Statue of Racist had text corrected in London

[mael]

There's only 2 good things I can say about this guy,
his position regarding defeating nazi in WWII and his position regarding making a closer European group after the war.
Beside that he can go into the trash with the pain and suffering he inflicted on innocents.

 

[Deleted member 5596]

Yeah, I think a good balance is to move a few statues into museums where context can be provided, and then to teach in schools the good and the bad of the people.

Churchill, like anyone, was a complex human being who was capable of both bad and good.

Click to shrink...

I don't see any complexity in his racism, xenophobia, and white supremacy that caused the suffering of millions of people
Is just pure bigotry. Plain and simple.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Why do we even need to put the statues of slavers and racists in museums? What context is needed to justify idiolism? Toss it into a fucking volcano and let people learn about these people through a book or a documentary. Why do we need to compromise here?

 

[CitizenVectron]

I don't see any complexity in his racism, xenophobia, and white supremacy that caused the suffering of millions of people
Is just pure bigotry. Plain and simple.

Click to shrink...

I'm not apologizing for his racism at all, so I hope that is not what I came across as doing. When I say complex, I mean that someone can do a bunch of bad acts and one good, or a bunch of good acts and one bad. The bad don't erase the good, and the good don't erase the bad. The bad should be focused on, in order to prevent us from worshiping someone (like Churchill), but the "good" should also be taught, as it is not erased either (in this case his role as PM in WWII against Hitler). I am not saying at all that it erases or minimizes his racism and bigotry and his role in the deaths of others because of it. But if the bad acts are enough, of course we should not have statues of them (except to keep as historical relics of a different time, in a museum).

As I said, a good example is someone like Stalin, who is one of modern history's worst monsters, but who we also teach as someone who did more to stop Hitler than any other leader in WWII. However, he did that using horrible methods, as well. So was Stalin good, or bad? He was certainly bad, but also stopped other bad people. So we teach that he was a bad man the worked with "better" people (i.e. the west) to stop another bad person. That is how people should be taught in history, Churchill included. We should teach his racism and role in the unjust deaths of others, and also teach about his role as PM in WWII against Hitler.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Why do we even need to put the statues of slavers and racists in museums? What context is needed to justify idiolism? Toss it into a fucking volcano and let people learn about these people through a book or a documentary. Why do we need to compromise here?

Click to shrink...

The same reason we keep ancient Egyptian artifacts of Pharaohs that were also slave-holders and tyrants: They are a part of our history that should not be forgotten, especially because they represent the bad things we are capable of.

 

[Rotobit]

Churchill is emblematic of the racism built into English society. We're taught from a young age to see him as a hero but never about the atrocities he was party to like the Indian famines, Gallipoli or sending the army into Wales due to miners strike.

Click to shrink...

Yup, I didn't know until well after I left school about things like this.

Our education system has a habit of making things extremely black and white - "it was the good guys versus the bad guys and the good guys won, yay!"

But then it turns out the leader of those "good guys" held similar xenophobic views to the bad guys and whuh oh, we've got 97% of the nation worshiping him as a hero. Hardly a surprise so much of the country is falling off a right-wing precipice now.

For what it's worth my opinion of Churchill is basically "he was the right man for the job" at best, and even that is a bit iffy. I'm indifferent about what happens to his statues.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

The same reason we keep ancient Egyptian artifacts of Pharaohs that were also slave-holders and tyrants: They are a part of our history that should not be forgotten, especially because they represent the bad things we are capable of.

Click to shrink...

I didn't say artifacts. I said statues of slavers. And if you need to go back to literal ancient Egypt (in which many of these artifacts are kept as documentation of different culture and techniques and craftmanship) as your justification for keeping living celebrations of slave owners whose actions have felt consequences now and that committed horrible atrocities I know you aint worth a discussion with.

Naw fuck that. Toss these shitty stone statues in the ocean or a chasm. And stop with this history needs to be remembered. No one is writing them out of history. This is literal idolism that doesn't even preserve anything culturally relevant like making a mummy or some shit. It is not necessary, if thry were historically relevant enough to be a statue than they obviously have been documents in a book. That's enough.

 

[Baladium]

"Roust"

 

[metalslimer]

We literally have pictures and video of churchill. Why do we need statues in museums?

 

[Deleted member 18400]

Man, was I a product of White America. I was never taught anything about him other than that he was this great leader during WW2.

Guess it's time to read some history.

 

[CitizenVectron]

I didn't say artifacts. I said statues of slavers. And if you need to go back to literal ancient Egypt (in which many of these artifacts are kept as documentation of different culture and techniques and craftmanship) as your justification for keeping living celebrations of slave owners whose actions have felt consequences now and that committed horrible atrocities I know you aint worth a discussion with.

Naw fuck that. Toss these shitty stone statues in the ocean or a chasm.

Click to shrink...

I am not trying to justify idolization or anything like that, only keep historical artifacts from being destroyed. We need to keep reminders of our past, good or evil, so that they can be shown as examples of what we are capable of. Better recent examples would be things from WWII, the US Civil War, the middle-ages when the Church was incredibly oppressive, etc. We only think of those things as different than modern examples of monstrosity because we are so far removed. But one day people will be as far removed from modern racism as we are from Egyptian racism, and we should have these things for them to still remember the horrible things that happened, and how we even worshiped these people as good, which is also horrible.

Another good modern example is how we kept many of the German concentration/extermination camps open so that people can be taken on tours to learn about the horrible things that happened. In the case of statues, they are examples of not who the person was, but of our past misguided worship of bad people. We keep them because they show how we were flawed, not the people they are statues of.

 

[Brotherhood93]

We literally have pictures and video of churchill. Why do we need statues in museums?

Click to shrink...

Why do we need anything in a museum? I understand your argument against not wanting a statue of someone evil in a museum but that is a really silly thing to say. They preserve history in a way pictures and videos do not. Whether this is a piece of history that should be preserved I guess is a point of contention but to preserve it doesn't mean celebrating or idolising that history.

 

[Oreiller]

Didn't know Churchill caused so many deaths in India, what a monster.

 

[TyrantGuardian]

The problem with all of these statues is the problem with all of history—he who writes it, rights it. People get these romanticized and sanitized views of figures who then become mythic and idolized. People see a statue and figure the person must have been good, why else have the statue?

Just get rid of them all. You want to honor someone with statues? Honor the faceless people on whose backs these nations were built

Click to shrink...

A-fucking-men. Best post I've read in a while.

 

[metalslimer]

Why do we need anything in a museum? I understand your argument against not wanting a statue of someone evil in a museum but that is a really silly thing to say. They preserve history in a way pictures and videos do not. Whether this is a piece of history that should be preserved I guess is a point of contention but to preserve it doesn't mean celebrating or idolising that history.

Click to shrink...

I didnt say I dont want statues of evil people in a musuem. I said what exactly does this statue give us being put in a musuem

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Eh, Churchill has his fair share of atrocities and problems, millions died due to his actions. At the same time, Europe....

Click to shrink...

Bruh....

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I am not trying to justify idolization or anything like that, only keep historical artifacts from being destroyed.

Click to shrink...

Even if you are not trying to justify it you are. So don't try to distance yourself from it. One directly leads to the other. You own all of it if this is your stance.

We need to keep reminders of our past, good or evil, so that they can be shown as examples of what we are capable of.

Click to shrink...

You think if we toss away all the statues of slave owners history will forget that slavery was bad and destructive to the black community world wide. I'm sorry but fucking lol.

Better recent examples would be things from WWII, the US Civil War, the middle-ages when the Church was incredibly oppressive, etc. We only think of those things as different than modern examples of monstrosity because we are so far removed. But one day people will be as far removed from modern racism as we are from Egyptian racism, and we should have these things for them to still remember the horrible things that happened, and how we even worshiped these people as good, which is also horrible.

Click to shrink...

Can you stop beimg reductive and making this about all historical items of the past? This is about idols to slavers built to celebrate their lives including their slaving. That's what a statue does. It celebrates a person, their accomplishments and thier lives.

Another good modern example is how we kept many of the German concentration/extermination camps open so that people can be taken on tours to learn about the horrible things that happened. In the case of statues, they are examples of not who the person was, but of our past misguided worship of bad people. We keep them because they show how we were flawed, not the people they are statues of.

Click to shrink...

I would not in any way feel bad if they tossed these statues too. You dont need a statue to tell you this.

Nothing of worth would be lost if we disposed of this dudes statue and the statues of other people that sold and owned slaves. A statue of these people does fucking nothing for history as a whole that can't be read in a book.

 

[metalslimer]

I'd also like to know what anyone who gives a fuck about these statues has done to fight white supremacy because if you havent done anything than I truly dont give a fuck about what you think. So many times people give more of a damn about some dead person's statue than current peoples lives.

 

[Brotherhood93]

I didnt say I dont want statues of evil people in a musuem. I said what exactly does this statue give us being put in a musuem

Click to shrink...

Well, that is an argument that would have to be had on a case by case basis on whether it serves any purpose. I just don't think saying we can see a video of them on YouTube means preserving a real, physical part of history is irrelevant. I'd argue if a person was ever important enough to have a statue erected then torn down it might be worth learning about, especially in generations to come.

I would add that it is important this is given proper context and framing within the museum and not "here's that thing that was outside that you can see inside now". Also, think of all that museum space that would need to be filled in the UK if we did the right thing and returned all the stolen property that exists in most of them today.

 

[CloudWolf]

Man, was I a product of White America. I was never taught anything about him other than that he was this great leader during WW2.

Guess it's time to read some history.

Click to shrink...

I mean, that's a thing with white, Western education everywhere, some people are excused from their bad actions when history classes are concerned.

For instance, I learned all about how evil Hernán Cortés was, but everything I learned about Christopher Columbus was that he was a great man who discovered America. No mention at all of him also killing the natives by the thousands.

Or, to use an example from my own country, I learned all about how awful the Dutch slave trade was, but the VOC was still a mostly good thingand those damn English ruined South Africa (not entirely untrue, but the Dutch were just as awful).

 

[NinjaScooter]

This statue was built in 1973 it's not some ancient artifact.

 

[Deleted member 13077]

 

[PJV3]

Click to shrink...

I'm laughing that they had to tell some "blue collar tory mp's" to stop cleaning and go away, because they could cause permanent damage. the party is truly a clown-show at the moment.

 

[Deleted member 13077]

I'm laughing that they had to tell some "blue collar tory mp's" to stop cleaning and go away, because they could cause permanent damage. the party is truly a clown-show at the moment.

Click to shrink...

Cant stop picturing Rees-Mogg showing up kitted out like Mrs Hinch.

 

[Addleburg]

Shit, I didn't know any of this about Churchill. I would have assumed that he at least was your standard racist for the time, but that Twitter thread... damn.

I never watched The Darkest Hour because it seemed like a hagiographic biopic engineered to win Oldman an award, but now I'm especially glad I never bothered with it.

 

[Lishi]

Is this the start of more or less every historical figure (who benefited either directly or indirectly from the slave trade) getting rightfully "cancelled"? I do wonder just how widely this will spread, like how many of the US founding fathers benefited from it? Are people thinking there'll be a lot of protests around July 4th?

Click to shrink...

Cancelled is such stupid world, (yea I know you put it on quotes).

Teach on the history books his merit and demerit. Make the students reflect on what he did.
You cannot cancel someone from history, especially people who affected world event like him.
You can point to the student his failing.

 

[Bremsstrahlung]

Should just smash that thing.

 

[PJV3]

Cant stop picturing Rees-Mogg showing up kitted out like Mrs Hinch.

Click to shrink...

Pervert.
i was expecting a hilda ogden/nora batty kinda deal, you obviously have some deranged appetites and desires for Mr Mogg.

 

[AGoodODST]

Fantastic. Churchill was a piece of fucking garbage. Drag it down too.

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

You edited my post in your quote to try and make me look like an asshole.

Click to shrink...

not even everybody from that era that has a statue was racist

 

[Deleted member 59]

Cancelled is such stupid world, (yea I know you put it on quotes).

Teach on the history books his merit and demerit. Make the students reflect on what he did.
You cannot cancel someone from history, especially people who affected world event like him.
You can point to the student his failing.

Click to shrink...

I don't think cancelled in this instance literally means wiped from the history books, more no longer pushed in an overly positive way and the repulsive, nasty things they did having a strong light shone on them.

 

[Haint]

I didnt say I dont want statues of evil people in a musuem. I said what exactly does this statue give us being put in a musuem

Click to shrink...

Regardless of the figure, the statue itself is a unique work of art. Museums are about telling history through tangible, physical artifacts that represent both the good and bad. Though a relatively modern statue may not seem historically significant today (artistically speaking), it will be 50 or 100 years from now. The argument of just "putting it in a book or online" misses the point of museums on a most fundamental level.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Even if you are not trying to justify it you are. So don't try to distance yourself from it. One directly leads to the other. You own all of it if this is your stance.



You think if we toss away all the statues of slave owners history will forget that slavery was bad and destructive to the black community world wide. I'm sorry but fucking lol.



Can you stop beimg reductive and making this about all historical items of the past? This is about idols to slavers built to celebrate their lives including their slaving. That's what a statue does. It celebrates a person, their accomplishments and thier lives.



I would not in any way feel bad if they tossed these statues too. You dont need a statue to tell you this.

Nothing of worth would be lost if we disposed of this dudes statue and the statues of other people that sold and owned slaves. A statue of these people does fucking nothing for history as a whole that can't be read in a book.

Click to shrink...

To be clear, I am not talking about keeping all of these statues. There are undoubtedly many statues of many people that do not deserve to be remembered. Specifically for Churchill, it is impossible to erase his role as PM during WWII from the public record, and the importance of his idolization during the post-war period. For that reason, some objects created to idolize him should remain (EDIT - Taken down and in museums, not in public places). Others should also be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Also, I think you might be not understanding what I mean by museum, which could be my fault. While some items from the past are put on display for the public (including relics or images of bad people), many items are also simply stored for the sake of preserving them. There are 10,000x as many objects in storage vaults than are displayed to the public. These items can be accessed for research purposes, not just for public display. So the few statues that are determined to be of historical significance would be kept there, not simply in public.

 

[Angelus Errare]

The whole "without Churchill you'd be speaking German" is like such a weird argument bc without Churchill the Irish would still have their culture and language…

Churchill LIKED what Hitler was doing he just didn't like how he was encroaching on the British Empire. He didn't go to war against the Nazi bc of some noble belief of freeing Jewish people from their persecution, Churchill persecuted millions himself, set up camps himself. If Hitler would have kept his shit contained to Germany, US and the UK wouldn't have given a fuck.

Churchill hated and wanted to fuck up so many damn ethnic groups, and saw white people as the superior race.

 

[CitizenVectron]

The whole "without Churchill you'd be speaking German" is like such a weird argument bc without Churchill the Irish would still have their culture and language…

Churchill LIKED what Hitler was doing he just didn't like how he was encroaching on the British Empire. He didn't go to war against the Nazi bc of some noble belief of freeing Jewish people from their persecution, Churchill persecuted millions himself, set up camps himself. If Hitler would have kept his shit contained to Germany, US and the UK wouldn't have given a fuck.

Churchill hated and wanted to fuck up so many damn ethnic groups, and saw white people as the superior race.

Click to shrink...

Exactly. Churchill definitely played a large role in defending the British Empire from the Germans, Italians, and Japanese...but not for the right reasons. It's actual similar to how Lincoln fought to free the slaves...because he wanted to keep the US together at all costs, not because he actually thought black people were equal to white people. We can "celebrate" (or just acknowledge and remember) what people like Churchill or Lincoln did, but also the reasons behind why they did them, which is just as important.

Actually, back to WWII, if Hitler would have just stayed east of Germany (taken Austria, Poland, Ukraine, and Russia, etc) then the UK and US likely would have been okay with it at the time (in the sense they would have more likely remained neutral), if he had worked it out in advance (especially taking out Russia).

I'm glad the UK/Empire and US ended up freeing Europe and Asia, but I don't believe it was for altruistic purposes (well it was on the part of many individuals involved, but not the leadership).

 

[Deleted member 8463]

Needs to be made permanent. Any stone masons protesting in London, you know what to do.

Why do we need anything in a museum? I understand your argument against not wanting a statue of someone evil in a museum but that is a really silly thing to say. They preserve history in a way pictures and videos do not. Whether this is a piece of history that should be preserved I guess is a point of contention but to preserve it doesn't mean celebrating or idolising that history.

Click to shrink...

Give back all the stolen artifacts to their respective countries, then throw the museums in the sea as well.

 

[Deleted member 5596]

I'm not apologizing for his racism at all, so I hope that is not what I came across as doing. When I say complex, I mean that someone can do a bunch of bad acts and one good, or a bunch of good acts and one bad. The bad don't erase the good, and the good don't erase the bad. The bad should be focused on, in order to prevent us from worshiping someone (like Churchill), but the "good" should also be taught, as it is not erased either (in this case his role as PM in WWII against Hitler). I am not saying at all that it erases or minimizes his racism and bigotry and his role in the deaths of others because of it. But if the bad acts are enough, of course we should not have statues of them (except to keep as historical relics of a different time, in a museum).

As I said, a good example is someone like Stalin, who is one of modern history's worst monsters, but who we also teach as someone who did more to stop Hitler than any other leader in WWII. However, he did that using horrible methods, as well. So was Stalin good, or bad? He was certainly bad, but also stopped other bad people. So we teach that he was a bad man the worked with "better" people (i.e. the west) to stop another bad person. That is how people should be taught in history, Churchill included. We should teach his racism and role in the unjust deaths of others, and also teach about his role as PM in WWII against Hitler.

Click to shrink...

The issue I see with this is assuming Churchill doing some good steemed from having some good morals and ethics, same as Stalin, thus being complex human beings. Admitting that between the horrendous acts and ideals they perpetrated and defended they also hold precious and valuable ideas. I don't see that at all. Churchill always looked with good eyes Fascism, saying this of Mussolini: "he thought of nothing but the lasting good... of the Italian people." and "If I had been an Italian, I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to the finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism."

or: "If I had been an Italian, I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to the finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism."

In general, Churchill's opinion of democracy and its values wasn't very ideal

Why Churchill stood against the Nazis when years before he was in favor of appeasing them? Because he saw it as a danger to Britain's hegemony. Why did Stalin stand against Hitler? Because he, Hitler, broke the non-aggression pact they both had. Maybe Hitler was the worst of all 3, maybe, but all 3 were abhorrent people that just happened to be on different sides of the war.

And their individual value in the war? Well, they surely were leaders and of course their decisions were important. But was Churchill individual input in the war bigger than Alan Turing? The one person who deciphered the German's Enigma machines saving millions of lives? Who was later castrated and condemned for homosexuality by Churchill's government driving him to suicide?

I don't think so.

Did Stalin's individual input really had a big impact on the war or was the 15 million soldiers he sent to the frontlines and overwhelmed the Nazi army?

Those people were horrible human beings that just happened to be on the opposing side of Nazis and don't doubt for a second they wouldn't be on their side if history played differently.

 

[Ravensmash]

Is there a definitive biography on Churchill?

Wouldn't mind reading a bit more about his life from an authoritative source.

 

[toy_brain]

There is a reason why Churchill was voted out during the post-war elections of 1945, and it wasn't just some narrow loss either. Clement Attlee (who was deputy PM in a Tory/Labour coalition government up to that point) defeated him by a landslide.

The people at the time were sick of Churchill. He didn't just hate ethnic minority groups, he also hated the poor, and was in favour of keeping them down.
In other words, a typical Tory.

My dad is just about old enough to remember part of the war. Chatting to him recently, apparently at the time there was a saying. "Churchill ran the war, but Attlee ran the country.
My dad is a big fan of Attlee, and its a shame he isn't celebrated more. Instead every kid in England gets force-fed tales of how wonderful Churchill is.
Ugh.

 

[Nooblet]

Yes Churchill was an awful person who has been romanticised so much due to his speeches. Dude was racist and a classist.

The whole "British spirits" rose tinted boogaloo exists because of him and his speeches that made it look like Britain went through the war on its own and not because it had help from the biggest colony in history. India is the entire reason Britain was able to hold dominance over the world for so long as they did so at India's expense and instead of acknowledgeding that they just believe they did it entirely because of their strong will and spirit.


I'm betting boomers, I clouding the left leaning ones, on my FB today will be furious over this.

 

[Ravensmash]

There is a reason why Churchill was voted out during the post-war elections of 1945, and it wasn't just some narrow loss either. Clement Attlee (who was deputy PM in a Tory/Labour coalition government up to that point) defeated him by a landslide.

The people at the time were sick of Churchill. He didn't just hate ethnic minority groups, he also hated the poor, and was in favour of keeping them down.
In other words, a typical Tory.

My dad is just about old enough to remember part of the war. Chatting to him recently, apparently at the time there was a saying. "Churchill ran the war, but Attlee ran the country.
My dad is a big fan of Attlee, and its a shame he isn't celebrated more. Instead every kid in England gets force-fed tales of how wonderful Churchill is.
Ugh.

Click to shrink...

Whilst that's true - it's important to note that he was then subsequently voted back in as PM in 1951.

(Not being a dick btw, just felt that it was important to note that his role as PM didn't just end after the war)

 

[Nooblet]

The UK education system doesn't teach jack about UK's own history with imperialism.amd it's colonial past which is like jackiechanwhat.jpg

I was born and raised in India, our history curriculum started all the way back to 2000BC to cover Harrapa culture and until the modern times. And we learned about the Renaissance, the dark ages, the bubonic plague, the Ottomans, the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Nazi Germany....along with our own history with British incursions at the start of 17th century leading up to the Independence movement that began in the 19th century concluding to our independence. We learned all that about others while learning about ourselves...and the British education system barely teaches anything about their own history outside of kings and queens.

 

[Nooblet]

Yeah, I think a good balance is to move a few statues into museums where context can be provided, and then to teach in schools the good and the bad of the people.

Churchill, like anyone, was a complex human being who was capable of both bad and good. We as a society are too quick to label people as pure good or pure evil (though in cases like Hitler obviously it is 99.9% evil based on his actions). My point (and I'm sorry if I'm not being clear) is that by making people out as pure evil, we hand-wave away the idea that we are all capable of evil things, and that the "evil" people had something wrong with them, or were abominations that won't be repeated again. In fact, we all are capable of bad things if we are put in certain circumstances. The same is true of how we celebrate "good" people too much (like in the case of Churchill) where too many then hand-wave away his sins by saying something like "sure he killed, but he also stopped Hitler!". The way we view Stalin in the west is a more accurate way of holding up historical figures who did some "good": We say that yes, he aided the Allies, but he was also a total monster.

Hopefully I'm coming across as not hand-waving away anything here!! I think we should take these statues down, move some into a museum where the historical context and surrounding info can be explained (as to why the statues even exist), and then in schools explain that Churchill was a bad person who also happened to stop other bad people from doing bad things. Don't make anyone good or evil (even though that's easier for people to understand), show them as complex people who did the things they did for different reasons (prevailing beliefs of their times, their own bravery/convictions, their own psychopathy, etc).

Click to shrink...

If you want to do that. Then Hitler improved German economy and quality of life massively after how badly they were affected from the unfair Treaty of Versailles, which Germany totally didn't deserve. People had jobs, food, and the society had structure for the first time in years. It brought them a sense of pride to be able to hold on their own. It's why he was celebrated by even the Western nations before his expansionist agenda started with occupying Poland...so he wasn't "99% evil" either.

When you do something beyond terrible you are remembered for it and you need to be judged by it regardless of how much good you did on the side at that time. I say "at the time" because it's different from reform because when someone reforms the good they do comes after the bad and in that case it's believable that they may be have changed and be a different person later on, but when the good deed is done side by side with the bad deed, it's the same person doing it and in that case you are only as good as your worst deed....unless you are the victor.

 

[Deleted member 5086]

The issue I see with this is assuming Churchill doing some good steemed from having some good morals and ethics, same as Stalin, thus being complex human beings. Admitting that between the horrendous acts and ideals they perpetrated and defended they also hold precious and valuable ideas. I don't see that at all. Churchill always looked with good eyes Fascism, saying this of Mussolini: "he thought of nothing but the lasting good... of the Italian people." and "If I had been an Italian, I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to the finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism."

or: "If I had been an Italian, I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to the finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism."

In general, Churchill's opinion of democracy and its values wasn't very ideal

Why Churchill stood against the Nazis when years before he was in favor of appeasing them? Because he saw it as a danger to Britain's hegemony. Why did Stalin stand against Hitler? Because he, Hitler, broke the non-aggression pact they both had. Maybe Hitler was the worst of all 3, maybe, but all 3 were abhorrent people that just happened to be on different sides of the war.

And their individual value in the war? Well, they surely were leaders and of course their decisions were important. But was Churchill individual input in the war bigger than Alan Turing? The one person who deciphered the German's Enigma machines saving millions of lives? Who was later castrated and condemned for homosexuality by Churchill's government driving him to suicide?

I don't think so.

Did Stalin's individual input really had a big impact on the war or was the 15 million soldiers he sent to the frontlines and overwhelmed the Nazi army?

Those people were horrible human beings that just happened to be on the opposing side of Nazis and don't doubt for a second they wouldn't be on their side if history played differently.

Click to shrink...

If you want to do that. Then Hitler improved German economy and quality of life massively after how badly they were affected from the unfair Treaty of Versailles, which Germany totally didn't deserve. People had jobs, food, and the society had structure for the first time in years. It brought them a sense of pride to be able to hold on their own. It's why he was celebrated by even the Western nations before his expansionist agenda started with occupying Poland...so he wasn't "99% evil" either.

When you do something beyond terrible you are remembered for it and you need to be judged by it regardless of how much good you did on the side at that time. I say "at the time" because it's different from reform because when someone reforms the good they do comes after the bad and in that case it's believable that they may be have hanged and be a different person later on, but when the good deed is done side by side with the bad deed, it's the same person doing it and in that case you are only as good as your worst deed....unless you are the victor.

Click to shrink...

Great posts.

 

[Deleted member 8463]

It's a big thread

 

[Nooblet]

It's a good thing that we don't use cash much these days else we'd have to see his smug face on the £5 note every day for like the next 10 years.

 

[Ravensmash]

Winston Churchill: Hero or villain?

A statue of Winston Churchill was sprayed with graffiti recently, amid claims that the wartime prime minister was racist.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thought this was an interesting (albeit brief) look at the man from two historians.

The problem is, as has been said, is that we really haven't had these examinations/discussions of his legacy up until now.

At least not in the public sphere.

I had no idea he sent the army in against protestors for instance, but that seems like quite an important event that would form part of his legacy. Similar to his dislike of the working class.

If these things aren't common knowledge, then how skewed is our perception of him and other important historical figures?

I'm interested in learning a lot more about him - has anyone got recommendations for a good biography which is seen as somewhat definitive?

 

[PJV3]

Winston Churchill: Hero or villain?

A statue of Winston Churchill was sprayed with graffiti recently, amid claims that the wartime prime minister was racist.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thought this was an interesting (albeit brief) look at the man from two historians.

The problem is, as has been said, is that we really haven't had these examinations/discussions of his legacy up until now.

At least not in the public sphere.

I had no idea he sent the army in against protestors for instance, but that seems like quite an important event that would form part of his legacy. Similar to his dislike of the working class.

If these things aren't common knowledge, then how skewed is our perception of him and other important historical figures?

I'm interested in learning a lot more about him - has anyone got recommendations for a good biography which is seen as somewhat definitive?

Click to shrink...

People had his number at the time, a lot of effort went in to making him in to a modern King Arthur.

 

[pauljeremiah]

Winston Churchill: Hero or villain?

A statue of Winston Churchill was sprayed with graffiti recently, amid claims that the wartime prime minister was racist.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thought this was an interesting (albeit brief) look at the man from two historians.

The problem is, as has been said, is that we really haven't had these examinations/discussions of his legacy up until now.

At least not in the public sphere.

I had no idea he sent the army in against protestors for instance, but that seems like quite an important event that would form part of his legacy. Similar to his dislike of the working class.

If these things aren't common knowledge, then how skewed is our perception of him and other important historical figures?

I'm interested in learning a lot more about him - has anyone got recommendations for a good biography which is seen as somewhat definitive?

Click to shrink...

and

 

[Deleted member 8463]

and

Click to shrink...

lmao