D
durhamplumber
He prioritised Britain.He was PM of that country.Racism my arsé you dozy pratt
- Status
B
Bodd
Like most things like that there is usually a reason and all in all a decision might not be just 100% one way or the other.I usually say not black or white but some shade of grey. Seems it might not be a good term to use now. Best hold seance with him and ask what he considered. Anyone got a ouija board.? Actually his reasons might be available via freedom for information now. Just believe a newspaper if you like.
The reason for WWII was Hitler aiming to over run all of Europe. Best give the Russians some credit for defeating him, more than you might think. WWII was very probably a result of the end effects on Germany of WWI. That one didn't end before they decided to accept total defeat - reparations etc and millions more dead. That fact probably had a direct effect on what went on after WWII.
I do know my fathers opinion of him. The right sort of person for a war but not really suitable for peace. Seems he thought the population was ungrateful at some point.
I think you need to factor the Japanese in somewhere. They had invaded Burma, cutting off supplies to Bengal. Hence the need for supplies from the west.
The media was awash with coverage of the anti brexit protests. Just because it didn't have the desired outcome of a minority, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
B
Bodd
It was the Japs that cut off supplies to the east India starving the people.
The Allies defended the area.
The Battle of Imphal took place in the region around the capital of the state of Manipur in northeast India from around March until July 1944. Japanese attempted to destroy the Allied forces at Imphal and invade India, but were driven back into occupied Burma.
How many more Bengalis would have died if the Allies did not defend India from the east.
The Allies defended the area.
The Battle of Imphal took place in the region around the capital of the state of Manipur in northeast India from around March until July 1944. Japanese attempted to destroy the Allied forces at Imphal and invade India, but were driven back into occupied Burma.
How many more Bengalis would have died if the Allies did not defend India from the east.
Ok. Who would you have prioritised and why?
It's a fact that things like this always have more factors than all will go through because often some one is out to prove something or the other. That can mean completely ignoring some. It's pretty common in politics and other areas.
Churchill and causing a famine - not enough info as far as I am concerned especially during a period when some will want to make a point.
Your just a member of a herd. A pretty typical one. Read a few bits and pieces and assume it's as simple as that.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2005
- Messages
- 4,424
- Reaction score
- 592
- Country
He's a windup i reckon the stuff he spouts is just to wind people up he's a troll.Is Bobby him. Again back again
With his every one is a racist mantra
Blokes (?) a fruit cake
Sounds like Himagain then
That's crap, he's got a header up the middle of it.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
The policies of his government were murderous, and full of imperialist slaughter:
To Play Churchill Is to Hate Him
“The Gathering Storm” [which will be broadcast, by NBC as a Hallmark Hall of Fame production this Friday, Nov. 29, at 8:30 P.M.], I reallized afresh that I hate Churchill and all his kind. I hate them virulently. They have stalked down the corridors of endless power all through history. Lord Acton's observations that “power, tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” and that “great men are almost always bad men” apply to Churchill as to all of history's other indirectly great
What sane man, for instance, bred in the bone by sentiments of honor and fair‐mindedness, could have said of the Germans in 1939, when Churchill: became First Lord of the Admiralty, “They must bleed and burn, they must be crushed into a mass ‘of smouldering ruins"?
What man of sanity would say on hearing of the atrocities committed by the Japanese against British and Anzac prisoners of war, “We shall wipe them out, every one of them, men, women, and children. There shall not be a Japanese left on the face of the earth”? Such simple-minded cravings for revenge leave me with a horrified but reluctant awe for such single-minded and merciless ferocity.
Richard Burton. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/11/24/...ate-him-to-play-churchill-is-to-hate-him.html
...Churchill that has often embarrassed British sensibilities, so that it is generally not talked about: his gung-ho fondness for imperial slaughter. Everywhere one looks, one finds Churchill dripping blood from his mouth. He was fanatical about violence.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/01/winston-churchill-british-empire-colonialism
The Bengal famine of 1943 was the only one in modern Indian history not to occur as a result of serious drought, according to a study that provides scientific backing for arguments that Churchill-era British policies were a significant factor contributing to the catastrophe.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...icies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
How about including the source of your information?
I must say though, I think your motives for starting the discussion have rather backfired on you.
I suspect that you wanted dismiss such stories of atrocities, and to re-acquire the 'whitewashed' history of Churchill, with the atrocities airbrushed out of the narrative.
Instead, what you have done is to provide the opportunity for some, not all, of Churchill's atrocities to be aired.
Perhaps you could start a discussion about other 'great' British leaders? How about Kitchener who killed and incarcerated hundreds of thousands in South Africa.
Kitchener initiated plans to flush out guerrillas in a series of systematic drives, organised like a sporting shoot, with success defined by a weekly 'bag' of killed, captured and wounded, and sweep the country bare of everything that could give sustenance to the guerrillas, including women and children ... It was the clearance of civilians—uprooting a whole nation—that would come to dominate the last phase of the war...
...the Boer War concentration camp system was the first time that a whole nation had been systematically targeted, and the first in which some whole regions had been depopulated...
...Over 26,000 women and children perished in these concentration camps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_concentration_camps
For those who wish to delve into the inglorious past of British colonial rule, will find numerous examples of such murderous atrocities....the Boer War concentration camp system was the first time that a whole nation had been systematically targeted, and the first in which some whole regions had been depopulated...
...Over 26,000 women and children perished in these concentration camps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_concentration_camps
Granted, they were perfectly legal actions at the time. sigh!
- Status
