Winston Churchill: Bulldog or bigot?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29823
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 23:14
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Winston Churchill: Bulldog or bigot?
Posted By: Nick1986
Subject: Winston Churchill: Bulldog or bigot?
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2011 at 05:29
The British schools have long taught us that Churchill was a hero who singlehandedly beat the Nazis. They ignore his betrayal of Poland and his incompetent handling of Gallipoli in 1915. There are many quotes proving Churchill was a racist and supporter of eugenics: before the war he suggested sterilising "morally degenerate" Britons to "prevent the decline of the British race." Interestingly, fascist groups like the BNP use his likeness on their posters: ironic considering their claims not to be a racist organisation http://books.google.com/books?id=0MJCDZBbxJcC&lpg=PA326&dq=churchill%20racist&pg=PA326#v=onepage&q=churchill%20racist&f=false - The costs of war ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Replies:
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2011 at 09:13
|
You must take into consideration the era. His views weren't unique for the time. He was an imperfect man, so what we all are. However, without him the outcome of WWII would have been drastically different.
Long before he was PM he had Hitler pegged for what he really was. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2011 at 11:01
|
Concur as viewed from the context of his time he could be considered a snob and a probable bigot given his class and upbringing measured against that of the majority.
But in the end..... he was much more.
He was indeed a Gawdamn Lion.
And it's quite natural for me to love him from afar after studying his exploits and his peccadilloes... his moments of greatness intertwined with some that can only be considered mistakes. His pride and arrogance in concert with his humility and love for his nation and her peoples.
After all he was a Cavalryman....and for that ..
 many sins are forgiven.
 ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2011 at 11:04
|
My grandparents never forgave him for selling Poland to the Russians. During the elections they only voted for the Tories because they didn't trust Labour ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2011 at 11:20
|
Politicians between WW1 and WW2 have a lot in common:non suitable for positions and responsibilities that have carried!Hope will change something in world politics of 21th century.WW2 have been my favorite one, therefore WC could be rated on scale of 10,weakly four,by myself. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2011 at 11:28
Ah yes well I still have family up on the Wind River and Crow Creek reservations who can't believe I have Cav Sabers tatooed on my right shoulder Nick.
My close friends on the Anadarko and Jicarrilla just to name a few.... think I am gawdamn traitor partly in jest and partly serious because of that.
My hispanic cousins in Tejas and New Mexico don't understand my attitude about illegal immigration
Some things...like ya grandfolks..and my cousins and friends just have to be. We differ greatly amongst ourselves sometimes over the issuses.... family's do..... here and everywhere....don't mean we don't love each other.
Just means we human.
Just like old Winston. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2011 at 12:26
| All the best for dead one,of course.But,could it be different if...better than it was. |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2011 at 05:50
I don't understand. What do you mean?  ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2011 at 06:01
|
It means that if behind queen Victoria stood best time in history of Britain,we still have rights to criticize all negative features of ruler that had presented it!Churchill was character in victorious story of WW2.This victorious did not exclude that we have not rights to criticize him also!"Nobody is perfect" is not allowed term in historic analysis. |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2011 at 11:31
|
Churchill was a product of his time and era.
By today's PC he would be considered a rascist but I suspect he would stongly deny this.
BTW,although he started off the Gallipoli campaign in that he supported the project and as First Lord committed the navy to it, he id NOT run the campaign.
|
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2011 at 11:33
| Oh and as to Poland, he had little or no choice other than to declare war on Russia as WWII finished. Utterly impossible as all sensible Poles well knew. In that I should say my father was a liaison officer with the Polish free Navy and after the war gave much support to those who stayed in the UK |
Posted By: PADDYBOY
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2011 at 12:57
|
Well, Winnie certainly had a flawed character,that's for sure, but I'm not sure a goody two shoes would have been the right man, in the right place at the right time. Which is how I view Winnies contribution to the war effort. Bigot or Bulldog.....Both. ------------- |
Posted By: PADDYBOY
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2011 at 08:50
Where ya got to, Nick ? ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2011 at 15:56
|
Ole Nick updating his system he be back. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: PADDYBOY
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2011 at 06:36
Thanks for the feedback...Much appreciated.. ------------- |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2011 at 12:16
|
That's right. They should be replacing my router next week ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2011 at 17:07
|
Just what is explicitly wrong with being "intolerant?" If more people had been intolerant towards Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., then the world would have been (more than likely) a better place.
Just what makes one better if one claims to be "tolerant"? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot Just call me a "part time bigot!" "By God!" smile! Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2011 at 10:25
|
You left out "Dubya" from your list. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2011 at 14:46
|
While I don't give a pissants pitoui, about any of the Bush family, I would suggest that the alternative to them would have made the world a worse place.
And our current president is merely an example of the "alternative!" Are you happy with the "change?" LMAO Regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Bulldog69
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2011 at 07:14
|
He was the Greatest man Great Britain ever produced. It is hardly his fault that the head-bangers of the BNP have decided to use his likeness in their poster.
If it wasn't for Churchill (and a few other men like him) we wouldn't be able to chat openly like this.
The idea that he sold out Poland is a farce - don't you think Stalin should carry a little bit more of the blame for that than Churchill? And what, exactly, were the British meant to do? Bankrupt and weary after 6 years of war, does any one think taking on the Red Army and liberating Poland in 1945 would have been a sensible course of action? And you mock him over Gallipoli...
Incidentally, after his resignation from the Admiralty over Gallipoli, Churchill served in the trenches with the Royal Scots. I'd like to see some of our modern 'leaders' show even 10% of the balls Churchill had.
|
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2011 at 09:46
|
Europe owes its freedom to Zhukov, not Churchill. It was the Red Army that broke the back of the Nazi war machine and enabled the Allies to advance on Berlin. Stalin and Churchill are equally blameworthy: Stalin for his greed and Churchill for his betrayal. The British and Americans seemed to be able to support anticommunist factions in Greece in 1946 while ignoring the countries whose pilots tipped the balance in the Battle of Britain: Poland and Czechoslovakia ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Karalem
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2011 at 10:32
|
It was Russia that took back Eastern and Central Europe, not Churchill, so I don't see how could he sell something that was not his. Poland and Hungary and other EE countries were liberated from Germans by the Red Army. I saw a film about Churchill and Stalin sitting together and adjusting post war borders in central Europe with the help of cigarette matches, putting them on a map. Churchill placed a match on some river between Poland and Germany to show where he sees the new border, and Stalin tapped him on the shoulder to OK it. He may have run out of matches and couldn't explain how he saw new political configuration in Poland. |
Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2011 at 17:53
|
I know that, he was the one of best leader which worked to defeat Hitler BUT; "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes ... to spread a lively terror"- Winston Curchill I don't know he did it or not but sentence which is above, makes him a candidate for chemical war criminal.  In the War cabinet, he offered to use gas on Turk in Gallibolu  He is a leader just in his time  ------------- Ellerin Kabe'si var, Benim Kabem İnsandır |
Posted By: dave
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2011 at 11:00
The full text explains:
That doesn't really read like something that Chemical Ali would've preached. The poisonous gas he's talking about is tear gas (formerly known as lachrymatory gas). |
Posted By: dave
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2011 at 11:02
You really should take a look at the Yalta Conference and see how weak Britain's position was compared to the Soviet's. At Yalta, Roosevelt failed to acknowledge Churchill’s preoccupation with Poland. Failing to exercise himself and create an Anglo-American front for a democratic Poland, he conceded to Soviet interests in Eastern Europe. Whilst determined to ensure Soviet membership to the UN and assistance in the Pacific theatre against Japan, Roosevelt accepted the rather slack assurance of free elections as an appeasement of American public opinion. Accepting that Poland’s eastern borders would need revision in favour of the Soviet Union, Britain, having gone to war over the unfortunate Poles, wanted to ensure a democratic government in Warsaw. But Churchill made a serious error in pleading that France should be returned to great-power status (but not given a place amongst the ‘big three’). Stalin was not inclined to agree, particularly with France having capitulated so readily in 1940. Churchill bought his support by stating that French ‘friendship’ to Britain was similar to Polish ‘friendship’ to the Soviet Union. This Stalin seems to have understood and sympathised with. But what might he have taken from this? It seems likely that the Georgian saw a similar move of realpolitik that the Englishman had brought to Moscow in October 1944. Churchill’s concern for France was a search for camaraderie in facing the bulk of the Soviet Union. Roosevelt’s intimation that Congress would not allow the US army to remain in Europe for any period of time once Germany had been defeated worried Churchill. So, sure, he gaffed, but he did spend a large part of 1944 and 1945 trying to get the best for the Poles that he possibly could. |
Posted By: Sixteen String Jack
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2013 at 14:05
Most British supporters of eugenics in the 1930s and around that time were of the Left, not the Right. And the BNP, by the way, are not Fascists, although I would much rather be ruled by a Fascist organisation than a lefty Marxist organisation. The Marxists are much worse although, for some reason, Marxists (like Ed Miliband) seem to be accepted in modern Britain but Fascists aren't.
------------- |