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 very much doubt Churchill’s conscience kept him awake at night

I think given how much he drank nothing kept him awake at night.

I think the handy existence of the English Channel, the Home Fleet, and the RAF were a bit more of a factor in 1940 than Sir Winston to be honest ..... non of that would have made any difference what so ever if there had been no political will you use them. The feeling , widespread in parliament and in many parts of the Establishment , was very much that we make concession and agree terms with Hitler. As championed by Halifax , the foreign secretary. It was Churchill that stopped that. It was his force of personality that kept us in the war. when all about were prepared to give up. HE MADE THE DIFFERENCE.

[quote XDownwiththissortofthingX]@suckingdieselfella

You're the one ranting about 'woke English', ' far left', the bizarre assertion that everyone bar yourself gets their info from social media.

Maybe try acting like less of an absolute arse and maybe people will stop calling you out for what you are?[/quote]
Show me where I used the expression 'woke English'. Or where I said that everyone bar me gets their info from social media. But you do though, don't you?

You have no argument to defend the laughable points you made. All you have left are personal insults. Cheers for demonstrating this.

There's some Essex Girls I know still angry about what the Romans did to the Iceni.

People seem to forget that Britain did have the British Empire behind it in 1939. We weren't alone you know.

@dreamingbohemian

Your experience of what people living in the world beyond the West, if you have any, is never mentioned. Your attention is fixated on the UK and its 18th century history. No country beyond the West is compiling lists of statues to pull down as a direct result of BLM. Because in the world beyond the West, people are facing more pressing problems than whether Queen Victoria or Nelson are symbols of oppression.

The BJP are not Gandhi Groupies.

I'm sure that Nathuram Godse would have been an ethusiastic Modhi cheerleader.

It's a term used by Irish republicans.

I know, I wasn't defending it.

Statues are also inherently something Muslims cannot celebrate - the Islamic prohibition of depiction of the human form is quite strict. From my academic (not personal or religious) understanding.

@SuckingDieselFella

Since you asked -

Page -3

"The only individuals who think the Dambusters were morally corrupt are woke English without two brain cells between them."

" Simple minded people like and share this rubbish when they see it on social media. You've got to feel sorry for them."
Page 4 -

" It's a characteristic of the far left to go for personal insults and attribute negative moral characteristics to anyone who calls them out. This is the 'kinder, gentler politics' or so we're told."

"The 'facts' you've read on social media and genuine, observable facts are two different things."

The irony of you continually claiming other people can't follow the thread or their own logic, when you can't even recall what you posted 10 minutes previously.

I never said other countries are compiling lists of statues to pull down? Most of these countries pulled down their statues of British monarchs a long time ago.

No, of course every country has their own local priorities and demands. But they are tapping into a global movement, as has happened with all sorts of movements in the past.

It's a term used by Irish republicans.

No, non-combatant is a specific term within international law referring to people who are not directly participating in hostilities.

Non-state armed groups on both sides in the Troubles had a loose definition of the term -- in fact, most terrorist and insurgent groups do.

@dreamingbohemian

they are tapping into a global movement

No. "They' as in huge chunks of the world beyond the UK and the US, are not tapping into this. Many countries are too busy dealing with the impact of a global pandemic. This is a Western focused movement. And the fact its proponents spend post after post buried in the UK's 18th century history? It is illuminating.

Did Churchill have racist views, yes as did a vast majority of people at that time. We’re there atrocities committed in Bengal yes. However unlike Hitler this was with the whole cabinet behind him. Churchill didn’t kill people in his cabinet who disagreed with his views.
At what point does this stop, we cannot keep judging the past by the present. Look how far we have moved on. It was only in the 60s where people were charged for being homosexual. We have to move forward and not keep looking back.
Other leaders including Ghandi had racist views that were prevalent at the time. We can’t go down the whole worse road, or remove every bit of history we disagree with. That way lies anarchy.

Most of these countries pulled down their statues of British monarchs a long time ago.

I think the Americans made musket balls out of the statue of George III (the tyrant) they pulled down in New York

There is this really curious argument emerging in these threads that if you care about British historical wrongdoings, you are Anglo-centric and don't care about the rest of the world.

It's baffling because it is precisely because of the impact of British policies on the rest of the world that so many of us care about these events. You'll notice that all these criticisms of Churchill have to do with things he did in other countries.

Yes, BLM began in the West and its activists are mostly focused on the West. But it is not true that its impact is solely limited to the West. There are longstanding activist groups throughout the world, people who have been fighting against police brutality and racism for a long time in many different countries, who are organising protests in solidarity with BLM and trying to draw more attention to their cause.

In Kenya, for example, police brutality is an enormous and longstanding issue and local communities have been trying to address it for a long time, with little success. Now they see a commonality with the same things that BLM are fighting for in the US. So why not demonstrate together? Make this into a global issue, not just lots of individual fights? This is how things work today.

At what point does this stop, we cannot keep judging the past by the present. Look how far we have moved on. It was only in the 60s where people were charged for being homosexual. We have to move forward and not keep looking back.

But relatively recently an apology was made for those charges and the charges dropped retrospectively as a move to atone for past repression of gay men. So, at least this chapter of British history has been recognised, publicised and there has been some attempt at atonement.

UK issues posthumous pardons for thousands of gay men
Welcoming the legislation, the justice minister Sam Gyimah said: “This is a truly momentous day. We can never undo the hurt caused, but we have apologised and taken action to right these wrongs.

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/31/uk-issues-posthumous-pardons-thousands-gay-men-alan-turing-law

Perhaps the reason why Churchill’s past rankles for so many is the number of recent films/dramas which focus on his history as a statesman and his personal life and perpetuate the notion of him as a hero? And the false sense circulating from these and other sources – clear from this thread – that he was wholeheartedly a positive figure albeit with some human frailties.

Another poster said we need to look at things ‘warts and all’ so the issue is about balance and taking responsibility for the negative as well as the positive, not goodies versus baddies. It’s interesting too that Gove, when dealing with schools consulted right-wing historians like Niall Ferguson with regard to the curriculum so that there is a sense that attempts at balance are often thwarted for political reasons, and this inevitably causes resentment for those histories are not then respected or represented. Something Akala also discusses, in his recent book, when talking about the history of slavery and its relevance to the building of Britain.

Most of these countries pulled down their statues of British monarchs a long time ago.
This is true for parts of South Asia that have been under the British rule. The British history there is slowly being erased and replaced.

@FlubberWorm

Both of them made decisions that lead to millions of deaths, it's just Hitler lead to the death of Jewish people, whereas Churchill lead to the death of Indian people. They were both racist.

The difference is that Churchill won the war and Hitler didn't.

This X10. Winners write the history in the end. Statues are a part of that.

To be fair, Hitler actively sort to kill the Jews as his goal, whereas Churchill made decisions that happened to kill Indian people because it was convenient for him, rather than because he actively wished to wipe them out.
To be honest, that is a viewpoint that can be challenged and needs evidence.

@YounghillKang
I agree Churchill had many bad points to his character including racism as did a vast proportion of people at that time.
I’m not totally knowledgeable about what happened in Bengal just the basics. However it wasn’t just Churchill’s idea it was the whole cabinet.
Should we make reparations to the people/families involved. I don’t know, possibly.
My issue is we can’t remove history just because we don’t like the whole of a persons character or acts that were passed while they were in government. Perhaps as a former history teacher I’m biased. Where do we draw the line.

Why the fuck are people so binary? The world isn't divided into Good and Bad.

I agree