill was evil is a huge ask and won't be done overnight.
I do totally understand the frustration and pain of anyone who wants it to happen overnight but changing the outlook of a sizable population takes time and persistence.
To win a war you have to win hearts and minds and not build even more division.
To win a war you have to fight many battles along the way starting with the enemies weakest links, not go straight for the big prize.
There was hardly any kick back going for the likes of Colston and there are many such statues across the country which need to be brought down (forcefully if necessary).
I don't give a shit what happens to the Churchill statue, a vile man but he is still regarded as the saviour against Nazism whether rightly or wrongly by the big majority in the UK.
Education is key to the aims of any movement and even more so when going up a national icon.
This vilification of Churchill which I support 100% will not win hearts and minds and cause only more division.
I live in a town which was bombed regularly by the luftwaffe and trying to convince the children who had run to the Anderson shelters in the middle of the night, coming out to see whole streets obliterated and their children and grandchildren who were brought up on those tales that Churchill was evil is a huge ask and won't be done overnight.
I do totally understand the frustration and pain of anyone who wants it to happen overnight but changing the outlook of a sizable population takes time and persistence.
Would it satisfy everyone if we used this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_World_War_II
fecking nazis everywhere at the moment, now's not the time to tear down a statue of our most famous anti nazi.
Been resisting the same but couldn't be bothered as people with strong opinions and poor knowledge don't tend to concede.
It's always shown in the polls that the majority of Brits think we did the most to liberate Europe. No other country sees it that way not so surprisingly.
We did hold out though and if Germany had occupied us then history would have been different.
It would be nice if all people would learn from past mistakes.
So much crap.
I'd like to point out today that I learned that Egypt declared war on Germany in 1945.
I'd like to point out today that I learned that Egypt declared war on Germany in 1945.
To be fair, the war was Churchill's redemption in some eyes. Up until then anything he did turned to shit and he was a figure of derision and would be but a footnote in UK history never mind having a statue on Whitehall.
Right man for right time? Yeah, I'll accept that.
A racist and generally vile man? Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely. Unintended mistakes are still horrendous mistakes.
Vive la Free France!
There's a lot wrong with Britain's view of the war, the winner's curse I guess is that we never had to confront its legacy and instead indulged in a load of national myth making instead. But that aside, nazism was defeated, the country was saved and Churchill was a major part of that, dating from long before the war even started. That's what the statue respects.
Transferring this thread to the CE has brought fresh life and eyes to the topic.
Has anyone even said britain did the most?
Yes of course and it's not to belittle the efforts of those who held out and fought in the war.
My father was in the RAF and my mother worked in a munitions factory and lived in the docks area of London during the Blitz.
My (french) wife's father was sent to to Germany under forced labour and her mother lived under firstly Italian then German occupation in the French Alps.
Going off on a tangent here but from VE day this year:
Obviously you'd expect the UK to be more aware of the UK's contribution to a certain extent but that stark a difference in opinion makes me wonder about how WWII is taught in schools. Too much emphasis on the UK's role, not enough on those of other countries?
It's particularly interesting given how the mythology of WWII ("we stood alone", the blitz spirit, Dunkirk, etc.) still seems to play such a big part in national identity and discussion in the UK. It was striking that in the case of both Brexit and the coronavirus there were fairly regular references to WW2, as if this was the prism through which all national struggles are viewed.
Maybe being taught a less insular view of WWII history would puncture some of that, while still allowing the UK to take pride in how sucessfully it fought alongside other countries. Or maybe I'm wrong and that's what is already taught in UK history lessons.
Going off on a tangent here but from VE day this year:
Obviously you'd expect the UK to be more aware of the UK's contribution to a certain extent but that stark a difference in opinion makes me wonder about how WWII is taught in schools. Too much emphasis on the UK's role, not enough on those of other countries?
It's particularly interesting given how the mythology of WWII ("we stood alone", the blitz spirit, Dunkirk, etc.) still seems to play such a big part in national identity and discussion in the UK. It was striking that in the case of both Brexit and the coronavirus there were fairly regular references to WW2, as if this was the prism through which all national struggles are viewed.
Maybe being taught a less insular view of WWII would puncture some of that, while still allowing the UK to take pride in how sucessfully it fought alongside other countries. Or maybe I'm wrong and that's what is already taught in UK history lessons.
Why is it a myth that we stood alone in 1940 when the US and the Russians were still not in the war? By all means include Free french, Poles and Commonwealth troops.
To be fair Russia probably did the most.Going off on a tangent here but from VE day this year:
Obviously you'd expect the UK to be more aware of the UK's contribution to a certain extent but that stark a difference in opinion makes me wonder about how WWII is taught in schools. Too much emphasis on the UK's role, not enough on those of other countries?
It's particularly interesting given how the mythology of WWII ("we stood alone", the blitz spirit, Dunkirk, etc.) still seems to play such a big part in national identity and discussion in the UK. It was striking that in the case of both Brexit and the coronavirus there were fairly regular references to WW2, as if this was the prism through which all national struggles are viewed.
Maybe being taught a less insular view of WWII history would puncture some of that, while still allowing the UK to take pride in how sucessfully it fought alongside other countries. Or maybe I'm wrong and that's what is already taught in UK history lessons.
British intelligence
American industry
Russian blood
There was a considerable pile-on in the last few months
I don't want to express any strong opinions myself.There was a considerable pile-on in the last few months
It's not relevant but history didn't go up to WW2 when I was at school. We did the Russian revolution, but not even WW1, I'm guessing that was too recent in the memory then, and anything other than 'all Germans are evil' wouldn't have gone down well with the grandparents. Could be wrong.
He scored pretty high on the psychopath test for historical leaders, Sadam is the goat though.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-08-23-presidential-candidates-may-be-psychopaths-–-could-be-good-thing#
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-08-23-presidential-candidates-may-be-psychopaths-–-could-be-good-thing#
Oddly enough there was actually quite a bug difference between the war generation and the post war generation in his they view the EU and brexit
Really shows the role nostalgia can play.
BLMUK (or at least its offshoots) overplayed their hand with this one, imo.
The issue comes down to what symbols actually mean. I'd argue that since objectivity is impossible on the concept of symbolism, you can only derive meaning from consensus.
I think almost everyone looks at Colston and sees a symbol of the slave trade. So the majority agree with his statue's removal.
With Churchill, the vast majority in this country see him as a Prime Minister who led the country through to its greatest ever moment. To them, he's a symbol of British triumph over an undoubted evil. But to others, he's a symbol of racist war-time policies that killed millions. Obviously, both aspects of his character are true. So it all comes down to the subjective reality of which symbol is stronger in the public consciousness. That subjectivity is necessarily what his statue represents, whether you like it or not.
I think it's pretty clear that the statue of Churchill is being celebrated for his victory over the Nazis rather than for his racist policies. You can't force Brits to change their shared perception into something negative, when it already has a strong emotional resonance with something positive.
Leave the fat fecker where he is. There may come a time when the majority think differently, but that's a discussion for then. Changing minds will at best it'll be a slow process, and one that certainly won't be achievable through a single shock of vigilantism.
Very few people would look at a statue of George Best and think it's celebrating alcoholism. Until they do, it's fair enough to keep it standing as a celebration of his football. Same idea applies to Churchill.
The issue comes down to what symbols actually mean. I'd argue that since objectivity is impossible on the concept of symbolism, you can only derive meaning from consensus.
I think almost everyone looks at Colston and sees a symbol of the slave trade. So the majority agree with his statue's removal.
With Churchill, the vast majority in this country see him as a Prime Minister who led the country through to its greatest ever moment. To them, he's a symbol of British triumph over an undoubted evil. But to others, he's a symbol of racist war-time policies that killed millions. Obviously, both aspects of his character are true. So it all comes down to the subjective reality of which symbol is stronger in the public consciousness. That subjectivity is necessarily what his statue represents, whether you like it or not.
I think it's pretty clear that the statue of Churchill is being celebrated for his victory over the Nazis rather than for his racist policies. You can't force Brits to change their shared perception into something negative, when it already has a strong emotional resonance with something positive.
Leave the fat fecker where he is. There may come a time when the majority think differently, but that's a discussion for then. Changing minds will at best it'll be a slow process, and one that certainly won't be achievable through a single shock of vigilantism.
Very few people would look at a statue of George Best and think it's celebrating alcoholism. Until they do, it's fair enough to keep it standing as a celebration of his football. Same idea applies to Churchill.
Last edited:
I hope this isn't a hint at the Dunkirk abandonment causing French capitulation myth because that is nonsense.
France was not invaded until 10 May 1940. It capitulated 25th June. I guess that is where the 7 weeks comes from.
Unless you think the tactic of surrendering before you are attacked is valid then I don't know how you can capitulate earlier than France did.
Yes exactly, I’ve been labelled a racist for pointing out these very comparisons. Mental.
Especially agree with your last sentence in bold, this is where the focus should be going forward.
It’s a shame this whole statue situation is detracting from the real momentum this movement was gaining. The leaders of the movement, if there are any, should steer it back on course and push the education Issue.
It's like the Giggs vs Bale debate.Going off on a tangent here but from VE day this year:
Obviously you'd expect the UK to be more aware of the UK's contribution to a certain extent but that stark a difference in opinion makes me wonder about how WWII is taught in schools. Too much emphasis on the UK's role, not enough on those of other countries?
It's particularly interesting given how the mythology of WWII ("we stood alone", the blitz spirit, Dunkirk, etc.) still seems to play such a big part in national identity and discussion in the UK. It was striking that in the case of both Brexit and the coronavirus there were fairly regular references to WW2, as if this was the prism through which all national struggles are viewed.
Maybe being taught a less insular view of WWII history would puncture some of that, while still allowing the UK to take pride in how sucessfully it fought alongside other countries. Or maybe I'm wrong and that's what is already taught in UK history lessons.
The UK did it for longer, but the US and Soviets had a better peak.
I'm all for removing the statues of slave traders. Churchill I'd argue should probably stay, but I'd like to see it put to a vote instead of just being yanked down. The UK is more multi-cultural than ever, and while natives see a wartime hero, others might see something totally different. If enough people want it taken down, I'd be willing to look the other way while they did it.
As far as I remember from my own history lessons from some 15 years ago (which are hazy so may be inexact), while Britain may have been the only major power fighting Germany and Italy at one point, it was never doing so alone. Other countries were still fighting and assisting, as were soldiers from countries like Belgium and France. I seem to remember Greece being centrally involved at that time. And Britain certainly wasn't the only country fighting Axis powers at that time.
Beyond that, "Britain" in this context means the British Empire, as distinct from the UK of today, which seems to be what people have in mind when they speak of Britain standing alone. As I remember it there were quite a lot more soldiers from the likes of Australia, New Zealand and India involved. Even in terms of the battle of britain, something like a fifth of the pilots involved were from other countries.
Seems to me it a more accurate but still positive take on the UK's role at that time would be to say they provided leadership, helped pull countries together in Europe's time of need and sustained various governments in exile. As opposed to them fighting on their own, which is maybe a less helpful national myth.
But I might absolutely be wrong so don't hold me to any of that. If someone who knows better would like to contradict then by all means.
Sack Churchill, sell the UK?
Good post, you would think that this is obvious to the majority.
Sounds about right.
Ironically this post sort of helps prove the massive importance Churchill had in the war as a whole.Going off on a tangent here but from VE day this year:
Obviously you'd expect the UK to be more aware of the UK's contribution to a certain extent but that stark a difference in opinion makes me wonder about how WWII is taught in schools. Too much emphasis on the UK's role, not enough on those of other countries?
It's particularly interesting given how the mythology of WWII ("we stood alone", the blitz spirit, Dunkirk, etc.) still seems to play such a big part in national identity and discussion in the UK. It was striking that in the case of both Brexit and the coronavirus there were fairly regular references to WW2, as if this was the prism through which all national struggles are viewed.
Maybe being taught a less insular view of WWII history would puncture some of that, while still allowing the UK to take pride in how sucessfully it fought alongside other countries. Or maybe I'm wrong and that's what is already taught in UK history lessons.
If the old fecker signs that agreement to let Hitler and the Germans carry on their merry slaughter of Europe and Britain turn a blind eye then Germany win. No doubt about that.
The US backed the UK. You take those two players out of the war and it would have been a landslide victory for Germany across Europe.
If the Russians went head to head with Germany without the same combined effect of Uk and USA the death toll would have been even more horrendous for them.
Single biggest decision of WW11. Love or hate the man.
EDIT: Not to mention that I feel those figures are skewed massively by the fact that Britain is the most hated nation in most parts of the world, many would prefer to pat America on the back rather than the Brits.
PS I feel offended by that actually, I’m going to look for a statue to take down to make me feel better
It’s not really detracting though is it? People are still talking about BLM. It’s only a distraction if you’re looking for one as far as I can see.
Dunkirk evacuation was between the 27th May and 4th June so they were invaded before they surrendered but as I said in my post - they were overwhelmed by the German invasion as were the British which is why they abandoned their military hardware and they couldn't take it with them in their retreat. Luckily they managed to get away to an island . Took them 4 years to come back . If Hitler had pressed on the outcome would have been completely different.
To add to the irony, if that's the word, I have heard it said that Churchill's greatest contribution to the war was gaining US support in 1940, well before Pearl Harbour. Most of the US at that time was for 'no more European involvement' following WW1. Whilst the British public dismissed the supply of old destroyers that, and the US protection of convoys in the western atlantic, probably saved Britain from having to seek terms with Germany before it's entire merchant navy was sunk, they were being lost that fast. Churchill was half-American of course, which might have helped.Ironically this post sort of helps prove the massive importance Churchill had in the war as a whole.
If the old fecker signs that agreement to let Hitler and the Germans carry on their merry slaughter of Europe and Britain turn a blind eye then Germany win. No doubt about that.
The US backed the UK. You take those two players out of the war and it would have been a landslide victory for Germany across Europe.
If the Russians went head to head with Germany without the same combined effect of Uk and USA the death toll would have been even more horrendous for them.
Single biggest decision of WW11. Love or hate the man.
EDIT: Not to mention that I feel those figures are skewed massively by the fact that Britain is the most hated nation in most parts of the world, many would prefer to pat America on the back rather than the Brits.
PS I feel offended by that actually, I’m going to look for a statue to take down to make me feel better
Churchill will always be a difficult figure to truly understand, he had views which looking back through the lense of history was wrong, cruel and shows the man in a grim light. Then you look at his war years some decisions right or wrong had to be made and he was the only man at the time who could do it. I don't agree with his decision to divert resources away which led to the famine but many argue, he didn't have much choice. Churchill only had the British people in mind, keep the British people and nation out of the grip of a true tryant. Let's no forget he was voted out as soon as possible, he was never the man to lead a nation in a time of peace because he was a dinosaur, but for the period of the war he was possibly the only man to able to rally a nation at war. I think Churchill in schools, both sides of the man should be taught and also what a cruel nation Britain was during colonial times.