Some do say that churchill knew about the Japanese plans for pearl harbour but let it happen as he knew that the US reaction would be.
Winston Churchill
- Thread starter Cascarino
- Start date
Not true
I suppose most conspiracy theories have an element of plausibility but I would need some evidence on that one!
When I say Churchill knew i might be wrong but there was a good conspiracy theory saying the US president knew something was going to happen.
Being a Prime Minister of Britain in WW II against the AXIS.... boy you need a whole sets of standards to judge them.
We're talking about counterinsurgency, sending suicides commando to sabotage the german behind enemy lines, sending diversion divisions as baits, people dies. And let's not start on worldwide level. They're moving soldies like pawns, a flick of their fingers kills millions.
You don't have the luxury of playing morally right moves all the time.
I'm not Brits, I'm asian who's supposed to dislike Brits but even I can see some merit in Churchill, so much I'd name my son Winston after him when I have one
We're talking about counterinsurgency, sending suicides commando to sabotage the german behind enemy lines, sending diversion divisions as baits, people dies. And let's not start on worldwide level. They're moving soldies like pawns, a flick of their fingers kills millions.
You don't have the luxury of playing morally right moves all the time.
I'm not Brits, I'm asian who's supposed to dislike Brits but even I can see some merit in Churchill, so much I'd name my son Winston after him when I have one
Yeah someone covered that before. France declared war the same time as Britain but surrendered within 7 weeks and it's true and the british commonwealth: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa joined in a few days later.
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
Not sure how that works out. Of the three other countries asked in that poll, the UK definitely isn't the country the US or Germany hate the most. In fact the idea that there's some big rivalry between Germany and the UK is itself quite a one-sided UK perspective, probably based in that same WW2 narrative. Germany generally seems to be far less interested in the UK than the UK is in Germany.
Yep, sums up my thoughts on the matter.
Well it is, almost entirely. All we’ve heard is talks about statues that will affect nothing regarding of the outcome.
As I’ve pointed out even before it started, the issue will only harden racists views, we are seeing that on the streets now.
It has halted a lot of the momentum and will have a longer negative impact that’s for sure, instead of trying to educate and encourage dialogue and reasons for change.
The last thing they needed to do was give racists something to cling onto, they’ve given them dozens of symbols to protect now. Entirely counterproductive
Good post. And I agree.
I believe we should also be mature enough to understand the reason for a particular statue being erected. In this case, it clearly exists in the UK because of what the UK sees him as - one of their great leaders. And at the very least - merely as one of their leaders. What I as an Indian see him as is not completely irrelevant but surely is not as relevant as what Brits feel on the matter. It resides on their soil. If the point is to broaden the discussion on him then sure, that's probably a good idea. But going beyond, doesn't really seem to make sense.
I'm sure there's still time but so far what it has achieved is motivate Johnson and his Tories to talk about bringing into effect a new law that will make the defacing of war memorials punishable by up to ten years in prison. Ignoring the fact that it was already covered by an existing law.
Meanwhile we're still waiting for David Lammy's Review of disproportionality in the criminal justice system to be acted upon from 2017. Plus the Tories hiding 69 pages of a report into the higher proportion of deaths of BAME People from Covid-19.
Here's what the Indians did at the Mutiny Memorial in Delhi, which was originally built in 1863 to commemorate those on the British side (both British and their Indian allies) who lost their lives during the siege of Delhi in 1857. Rather than pull it down they basically just flipped the narrative. I doubt this helps to increase our understanding of those events very much, but at least it provides some corrective/balance:
The original:
The amendment:
The original:
The amendment:
I really don't understand this argument.
You're basically suggesting that black & ethnic minorities protest in a way that is only perceived positively by the very people who view them negatively (racists) not only is that impossible, it's asinine & unnecessary.
Secondly, it hasn't halted the momentum - media coverage of BLM has always been slanted to perceive the protests in a bad light, which is why they focus only on the violence/riots - there's plenty more footage of peaceful protests, marches, and coming together of community that isn't reported in mainstream media. I wonder why that would be? It's not exactly a million pound question.
Thirdly, you've basically admitted that the 'protection' of these symbols isn't done so because of some connection & association with british history that will be erased with their destruction. It's a way for racists to show their true colours - and if you ask me, these protests are necessary to ensure that the wider public see these people for who they are.
They're not 'football lads', or whatever cutesy nickname they've been given by the Sun or DM - they're racists & they're not a 'fringe' minority. Many have been unmasked as teachers, retail workers, service men etc - normal people who feel so emboldened that the term 'black lives matter' is enough to rile them up.
Protests aren't meant to be convenient or polite, they are there to disrupt & cause chaos otherwise nothing gets done.
Of the other three one is the US themselves (who would be inclined to back themselves in their view), then we have our close friends the French and Germans
my point being neither are going to say Britain.Anyway we digress.
Ok you’ve missed the overall point spread across three days and hundreds of posts pointing out that the statue does not and was not created to celebrate Churchill’s racist opinions, I’m not going to summarise further for you sorry mate.
If you think a monument designed to mark a MASSIVE moment in British history should be brought down because it offends people in 2020 then all the best with that. It won’t happen.
The fact you think that I have missed any posts is hilarious. And no where in my post did I say that the Churchill statue should be brought down, nowhere did I even mention Churchill.
I agree with this.
Sully is right about attitudes in Germany. Out of the three options in the poll, the British were seen in the most favourable light during my lifetime, and it may have already been that way since the end of the war. (Can't say for sure, but I think it's likely.)Of the other three one is the US themselves (who would be inclined to back themselves in their view), then we have our close friends the French and Germans
The by far biggest resentment in German attitudes on the war was and still is against the Soviet Union ("the Russians"). I doubt this will ever change. Post-war anti-Americanism is not to be underestimated either. These days, there's no special interest in the British anymore, be it in context of the war or contemporary matters. As far as I can tell, this includes the bombing campaigns, with the exception of Dresden.
Btw, I don't want to diminish the massive contributions and sacrifices the British made in bringing down the Third Reich with this. It's not about a contest who contributed the most.
Last edited:
Paul Reynaud called Churchill on the 16th to say that France had lost because of the break through at Sedan.That is five days after the start of the German attack. If you want to try and make the evacuation the cause of the defeat then I would suggest you look at what was going on in the French command which descended into a farce. Highlights being abandoning fortresses, refusing air support, generals out of communication with no radios flying around and missing each other and around the 21st a critical army group being commanded by a man in a coma for 2 days.
The USSR had proposed a collective security policy in the mid-30s, joining the League of Nations and making an alliance with France. But it was ignored by Britain and its ruling Tory party. This policy was abandoned after the Munich agreement, the foreign minister was sacked, and Molotov (of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) was appointed. To his credit Churchill might have been outside the party mainstream on this.
I’d suggest you to refrain from such definitive assessment on hypotheticals when historical facts didn’t line up anywhere near as neatly to that popular narrative.
9 out of every 11 German casualties were on the Eastern front. The reality was the Western front were primarily used by the 3rd Reich to recycle and recuperate the troops from the Eastern front for the remainder of the war, once Operation Barbarossa commenced. Would it make life harder for the USSR had Britain signed a peace treaty with Germany in 1940? Undoubtedly. Would the raw material and manpower potentially diverted from the North African theater be enough to ensure ‘a landslide victory across Europe’ for Germany? Nope. Russian winter and incompatible rails would still posed massive logistical problem to millions of German troops already deep into enemy territories, they would still have a severe shortage of fuel and industrial manpower to keep the war effort going, and Stalin’s cold blooded psychopathic impulses driving counteroffensives after counteroffensives would still see horrendous German casualties, testing the populace’s patience and fueling resistance effort in occupied Europe.
Britain resistance and American participation hastened the war to its conclusion, but the USSR did the heavy liftings and were likely to beat Germany regardless. Also Japan’s imperial designs and their desire to control the Pacific put them on a collision course with the US, so America’s entering the war was a matter of when, not if.
This was posted on a different thread a month ago
The most powerful army in the world, it turned out, were in Hollywood’s studios.This was posted on a different thread a month ago
Thank you, did not know this.
Last edited:
In the end yes, but how applicable is that to the moment the Soviet Union came closest to defeat? You add an extra mechanized army in the south unlimited supplies for Germany and cut off completely to external supply for Russia. Its possible the Soviets lose early before the main slaughter.
What we know for certain is that in 1940 there was only Britain and its empire fighting and a lot of that was down to Churchill. All the rest is speculation. With the war in Europe over and presumably all the oil he needs Hitler might not have attacked Russia at all.
I'm not saying that. The French and British government were both farcical in their approach to Hitler in the 30s. France building the Maginot line not thinking the Germans would go around it was farcical. Neither country was prepared for the war but both let Hitler do what he liked in the 30s. The french government of the time are not held in high esteem by the French. Pétain and Laval afterwards are not praised as heroes.
My point is that the French had nowhere to go, unlike the British. If the UK was attached to continental Europe it would almost certainly suffered the same fate. Additionally if Hitler had a competent leader of the Luftwaffe instead of Göring , didn't have an intelligence service that was basically useless and being a lunatic wanting to invade the USSR and making poor decisions in 1941 the UK could have easily suffered the same fate.
I wish you guys never got our curry recipes.What a curse to be British
And now it boils down to "Let's remove the statue of the guy who symbolizes facing and defeating an existential threat to everything we value".
Also the small matter of bankrupting the country, all the famines and genocides, and of course dividing it as a permanent feck you before leaving.
Thanks for the trains though.
And the convoluted bureaucracy.
Seems like the anti-soviet propaganda worked like a charm.This was posted on a different thread a month ago
Interesting question, I guess the native people of India wanted their own freedom and independence but I bet a lot wish we Brits stuck around?
I mean is it fair to say there would be a far better economy and healthcare system along with better Protection for woman as a few examples?
I ask as it’s a subject I haven’t studied much, mean no offence to anybody of course.
waiting tobe told to be grateful that i can communicate in english
I've not seen that many movies about the USA role in WW2 in Europe, cant really even remember one.
There was Pearl Harbour, but that has very little to do with activities in western Europe. What movies are you referring to?
Saving Private Ryan and Fury. There are probably quite a few older ones, but I am not old (I'm not!)
The movie doesn't have to take place in Europe for people who watch it to come away with the general impression that the US "won the war", but it's definitely a lot more nuanced and complicated than just that. Cold War politics, for example.
Hah, that’s a no then?
You have had some seriously awful posts in this thread, tone deaf doesn't even begin to describe them.
U-571 is a Hollywood classic - it depicts the bloody AMERICANS capturing the enigma machine (which was of course captured by the British before the US even entered the war).
The state of this thread
No. Just, no.Interesting. I've seen both, and grown up and spent first 27 years living only in UK. Despite watching those movies, my perceptions and beliefs on WW2 (through education and absorbing culture I was exposed to) was that US was a very late entrant always on the periphery and a fringe player of WW2. I had no experiences to make me believe other nations thought USA or USSR were the most critical.