Churchill to Hitler

[Pinkkgaga]

So it’s trending on Twitter that people are comparing Churchill to Hitler and saying he was just as bad.
Absolutely disgusting imo, but I’d like to hear everyone’s thoughts on it.

I couldn't give any shits if all the statues of the "great men" get smashed to bits.

I could ... just move them into a museum. Destruction has too many associations with Nazi high jinks.

In fairness to Mandela, the ANC was labelled at terrorist organisation by those who profited from the continuation of apartheid.

But I'm pretty certain that the ANC was banned in SA, so Mandela was a criminal for being a member. Something Mrs Thatcher never let the UK public forget, although mercifully they generally ignored her on this one, and continued boycotting South African goods (mainly produce). Which is one reason the Israelis have gotten smart and maneuvered to neuter such moves in their direction

If I remember rightly South African produce ws boycotted mainly as a protest against apartheid. It was certainly why everyone I know boycotted it.

If I remember rightly South African produce ws boycotted mainly as a protest against apartheid. It was certainly why everyone I know boycotted it.

Yes. And Mrs T hated it. Really hated it. Which is why it is so pleasing that so many people did it (cf with Boris telling us what to do tomorrow) and that it helped put serious pressure on SA.

Mrs Ts "argument" was that sanctions only hurt the little people (so you immediate knew she was being disingenuous) despite the fact that the "little people" of South Africa were begging the world to boycott their goods.

Boerclays, anyone ? There was quite a widespread student boycott of Barclays at the time ...

Well people "protecting" Churchill statue today are doing Nazi salutes so

The ANC is the oldest political party in South Africa, founded in 1912. Under the National Party (founded 1914) govt. they were a banned organisation.

Mandela gives his reasons for turning to violence in the Rivonia Speech.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Prepared_to_Die

I beleive Churchill may also have turned to violence at some points in his life.

You believe Churchill may have turned to violence?????

You believe Churchill may have turned to violence?????

We will fight them in the streets, we will fight them in the fields. We will fight them on the beaches. We will fight them in the cities and towns. We shall fight, fight fight ....

Just for background, I type that from memory - as indeed a lot of Britons could.

Being a terrorist or a war hero is all about who won. And that is all it is about. No more. No less. We call Boudica a hero. The Romans (that defeated her) most certainly did not.

DGRossetti

Wasn’t that about Germany invading.

There was a war going on.

Wasn’t that about Germany invading.

Of course. But now we are arguing about the price (again).

I was thinking more about his suggestion of gassing Indians. His violence was far more than the war.

@ChaBishkoot

We don’t have to go back to Adam and Eve. But maybe read about the 1960s when certainly your parents were most likely alive. And your grandparents. And how black and brown people were treated in the UK and the US and British colonies then.

The defensiveness is people at having to confront a tiny fraction of their past is a really useful insight into how ingrained white privilege is.

It’s easier to say, yep racist things happened and I don’t give a monkey’s. I don’t care if someone’s grandmother had a bottle shoved up their vagina for standing up to the British in a Mau Mau camp. And she can’t get compensation because the British burned the files. That’s okay because today Kenya is free and they should be grateful for British rule. My life is good and I am not personally racist to anyone. So people shouldn’t keep bringing this up because it makes me uncomfortable. And black and brown people should be grateful for the privilege they have today as minorities and ‘stop harping about the past’. But people find that uncomfortable to articulate because that forces them to confront their deep seated racism. But really that’s what you are saying.

I just want to pick up on a part of this. The bit where you say 'I am comfortable and am not personally racist to anyone' Being comfortable is not a bad thing, it's what we expect for everyone. The fact that most people, not all, in the UK/ireland/western europe are broadly comfortable is a good thing. There are plenty things that need improvement. But we have a welfare state, education and healthcare. From a global perspective, that makes us very comfortable indeed.
"I'm not personally racist to anyone" - well this is good isn't it. There are a lot of issues in this world, all of them worthy. An ordinary person can not be engaged politically in all of them, not while working and raising a family. Most people want to live broadly comfortable lives while treating others with respect. Of course, there are individuals who care deeply and change things for the better. But expecting everyone to join in your cause, no matter how worthy, is like banging your head off a brick wall. It should be ok to be disengaged from the politics while being non discrinatory in personal interactions.

He didnt suggest 'gassing indians'- he suggested using tear gas on rioting Iraqis.

And now that lie is out and 100 more people are going to repeat it. This is why this shit is so annoying.

Do a google search for ”British Prime Ministers.” His image has been removed and his first term in office has been deleted.

With the exception of creating specifically an aryan race, Churchill and Hitler had virtually the same views on being white supremacists.

The only difference between them is IMO is Hitler aggressively and systematically killed Jews, where as Churchill passively and remotely engineered their deaths.

Churchill, a front line officer in WW1, repeatedly advocated using poison gas on Germans in WW2, but was dussuaded by the possibility of retaliation in kind.

Churchill had quite a few jewish friends. And we've dealt with the Bengal Famine. The shortage of rice was because the Japanese had invaded Burma. The Australian wheat it was suggested by some would have helped would have needed to be diverted from Africa, so presumably famine there would also have been Churchill's fault as supreme dictator of the British Cabinet who all had to obey him without question or they'd be shot.

I think all you have to ask is would you rather live under Nazi Germany or democratic UK?

A meme isnt history, Malfoof. This rubbish only started in the last few years, and the guy who started it is now being investigated for murdering his wife.

Google "British Prime Minsters" and see what you get.

@user1471565182

He didnt suggest 'gassing indians'- he suggested using tear gas on rioting Iraqis.

Yes, he suggested murdering Kurds too. I was referring to his desire to gas Indians along both his decisions that led to four million deaths in Bengal Famine whilst he took food from the region to stockpile for the U.K. ‘just in case’ of a need for a Turkish invasion.

I suppose we could discuss his desire to test the lethal chemical weapon, the M device on Bolsheviks against the Geneva Protocol but luckily he was stopped.

twitter et al can fuck right off for being complete shit to starters, this is all ancient history and lockdown has sent a lot of people abit fruit loop as a result.

Again, no he didnt, he suggested using tear gas. Why are you just making shit up?

And you dont seem to realise the great war spilled into russia when poison gas was already being used

It’s all about money and inequality.

The British Empire was founded on tobacco, sugar and cotton. They couldn’t be grown in the U.K. They were produced and sold at the cost of indentured at enslaved lives.

During slavery, sugar from British colonies had lower tariffs than other producers, protecting British slave-owners from foreign competition.
Britain's blockade of Napoleon in early 1800s fostered a new sugar industry from sugar beet. By 1880 beet supplied 50% of world sugar.

But Britain continued to get its sugar from the Carribbean and South America. Cuba & Brasil remained slave states, and British Guiana & Trinidad used a system of indentured labour.
British-owned sugarcane plantations & labour practices fed the Caribbean's poverty & dependency
Then the First World War cut us off from imported cane sugar, production diminished, and Britain finally started up its own Sugar Beet industry. In 1926 a Sugar Factory opened near Ely - its been growing and produced ever since. But the UK was attached to it's Empire and sugarcane kept the colonies ticking over, so homegrown beet sugar only got to supply about half the UK market.Homegrown sugar is sustainable, ethical and efficient.

Tate & Lyle actively campaigned for Brexit.
Why? They want tariffs dropped so they can sell us more cane sugar.
That's fine, right? Well no. We already have no tariffs on 'fair trade' cane sugar from poor nations. T&L cut their supplies from these countries 10 years ago.

A few days ago, the Govt announced it's tariff policy for Jan 1st. The ONLY agricultural allocation of tariff free quota in the whole schedule is for... cane sugar. A straightforward subsidy to Tate & Lyle.

It really isn’t ancient history. It impacts still and the U.K. is still dismissing the lives of many living in poverty to line wealthy pockets.