Winston Churchill

adexkola said:
Reading up on the Bengal Famine and it seems (please correct me if I'm wrong) it was as much a moral indictment of colonialism and Empire (viewing Indians as second class citizens at best) as it was about the cuntyness of Churchill at the helm of government.
Click to expand...
2cents said:
There’s always the danger in emphasizing the role of particular individuals in any given issue that we lose sight of the broader picture. I think this is especially true in the case of the British Empire, which ranged so far over such a long span of time and encompassed so many forms of imperial authority, yet maintained a coherent focus on the glory of Britain and the British throughout. The Empire certainly had its heroes, but the nature of the fragmented, decentralized system meant that its fortunes were never dependent on any them. So a singular focus on Churchill in the case of the Bengal famine risks essentially letting the colonial system off the hook.
Click to expand...
It's the complete whitewashing or selective teaching of British history to British people that leads a collective cognitive dissonance on the 340 years of history known as The British Empire

The business generated by East India Company, led to beliefs of white supremacy and advancement of white British people only. It was a 340 year project which only began to unravel at the end of WW2. Churchill was the 2nd last prime minister of the Empire, and although he was an extremist product of the colonial belief system, he had relatively little time and scope to inflict his vicious interpretation of white supremacy.

The majority of crimes and immorality of the British Empire were led by British monarchs like Charles II George III, Queen Victoria, George V and Prime Minsters like Walpole, Pelham, Pitt (younger), North, Jenkinson, Disreali or Asquith and leaders within East India Company like Hastings, Clive, Wellesley, Cornwallis and many more.
 
Last edited:
From the little I have researched, I conclude that Churchill was a racist cnut. A disgrace.

But, his one big job in life, was to ensure we defeated the Nazi's - and he did it. Fair play to him for that
 
Tibs said:
From the little I have researched, I conclude that Churchill was a racist cnut. A disgrace.

But, his one big job in life, was to ensure we defeated the Nazi's - and he did it. Fair play to him for that
Click to expand...

To be fair most westerner in the 1940s are probably racists. I'm not talking about kkk racist but they sure think they're a class above the rest being european and all that.

I dont blame them for that. The technological and cultural gap between then england and their colonies are huge. You can't help being a refined english PM and think you're a class above indigenous Indian, or malay, or Chinese.
 
Did he really defeat the Nazis, though? Arguably, the US came and bailed him and Stalin out spectacularly.
 
Sky1981 said:
To be fair most westerner in the 1940s are probably racists. I'm not talking about kkk racist but they sure think they're a class above the rest being european and all that.

I dont blame them for that. The technological and cultural gap between then england and their colonies are huge. You can't help being a refined english PM and think you're a class above indigenous Indian, or malay, or Chinese.
Click to expand...
... funded by 300+ years of colony looting and subjugation.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Did he really defeat the Nazis, though? Arguably, the US came and bailed him and Stalin out spectacularly.
Click to expand...

It's pretty well understood none of us could have won without the others.

Without Britain, the US would have had nowhere to launch an invasion from and Russia would have lost if Germany only had to fight in the East.
Without Russia, Germany would have not had to fight in the East and would have defeated us in the West.
Without the US, Britain and Russia may not have been able to overcome Germany (although historians think we still would have won, but it would have taken years longer)
 
dumbo said:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...nce-for-urinating-near-pc-keith-palmer-plaque

The guy who pissed near the memorial is going to jail. I personally think that is really harsh.
Click to expand...
A student urinated on the war memorial in Sheffield city centre when I was at uni there. He narrowly avoided a prison sentence - https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/26/student-urinated-war-memorial-sentenced

I think the judge has taken the right wing protests context in account. Personally I've no issue with that.
 
sammsky1 said:
Good for whom? Am sure it was good for white British people to enjoy the fruits, labour and income of blacks and Asians. Entire villages, towns and parts of cities were built from this wealth.

But I can't see how it was good for African and Asian countries and their citizens to have been looted, raped, beaten up, murdered and discriminated against for 100s of years.

I'm absolute certain that colonialism was a life potential denying experience for the vast majority of people who made up the British empire.
Click to expand...

I assure you I don't believe that this was good at all. I've just had the misfortune of bumping into folk who believe this.
 
11101 said:
It's pretty well understood none of us could have won without the others.

Without Britain, the US would have had nowhere to launch an invasion from and Russia would have lost if Germany only had to fight in the East.
Without Russia, Germany would have not had to fight in the East and would have defeated us in the West.
Without the US, Britain and Russia may not have been able to overcome Germany (although historians think we still would have won, but it would have taken years longer)
Click to expand...

What you have there is a well balanced interpretation of intricate alliance that defeated Germany in Europe and Africa but the myth of Churchill ignores this. The myth of Churchill believes he won the bloody war with his speech about fighting on the beaches, etc.
 
11101 said:
It's pretty well understood none of us could have won without the others.

Without Britain, the US would have had nowhere to launch an invasion from and Russia would have lost if Germany only had to fight in the East.
Without Russia, Germany would have not had to fight in the East and would have defeated us in the West.
Without the US, Britain and Russia may not have been able to overcome Germany (although historians think we still would have won, but it would have taken years longer)
Click to expand...

The Soviet Union would probably have won all on its own eventually, if they had to. Certainly if they had American lend lease. British WW2 history is heroic and glorious, there's no doubt about that, and they would never have been conquered by Germany, but still.
 
nimic said:
The Soviet Union would probably have won all on its own eventually, if they had to. Certainly if they had American lend lease. British WW2 history is heroic and glorious, there's no doubt about that, and they would never have been conquered by Germany, but still.
Click to expand...
There was a German joke about that, something to the effect of ‘which general you fear the most? General Motors’.

The 150,000 Lend-Lease trucks allowed the Red Army to exploit much deeper into German lines once they found a breach, without it they would have to slowly consolidate and push, which would result in a lot more casualties attacking fortified German positions. Still, by 1944, they still had millions of reservists while Germany ran out of them long before, with the Western front being quiet for more than 3 years. Even as early as 1941 before Barbarossa commenced, the German high command predicated their plan on taking the USSR out by Christmas and have those troops back working in the factories. They simply didn’t have the manpower for an attrition war with the Soviets, no matter what fantasies the likes of Guderian and Manstein propagated, the accounts of which Western historians based their mainstream history of WW2 on.
 
Is there a single country or culture in the world that doesn't glorify its successful wartime leaders? In some instances, for decades or even centuries after?

Churchill was a complete and utter ass and a racist disgrace, responsible for the deaths of millions. It is completely legitimate (and correct) to think that, especially as someone who is not British and especially as someone who comes from a country that was impacted by his (and his country's empire) policies.

At the same time, it is also not exactly difficult to see how most British people may not be quite so quick to jump to agree with that, considering the wartime effort he lead and the enemy he was fighting at the time.

And what some people seem to take umbrage with is seemingly the belief that British people may be fans of Churchill because of those aforementioned views. This is of course not the case. Were it not for the second world war, Churchill would either be a completely anonymous figure to most Brits or known by historical buffs for his failures in WW1. Nor are we talking about an ancient war but one from which we still have survivors alive today.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
What you have there is a well balanced interpretation of intricate alliance that defeated Germany in Europe and Africa but the myth of Churchill ignores this. The myth of Churchill believes he won the bloody war with his speech about fighting on the beaches, etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone claimed that Britain won the war on their own.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
What you have there is a well balanced interpretation of intricate alliance that defeated Germany in Europe and Africa but the myth of Churchill ignores this. The myth of Churchill believes he won the bloody war with his speech about fighting on the beaches, etc.
Click to expand...
Only found out about this recently

1) Churchill did not broadcast the speech...

Rather, he gave it in the House of Commons, beginning at 3.40 pm and sitting down at 4.14. By contrast with some later occasions – notably his ‘finest hour’ speech of 18 June – he did not repeat it over the airwaves that evening. The thought simply does not seem to have occurred to him or to anyone else. Instead, a BBC announcer read sections of it during the nightly news. You have, of course, heard him delivering it, but he did not make that recording until 1949, when he was persuaded to do so for the benefit of posterity.

Few people, when they hear the speech on radio or TV documentaries, are aware that they are listening to Churchill speaking not in 1940 but nine years later.Strangely, though, there is a popular myth that the speech was broadcast at the time, not by Churchill himself, but by an actor, Norman Shelley. Shelley did make a phonograph recording of a different Churchill speech in the aftermath of the 1942 victory at El Alamein although what use was made of it, if any, is unknown. He never claimed to have impersonated the Prime Minister over the airwaves, and though many historians have pointed out that the story is false, it seems impossible to kill it.

https://history.blog.gov.uk/2013/12...ver-knew-about-churchills-most-famous-speech/
Click to expand...



History is weird
 
africanspur said:
Is there a single country or culture in the world that doesn't glorify its successful wartime leaders? In some instances, for decades or even centuries after?

Churchill was a complete and utter ass and a racist disgrace, responsible for the deaths of millions. It is completely legitimate (and correct) to think that, especially as someone who is not British and especially as someone who comes from a country that was impacted by his (and his country's empire) policies.

At the same time, it is also not exactly difficult to see how most British people may not be quite so quick to jump to agree with that, considering the wartime effort he lead and the enemy he was fighting at the time.

And what some people seem to take umbrage with is seemingly the belief that British people may be fans of Churchill because of those aforementioned views. This is of course not the case. Were it not for the second world war, Churchill would either be a completely anonymous figure to most Brits or known by historical buffs for his failures in WW1. Nor are we talking about an ancient war but one from which we still have survivors alive today.
Click to expand...

Obviously everyone has a good side and a bad side. However, when the bad side of a person is directly responsible for the death of millions of people, you need to take a step back and probably think whether the person actually deserves to have statues made for him.

I don't think there would have been a furor had he just been a racist. Afterall, majority of the people were racists in those times. Look at any person from history and you'd see some opinions of theirs being 'unsound'.

I agree they'd honour him for many more years as well, however, they need to be taught about this side of his story as well
 
anant said:
Obviously everyone has a good side and a bad side. However, when the bad side of a person is directly responsible for the death of millions of people, you need to take a step back and probably think whether the person actually deserves to have statues made for him.

I don't think there would have been a furor had he just been a racist. Afterall, majority of the people were racists in those times. Look at any person from history and you'd see some opinions of theirs being 'unsound'.

I agree they'd honour him for many more years as well, however, they need to be taught about this side of his story as well
Click to expand...

Then this is a human issue, not a British or Churchill issue. I'd be all for having far more statues of great artists, humanitarians, scientists, authors, philosophers, musicians, than of politicians or wartime leaders. Yet you go around the world and you'll find many many statues of great kings, emperors, generals, admirals and, more recently, of prime ministers and presidents.

I also think statues are surely.....dependent on their local situation? I totally accept the above stuff about Churchill (and think his dark side, as well as the dark side of empire, should be taught more in schools and aired on TV) etc. Having said that, I can totally understand why there are statues of him in the UK (and, in this case, the cenotaph, a specific war memorial) but not in India or Pakistan. It also makes sense that there would be statues of Gandhi in India but not in Ghana (removed) , due to his previous racist views. In so much as muslims don't tend to portray historical figures in statues or paintings, there are a couple of statues of Saladin for instance dotted around the Middle East. But not really too many in Europe. Stalin statues still stand in Russia but have been torn down and destroyed in many ex-soviet republics.

I can understand why many Russians would still hold respect for Stalin while at the same time understanding why a Ukrainian or Polish person might despise him. Can people not look at stuff with context?
 
Are there any chinese sentiments to take down Statues of chariman Mao? He considered to be responsible for the deaths of 30 to 80 million people.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
What you have there is a well balanced interpretation of intricate alliance that defeated Germany in Europe and Africa but the myth of Churchill ignores this. The myth of Churchill believes he won the bloody war with his speech about fighting on the beaches, etc.
Click to expand...

That's just simply not true. If any nation is guilty of claiming to have "won" the war it's the Americans.

Historically it is recognised that Britain and by extension, Churchill's resilience in the face of increasing pressure to surrender helped frustrate and ultimately delay the Nazi's enough for Britain and the rest of the Allies to get their shit together.

Little things like Churchill's decision to have an air raid over Berlin did a massive job in pissing Hitler off and making him redirect his attacks on civilian areas over the military targets he had been bombing before hand.
 
africanspur said:
Then this is a human issue, not a British or Churchill issue. I'd be all for having far more statues of great artists, humanitarians, scientists, authors, philosophers, musicians, than of politicians or wartime leaders. Yet you go around the world and you'll find many many statues of great kings, emperors, generals, admirals and, more recently, of prime ministers and presidents.

I also think statues are surely.....dependent on their local situation? I totally accept the above stuff about Churchill (and think his dark side, as well as the dark side of empire, should be taught more in schools and aired on TV) etc. Having said that, I can totally understand why there are statues of him in the UK (and, in this case, the cenotaph, a specific war memorial) but not in India or Pakistan. It also makes sense that there would be statues of Gandhi in India but not in Ghana (removed) , due to his previous racist views. In so much as muslims don't tend to portray historical figures in statues or paintings, there are a couple of statues of Saladin for instance dotted around the Middle East. But not really too many in Europe. Stalin statues still stand in Russia but have been torn down and destroyed in many ex-soviet republics.

I can understand why many Russians would still hold respect for Stalin while at the same time understanding why a Ukrainian or Polish person might despise him. Can people not look at stuff with context?
Click to expand...

I learned the other day that there’s a statue of the Ottoman Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent in Hungary, at the location where he’s believed to have died while launching a major military campaign to further extend Ottoman domains into Central Europe. The location has now been turned into a Hungary-Turkey friendship park, despite generally negative views of the Ottoman occupation held by Hungarians today.
 
entropy said:
The problem with recognizing him for his vision is that in reality it feels more like an exercise in vanity or state sanctioned propaganda. Especially given the state of Europe and the mess that it has always been(without even taking brexit into consideration). People tend to forget how open, and completely different the world was prior to WW. If anything I’d say, it’s only gotten worse, we have ramped up in terms of military, surveillance and nation state with no end in sight.
Click to expand...

Churchill was warning of the NazI threat long before any of the political establishment was.
Churchill also admitted his mistakes & regrets later in life, basically owning up to his racist past and admitting he was wrong. But then again, the ruling class were all the same. Churchill was educated and had an upbringing to be that way.
I’m not trying to defend Churchill and his pears. Nor do I believe our colonial past is anything but nauseating. I’m just trying to put things in perspective so that people can form a balanced opinion.
As for tearing down statues & monuments, not a great fan myself. A statue of a slave trader is one thing, but heads of states is another. They’re part of history and should be preserved imo. And if we do start tearing them down the we should start with Victoria herself!!
 
Rams said:
Churchill was warning of the NazI threat long before any of the political establishment was.
Churchill also admitted his mistakes & regrets later in life, basically owning up to his racist past and admitting he was wrong. But then again, the ruling class were all the same. Churchill was educated and had an upbringing to be that way.
I’m not trying to defend Churchill and his pears. Nor do I believe our colonial past is anything but nauseating. I’m just trying to put things in perspective so that people can form a balanced opinion.
As for tearing down statues & monuments, not a great fan myself. A statue of a slave trader is one thing, but heads of states is another. They’re part of history and should be preserved imo. And if we do start tearing them down the we should start with Victoria herself!!
Click to expand...
.....
 
entropy said:
I don't think Auschwitz serves the same purpose. I also think there are several posts that address the differences really well.
Click to expand...

The point I’m making is rather than tearing down such landmarks it would be more constructive to keep said landmarks in order to teach future generations about the UK’s past.
 
Rams said:
The point I’m making is rather than tearing down such landmarks it would be more constructive to keep said landmarks in order to teach future generations about the UK’s past.
Click to expand...
every time someone does that they're met with "he's our hero though and everyone was racist then and actually feck off home okay" so what are we meant to do now
 
Silva said:
the germans don't drape auschwitz in flags and claim it as a proud historical thing, churchill is presented as the best of us, as someone we should aspire to, a national hero
Click to expand...

Well they can’t, cause Auschwitz isn’t in Germany.
 
would anyone really want a statue of Churchill in the middle of their city if they didn't think he was a national hero? educating people on history is good, but what happens when you do that is they stop venerating historical figures and stop repeating national propaganda, part of which is present in our town centres with statues and plaques to people we should keep in history books rather than prominence
 
Rams said:
Churchill was warning of the NazI threat long before any of the political establishment was.
Churchill also admitted his mistakes & regrets later in life, basically owning up to his racist past and admitting he was wrong. But then again, the ruling class were all the same. Churchill was educated and had an upbringing to be that way.
I’m not trying to defend Churchill and his pears. Nor do I believe our colonial past is anything but nauseating. I’m just trying to put things in perspective so that people can form a balanced opinion.
As for tearing down statues & monuments, not a great fan myself. A statue of a slave trader is one thing, but heads of states is another. They’re part of history and should be preserved imo. And if we do start tearing them down the we should start with Victoria herself!!
Click to expand...
Would love to see this evidence. Have never seen it.

Even if it's true, it's totally meaningless and worthless.
 
RedTiger said:
I never knew this. Is this true?
Click to expand...

Churchill was a political chameleon. The Churchill from WWI for example, had very different believes from the Churchill during WWII. Churchill was an avid writer who wrote memoirs during most of his political career. Many of them published. They give a great insight in how his believes changed from his military days in Africa through to the day he died.
 
Rams said:
The point I’m making is rather than tearing down such landmarks it would be more constructive to keep said landmarks in order to teach future generations about the UK’s past.
Click to expand...
Do these future generations include immigrants? because they might want to have a say in how the past or Churchill should be portrayed as.
 
A statue of winston churchill is not like the cult-god like statues of Chairman Mao and worship in China, a man who was directly responsible for the death of 30-80 million people. I don't understand this sudden need to destroy statues.
 
entropy said:
Come on. Now you're just trying to wind us up.
Click to expand...

Im not really. A lot of tibetans are forced to prostrate to staues or images of Mao And Xi, which would be like forcing jews to prostrate to images of Hitler.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.