Churchill not a hero to all

[stevewinn]

2 hours ago, TigerBright19 said:

To be fair Ireland had campaigned and fought in a bitter struggle to have self governance precisely so that they could not be dragged into another British war without any say.  Ireland was involved just like so many other neutral countries similar to the United States position 1939 - 1941 when they supported Britain while at the same time keeping their neutrality status.  I think the reason some give Ireland a pro-nazi status is for the IRA's involvement against the British during a very sensitive time.  People today just look at the past in black and white.  e.g. Support one side or the other.  It was much more complex than that especially as they did not have the benefit of hindsight to know the overall picture.

 

Statue of Seán Russell in Dublin

 

 

 

Northern Ireland is pro-British but Churchill supported the Irish Home Rule Bill in 1912 which was seen as a British betrayal against the people of N. Ireland as Churchill wanted to hand them over to Irish rule - hence the saying "No Surrender" against Churchill.  Civil war was expected and military factions were set up in preparation for the Irish uprising in N. Ireland, and guns were bought and imported from Germany to help the people of N. Ireland because of Churchill's support for Irish rule.  History is not so clean.  Churchill could be said to be one of the main causes for civil unrest across Ireland.

 

 

France Britain's old enemy for centuries. 100 years war you name it. And yet when threatened by German aggression beit first or second World War. Britain came to their assistance. Because it was the right thing to do, regardless of the long and bloody past. 

History as recorded. 

Let's just say this it's a good job Britain didn't follow Ireland's lead in WW2. 

[Setton]

3 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Sorry, is this your defense of Stalin? Are you saying Stalin accidentally killed 20 million people?

Mao (China)	40 million
Stalin (Soviet Union)	20 million
Hitler (Nazi Germany)	12 million
Leopold II (Belgium)	10 million
Tojo (Japan)	5 million

I'm saying he killed most of them through incompetence, not a deliberate attempt to exterminate.

Quote

But if we're going ask hypothetical questions....Who's more evil - the man who kills 12 million or the man who kills 20 million?

Depends on why they killed them.

[TigerBright19]

2 hours ago, stevewinn said:

France Britain's old enemy for centuries. 100 years war you name it. And yet when threatened by German aggression beit first or second World War. Britain came to their assistance. Because it was the right thing to do, regardless of the long and bloody past. 

History as recorded. 

Let's just say this it's a good job Britain didn't follow Ireland's lead in WW2. 

We must also remember Churchill's decision to destroy the French Fleet in 1940.  A dark day in British history.  Admiral Somerville who delivered the ultimatum to the French said Churchill's decision was - "The biggest political blunder of modern times and will rouse the whole world against us...we all feel thoroughly ashamed."

 

[stevewinn]

32 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

We must also remember Churchill's decision to destroy the French Fleet in 1940.  A dark day in British history.  Admiral Somerville who delivered the ultimatum to the French said Churchill's decision was - "The biggest political blunder of modern times and will rouse the whole world against us...we all feel thoroughly ashamed."

 

desperate times desperate measures, we where locked in mortal combat for our very survival. The moment France fell and signed the surrender, regardless of the agreement and assurances by Hitler that the French fleet would not be drafted into the German Fleet. It was a risk we could not take. trusting Hitlers word. (i do believe he was a good honest chap and wouldnt have broken his word, ask the Russians how good he was at keeping to his word)

You say a dark day in British History, imagine how much darker it would have been if the French fleet joined the German and Italian Fleets. it would have turned the tide of the war at a time when Britain and the Royal Navy stood alone.

 

 

[Eldorado]

Historians blast BBC for 'unbalanced' News At Ten report claiming Churchill was responsible for 'mass killing' of up to three million in 1943 Bengal famine

UK Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8551751/Historians-blast-BBC-unbalanced-News-Ten-report-Churchill.html

[The Sky Scanner]

18 minutes ago, Eldorado said:

Historians blast BBC for 'unbalanced' News At Ten report claiming Churchill was responsible for 'mass killing' of up to three million in 1943 Bengal famine

UK Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8551751/Historians-blast-BBC-unbalanced-News-Ten-report-Churchill.html

The more unbalanced reporting they do the happier I am, it just speeds up their inevitable demise, and what a great day that will be.

[Peter B]

On 7/22/2020 at 11:49 PM, stevewinn said:

Yes they covered themselves in glory didn't they. Sympathising with the Nazis and your poor wikipedia attempt to say otherwise. 

Was there anything factually wrong in that list?

[Peter B]

On 7/23/2020 at 12:00 AM, stevewinn said:

France Britain's old enemy for centuries. 100 years war you name it. And yet when threatened by German aggression beit first or second World War. Britain came to their assistance. Because it was the right thing to do, regardless of the long and bloody past. 

History as recorded. 

Let's just say this it's a good job Britain didn't follow Ireland's lead in WW2. 

British foreign policy since about 1700 has been to oppose any nation attempting to achieve hegemony in Europe. From 1700 to 1815 that was France. From ~1890 to 1945 that was Germany. From 1945 to 1990 that was the USSR. The reason simply was that it wasn't in Britain's national interest to have a single nation in control of Europe. It just happened to benefit whichever European nations happened to be in the path of the would-be hegemon.

The ability to ignore a "long and bloody past" is something most national leaders manage to do if they think it's in the national interest. Hitler and Stalin managed it in 1939, while Chamberlain couldn't.