orders being sent by a British unit in World War 1 that was sent as
“Send reinforcements, we are going to advance” but received by the headquarters as “
"Send Three and Fourpence, we are going to a dance”
- Status
orders being sent by a British unit in World War 1 that was sent as
“Send reinforcements, we are going to advance” but received by the headquarters as “
"Send Three and Fourpence, we are going to a dance”
it is.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
The statue of Churchill was defaced in 2000 during an anti-capitalist protest, during 2003 for a peace protest, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2019
But there was no counter protest. There was no 'defenders of statues' movement.
This time, it's different. I wonder why.
But there was no counter protest. There was no 'defenders of statues' movement.
This time, it's different. I wonder why.
B
Bodd
Labour isn’t talking about Churchill’s statue.
The Lib Dems aren’t taking about it.
The Greens aren’t talking about it.
The only party talking** about Churchill’s statue are the Conservatives.
It’s bizarre. They want a culture war because they want to distract from the real issues.
** and Bobby Dazzler
The Lib Dems aren’t taking about it.
The Greens aren’t talking about it.
The only party talking** about Churchill’s statue are the Conservatives.
It’s bizarre. They want a culture war because they want to distract from the real issues.
** and Bobby Dazzler
D
Deleted2797112
** and Notch7
Yes from plagues. The UK coined the word concentration camps but later they gained a rather different meaning. Scorched earth to interfere with supplies to troops goes way way back in time as do most "techniques". The modern way involves embargoes and maybe later cruise missiles. The embargo upsets the population the cruise missiles knock out the infrastructure. Little difference really. Ordinary people suffer and get killed.
You are an unusual bot but if you want to talk about war and also war talk which is essentially just propaganda fine but in this area there is a need to sling mud at all that get involved in it not just the UK. It's bad news for populations and always started by various forms of politicians. History of all sides often gets written to suite.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
And Bodd.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
Churchill 10,000,000
Kitchener 100's of 1,000's
Just to mention two of the inglorious great British leaders.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
Oh, that's OK then. It wasn't the fault of the British. sigh
As Boer farms were destroyed by the British under their "Scorched Earth" policy—including the systematic destruction of crops and the slaughtering or removal of livestock, the burning down of homesteads and farms—to prevent the Boers from resupplying themselves from a home base, many tens of thousands of men, women and children were forcibly moved into the camps
You are an unusual bot but if you want to talk about war, especially gloss over the atrocities meted out by one's own nation, meanwhile emphasising the atrocities meted out by the others, trying them, judging them and executing them.
Sadly, many, many of the population only ever hear of the victories, 'gained through fair and legal means', meanwhile enjoying the spoils of war, and the persistent dominance that follows, living with the hypocrisy of social inequality, structural and institutional racism.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm just waiting to bat away allegations of anti-UK or anti-British.
If the shoe were on the other foot, is it anti-German to accept the atrocities of the Nazis? Is it anti-Cambodian to acknowledge the inhumanity of Pol Pot?
Is it anti-Chinese to realise that Mao was responsible for thousands of deaths?
I suggest that those who readily play the anti-British card would and do applaud other nations for recognising the atrocities carried out by their leaders.
The same must hold true for British people recognising the inglorious past of the British Empire.
Last edited:
we know and recognise the "inglorious past", statements have been made apologising for our imperialist past, (note the Italians don't have to consistently apologise for the Romans..) however at some point we need to move forward. We cannot change the past, and you cannot request modern brits to do so either.
Churchill has a statue for the glorious work he done in leading the country and most of Europe through the 2nd world war.
He doesn't have a statue to rub BAME community noses in it, and neither should they be made to feel that's why he is there. No one looks at the statue and thinks you know what i'm going to be a racist now. In fact there was probably quite a lot of people that didn't know that some of the things he said made him racist, (and there was also things he said that countered this) a very good majority looked at the statue and saw peace and freedom and that we never want to be in that period of time again, (the likes of which Antifa, the loony left, and half the BLM protesters seem to want to return to)
whatever decisions were made wrongly or rightly was a product of that time.
We need to stop dwelling on the past and work together to build the future. At the moment it's looking increasingly likely that this future will be very like Mad Max - #CHAZ
Bobby do you hate white people?
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
sigh!
Churchill has a statue because he lead the country and most of Europe through the 2nd world war.
The statue commemorates Churchill. It should remind people of his murderous atrocities, as well as his defeat of Nazis.
I would say, on balance, his murderous atrocities outweigh his leadership. Of course, if we recognise that murderous tendencies are necessary for leading a nation to winning wars, than he deserves his place in UK history, as a Genghis Khan type character.
We can only build a better future if we learn form the past. But if we whitewash the history, airbrushing out the atrocities, we cannot learn from the past.
we have learnt from the past, thats why today we are in a much better place than we ever have in the past, thats not to say we cant do better.
as i said people only ever looked at churchill as a symbol of peace and freedom in the western world, it has never been seen until recently as a symbol against black people
One of my grandads who died when I was rather young gave me an idea of what war was about when I was far to young to be told really. Can't remember what caused him to speak but do remember what he said. War is a terrible thing. Men cry and if they don't get up and fight when the whistle blows they get shot. They have to get up as all would be done if as he put it they didn't. That was war. It's a little different today. There is no point in blaming people who organised the fighting only those that gave rise to the need for it in the first place. That just leaves the question of should it have been fought or should who ever it was just have been left to get on with it. War is a nasty ugly thing that kills people often lots of them on both sides. It's generally always fought for the same reasons. There are several of them.
There are atrocities, many of them. Try what happened to Dresden for instance and why. The 2nd nuclear bomb is an interesting one but you wont manage to bottom that one out. 4million allied troops dying to obtain an unconditional surrender. Blame the leaders on that one - both sides really. The rest - it's just war.
There are atrocities, many of them. Try what happened to Dresden for instance and why. The 2nd nuclear bomb is an interesting one but you wont manage to bottom that one out. 4million allied troops dying to obtain an unconditional surrender. Blame the leaders on that one - both sides really. The rest - it's just war.
- Status
