Chit Chat
|
By:
The statue of the man that saved Britain from the tyranny of real fascism only 75 years ago, and voted the greatest Briton ever only a few years ago, was desecrated yesterday by a bunch of imported thugs and criminals, and the police just stood by and watched them do it, how far this nation has sunk.
|
|
By:
we have appointed a man to lead the country who is a misogynist whilst being an inveterate liar often prone to narcissism so i'd certainly agree that the country has reached the bottom of the barrel ...
|
|
By:
Is that the guy who said that "Dundee was a boil on the ars* of the British Empire"?
|
|
By:
Churchill was the only one who was prepared to take on Hitler and Starlin in Europe all the rest wanted to appease them while focusing on defence of the empire.
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
That was after the reds switched sides
|
|
By:
You do know Hitler and Starling were allies until late 41
|
|
By:
Jam, jute, boils and the Beano sounds about right.
|
|
By:
Aussie lad here (don't hold it against me). My jaw dropped when I saw Sir Winston's statue desecrated. Had no idea why anyone would think this and now ready plenty of posts online mainly from Indians saying absolutely yes, he was chiefly responsible for a famine killing millions in India. In no history I ever learned do I remember any mention of such an incident being taught. Keen for some English perspective on this if any of you could kindly share?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
I'm reading about it now. Do they teach this in school in England or is all about Sir Winston and the Nazis as it is here? Never a bad word said about the man over here...
|
|
By:
Of course hard left taken over schools, Winston is the devil
|
|
By:
The idea that Churchill was in any way ‘responsible’ or ‘caused’ the Bengal famine is of course absurd. The real cause was the fall of Burma to the Japanese, which cut off India’s main supply of rice imports when domestic sources fell short, which they did in Eastern Bengal after a devastating cyclone in mid-October 1942. It is true that Churchill opposed diverting food supplies and transports from other theaters to India to cover the shortfall: this was wartime. Some of his angry remarks to Amery don’t read very nicely in retrospect. However, anyone who has been through the relevant documents reprinted in The Transfer of Power volumes knows the facts:
“Churchill was concerned about the humanitarian catastrophe taking place there, and he pushed for whatever famine relief efforts India itself could provide; they simply weren’t adequate. Something like three million people died in Bengal and other parts of southern India as a result. We might even say that Churchill indirectly broke the Bengal famine by appointing as Viceroy Field Marshal Wavell, who mobilized the military to transport food and aid to the stricken regions (something that hadn’t occurred to anyone, apparently).” The salient facts are that despite his initial expressions about Gandhi, Churchill did attempt to alleviate the famine. As William Manchester wrote, Churchill “always had second and third thoughts, and they usually improved as he went along. It was part of his pattern of response to any political issue that while his early reactions were often emotional, and even unworthy of him, they were usually succeeded by reason and generosity.” (The Last Lion, Boston: 1982, I: 843-44). The Unconsidered Factor World War II If the famine had occurred in peacetime, it would have been dealt with effectively and quickly by the Raj, as so often in the past. At worst, Churchill’s failure was not sending more aid—in the midst of fighting a war for survival. And the war, of course, is what Churchill’s slanderers avoid considering. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I'm actually reading that very page Flush but not sure a site called winstonchurchill.org is going to be all that motivated to provide balance.
|
|
By:
With the above idiots we would all be nazis now...Mandela was a terrorist, is he next? of course not no...
|
|
By:
We can only have goodies and baddies. No nuance is allowed.
Pretty much the jist of it here. |
|
By:
It explains the circumstances, sikipedia is easily manipulated.
|
|
By:
Without Churchill we would be ruled by fascists which execute minorities right now.
|
|
By:
Like most people Churchill had both virtues and faults. He was undoubtedly a racist by today's standards but tbh so were most of us who were alive in the 1980s nevermind the 1880s.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
he,s the uk 2020 once again
seen in papers this morning Raheem sterling backing black lives matter protest,s,sterling backed by almost everyoine when Bulgarian fans were chanting racist slogans a year ago ,but today on facebook pages all the brexiteer,s are quoting karl henry who very few even no is a footballer,because he,s against the protest,s, |
|
By:
|
|
By:
This is where I once again I prove I am not such a leftie, as I am not sure Winnie was the chief culprit of the Bengal famine. India throughout its history has had many famines and they do tend to breed like rabbits so that will put a strain on the food chain won't it?
|
|
By:
There is undoubtedly dirt on Winnie like Gallipolli but there are great things too. He even introduced the low pay commission
|
|
By:
Do people think the statues/buildings put up by anyone in history that the mob think was 'racist' or owned slaved should be removed?
All buildings prior to around c.16 will have to come down. |
|
By:
Why 'racist' and not racist?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Did people think status of people like Julius Caesar and George Washington should come down?
|
|
By:
We should not hide our history, but we do not need to glorify slave traders.
Statue will be salvaged and put in a museum where doubtless it will bring much interest and continue to educate folk. |
|
By:
* Statues
|
|
By:
What about John C. Calhoun, the 7th President of the United States?
|
|
By:
Yep, agree with that. We erect monuments all the time so not sure why there's such a fuss about removing them.
Depends on the context though. The Bristol guy is clearly pretty much just a slave trader who spent his money making some buildings as well as a very nice life for himself. A statue is about glory, not merely memory. By erecting a statue you are saying this is a great person, someone you should (lirerally) look up to. Don't think anyone can sat he deserves it. Churchill is clearly different. His statue and memory is clearly in relation to the war. It shouldn't be touched imo. However, it wouldn't do any harm if a representative of the current government were to speak thus. To say he has a chequered history and formally acknowledge his role in some atrocious acts. But to then clarify his role in the war and how it's right that that is commemorated. Treat people like grown ups and you may be surprised. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
IT producing a nice list of statues people should begin to start toppling, should be very helpful
 |
|
By:
I saw the statue of Saddam Hussein come down and was happy to see the joy on the faces of the Iraqis.
|
|
By:
To my mind taking down statues of historical figures without consent of the majority of the population is wrong.
I could see a case for this man statue being taken down if that is what the majority in Bristol wanted. I could see a case for Churchill being taken take if that is what the majority of the country wanted. The idea that groups of thugs trash grade 2 historical monuments just because they feel like it is wrong in my view. |
|
By:
The Jimmy Savile statue was removed and his charity work airbrushed
|
