Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 23rd, 2016, 11:47 PM   #11

Commodus's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,411

The way I see it, Churchill served his purpose. He was the right man to get us through the war, but in regards to peace time, and domestic issues, he was regressive and often bred resentment.
As I understand it, he did not care much for the working classes, and opposed the NHS in our country. A terrible sin, considering how many working folk had marched off to war, defended their country and how those left behind soldiered on in little ways, braving air-strikes and rationing. But once it was done, he didn't care about a single one of them.

He was a talented man, to be sure. An eloquent speaker, a gifted writer, and had a great personal bravery about him. An admirable warlord, but a man ill-equipped for the compromises of peace.
Commodus is online now  
Remove Ads
Old April 23rd, 2016, 11:57 PM   #12
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,322

i think the OP makes out churchill was a force behind everything, he was more symbol and product of historical forces, it credits him with too much power. of course much about the British empire, post ww1 settlement and other things can be decried and sometimes rightly so, but it would have been much the same without churchill mostly. churchill wrote himself large in history and many have bought into the myth, his influence was less than churchill made out.
pugsville is online now  
Old April 24th, 2016, 12:18 AM   #13
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2016
From: The motherland
Posts: 72

Quote:
After recording his guard's opinions Churchill states his own: "What is the true and original root of Dutch aversion to British rule? It is the abiding fear and hatred of the movement that seeks to place the native on a level with the white man. British government is associated in the Boer farmer's mind with violent social revolution...the Kaffir is to be declared the brother of the European, to be constituted his legal equal, to be armed with political rights...nor is a tigress robbed of her cubs more furious than is the Boer at this prospect." After the statements of his captor, Churchill concludes, "[he and I had] no more agreement...Probing at random I had touched a very sensitive nerve."

Now it is accurately said that Churchill's view of native Africans was not that of, say, Martin Luther King, Jr. half a century later. Churchill was paternalistic, and held, if not in these pages then in My African Journey, that immediate equality was impractical and unworkable. But his views in the Ladysmith are in striking contrast to those of most contemporary Britons. Of course, whatever improvements might have evolved in a South Africa under British suzerainty, the Union of South Africa in 1910 led to something different. By combining the Boer-dominated Transvaal and Orange Free State with the British Cape Colony and Natal in a Union where only whites could vote and Boers outnumbered Britons, Great Britain established the Boer patrimony which the Boers had failed to achieve by arms; and from that Union grew the policy of Apartheid. It is interesting to find Churchill in 1899 representing the same essential approach to native emancipation as the South African reformers of the early 1990s and agreeable to know that Nelson Mandela is an admirer of Winston Churchill.

London to Ladysmith via Pretoria
Churchill was appalled by Boer racism and he argued with a racist Boer guardsman while he was in captivity. As a young MP, he belonged to the Liberal Party and he represented a Jewish district in Greater Manchester, fighting for equal rights for Jewish immigrants in Britain and supporting the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. When he was the Colonial Secretary for the Asquith government, he denied the political disenfranchisement of Indians in South Africa, which was planned by white South Africans.
ThirdTerm is offline  
Old April 24th, 2016, 12:20 AM   #14

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 8,459

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
i think the OP makes out churchill was a force behind everything, he was more symbol and product of historical forces, it credits him with too much power. of course much about the British empire, post ww1 settlement and other things can be decried and sometimes rightly so, but it would have been much the same without churchill mostly. churchill wrote himself large in history and many have bought into the myth, his influence was less than churchill made out.
I agree with what you are stating here. And also with the previous poster Commodus. Churchill was the leader most fitted to lead Britain against Hitler. He united the country and made it aware of the immensity of the task before it. ' Wars are not won by evacuations etc.' But he was an imperialist and hated us Indians. He was loosing influence by the time the USA entered the war, even with the British public. By the time of Teheran conference, he was loosing influence even with Roosevelt. Stalin had started needling him then. I think he survived a couple of no - confidence motions against him in the early days of war and under Chamberlain, was lucky to survive the Norway fiasco. The Dieppe raid or his insistence on an attack on the Dodecanes islands or his insistence on Sicily and Italy were some questionable measures carried out under his insistence.

Last edited by rvsakhadeo; April 24th, 2016 at 12:28 AM.
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Old April 24th, 2016, 12:28 AM   #15
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: Siberia, deep in taiga
Posts: 2,325

Quote:
While today Britons celebrate Churchill's legacy, much of the world outside the West mourns the legacy of a man who insisted that it was the solemn duty of Great Britain to invade and loot foreign lands because in Churchill's own words Britain's "Aryan stock is bound to triumph".
A size of UK is 243 809 км and a size of the region (Krasnoyarsk) where I live is 2 366 797 км. If such a small island could invade and loot foreign countries, to hell with them.

In 2002 Churchill was polled as a greatest ruler of Britain and they scoffed on our TV about "drunken racist warmongering bully blah, blah". Five years later Russians polled Stalin as a greatest ruler, oh irony...
Vladimir1984 is offline  
Old April 24th, 2016, 12:52 AM   #16
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: Siberia, deep in taiga
Posts: 2,325

Quote:
Amid today's Churchillian parades and celebratory speeches, British media and schoolbooks may choose to only remember Churchill's opposition to dictatorship in Europe, but the rest of the world cannot choose to forget Churchill's imposition of dictatorship on darker skinned people outside of Europe. Far from being the Lionheart of Britain, who stood on the ramparts of civilisation, Winston Churchill, all too often, simply stood on the wrong side of history.
True that and Churchill was indirectly responsible for famine in Bengal refusing to send foods there as it's been mentioned in the thread, he even said a phrase "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits", if he really said it and it is not an invention of modern internet, a rather loathsome person he was.

But concerning some of his other actions, we shouldn't judge people's actions by today's standards, rather than by the standards of 100 years ago. Child labour was common across Europe 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean we should tolerate it in Bangladesh today.

100 years from now people may very well think that eating meat and wearing leather shoes or fur coats is barbarous, as some activists are trying to instill these ideas in us but it's unfair to judge me by those future standards. Likewise for Churchill.
Vladimir1984 is offline  
Old April 24th, 2016, 01:22 AM   #17

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 3,647

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domnall Ballach View Post
I'm no apologist for an otherworldly aristocrat. But I will defend someone who's held responsible for natural disasters, or has to make controversial sacrifices in a time of existential total war.



The loss of a quarter of all rice imports 'had a minimal effect,' at a time when already naturally-low yields of a staple crop were being whittled to nil by natural disasters? That doesn't sound credible.





I'm glad your argument considers the impact of the greatest, biggest, and bloodiest total war the world has yet witnessed in this critique of Churchill's response to a no-fault shortage, but fear it just doesn't consider it enough. Churchill was trying to not lose a war to Nazi Germany. A country that, if successful, would have liquidated millions of Britons and dozens of millions of Indians, then taken British and Indian women to the continent to be used as sex slaves in Aryan breeding programmes. To not lose that war - and tens of millions of lives - he needed grain, and where was it to come from if not Bengal, the breadbasket of empire?
The loss from Burma was around 15% so the effect was minimal and it would have caused lesser problem for the people had British colonial policies of hoarding not caused the widespread inflation and food shortage. Nothing justifies letting people die in millions in the name of winning the war.

Last edited by Devdas; April 24th, 2016 at 01:28 AM.
Devdas is online now  
Old April 24th, 2016, 01:36 AM   #18

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 7,818
Blog Entries: 5

This is a copy and pasted brief. Where are your own thoughts?
Mangekyou is offline  
Old April 24th, 2016, 06:37 AM   #19

UzKhan's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Apr 2016
From: N/A
Posts: 45

Why should hearing my 'own thoughts' especially matter for the users in general? My point of view is close to the content of the article above so I posted it. It is about history afterall isn't it?

But if you are wondering, for the West in general, there are two different concepts of history. First, a politicized/one-sided version of certain historical events, which targets a certain country/nation by imposing their distorted slander/propaganda as "facts" to the general public for their own political/economic benefit.

The second, the one that they prefer to ignore or simply dismiss by saying "it is just history". Because there is no political/economic profit about bringing up the past crimes of Britain or France under the spotlight.

The same double standard and hypocrisy shows itself when it comes to "protesting terrorism" today. When it is Paris/London or Brussels, they turn the place upside down, cause a stir all over the world and fill the streets. But when it is Ankara, Kabul or Beirut, they dont say "Je Suis Beirut".

When Breivik kills 77 people, it is all over the news for weeks/months but when hundreds of black-skinned Africans are slaughtered by Boko Haram in Nigeria, it hardly makes to the headlines. Since the U.S. pulled out from Iraq, approx. 1500 people die each month but they are just statistics because the life of an African/Arab matters much less for the West.

Last edited by UzKhan; April 24th, 2016 at 06:42 AM.
UzKhan is offline  
Old April 24th, 2016, 06:50 AM   #20

Commodus's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,411

Quote:
Originally Posted by UzKhan View Post
Why should hearing my 'own thoughts' especially matter for the users in general? My point of view is close to the content of the article above so I posted it. It is about history afterall isn't it?

But if you are wondering, for the West in general, there are two different concepts of history. First, a politicized/one-sided version of certain historical events, which targets a certain country/nation by imposing their distorted slander/propaganda as "facts" to the general public for their own political/economic benefit.

The second, the one that they prefer to ignore or simply dismiss by saying "it is just history". Because there is no political/economic profit about bringing up the past crimes of Britain or France under the spotlight.

The same double standard and hypocrisy shows itself when it comes to "protesting terrorism" today. When it is Paris/London or Brussels, they turn the place upside down, cause a stir all over the world and fill the streets. But when it is Ankara, Kabul or Beirut, they dont say "Je Suis Beirut".

When Breivik kills 77 people, it is all over the news for weeks/months but when hundreds of black-skinned Africans are slaughtered by Boko Haram in Nigeria, it hardly makes to the headlines. Since the U.S. pulled out from Iraq, approx. 1500 people die each month but they are just statistics because the life of an African/Arab matters much less for the West.
So, if we do not distribute our pity equally, would you suggest we stop caring altogether?
By your logic, complete apathy to violence and terrorism seems to be more moral than caring about anything or anyone.
Honestly, that suits me just fine. I can truly see the idea behind it. To be frank, the melodramatic wailing about these attacks, the press-ganging into these collective demonstrations of grief, are really rather tiresome at this point.
People die, people have died, people will continue to die. Why must every atrocity become this perverse contest to see who can out-grieve their fellows?

Maybe, once we get used to the inevitability of violence as a sympton of our own animal nature, we will all be a lot happier.
Commodus is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
churchill, conflict, crimes, global, humanity, legacy



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What counts as a global conflict? EmperorTigerstar General History 11 May 25th, 2015 10:39 AM
Global Conflict Today and where it started PhoenicianSemite General History 1 April 25th, 2014 11:30 AM
Churchill's legacy Hostile1 General History 19 February 21st, 2014 04:29 AM
Research gained by crimes against humanity naylor182 General History 32 March 23rd, 2009 03:08 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.