I’ve studied it extensively. The truth about Churchill’s greatness can be found in “Churchill and the Jews” by Martin Gilbert.
Confirmation bias much?
Your penchant of looking at every topic through the prism of its impact on Israel is unsettling.
Churchill was a great wartime leader. He was also a reactionary imperialist bigot. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I see you deflected on the question, which is that you don’t believe that advocating, whether tongue in cheek or out your ass an entire ethnic group is ethnic cleansing. Instead, you continue this horeshit about if it was a crime she would have been prosecuted in the UK. So, by this logic you agree that no bankers or Wall Street types in the US did anything wrong during the 2008 crash because almost none of them were prosecuted…right? We can extend this logic to anyone not prosecuted by the state for something must be completely innocent…right? So, you feel that none of those CIA types were guilty of torture or whatever during our Iraq debacle because none of them were prosecuted?
Glad we cleared that all up then. 
So following your extensive studies, how do you feel about his hatred for indians, his penchant for the use of chemical weapons on “uncivilized tribes”, his role in making the bengal famine worse, or how about his praise for Hitler:
“While all those formidable transformations were occurring in Europe, Corporal Hitler was fighting his long, wearing battle for the German heart. The story of that struggle cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy, conciliate, or overcome, all the authorities or resistance’s which barred his path. He, and the ever increasing legions who worked with him, certainly showed at this time, in their patriotic ardour and love of country, that there was nothing that they would not dare, no sacrifice of life, limb or liberty that they would not make themselves or inflict upon their opponents.”
Gallipoli.
I meant WWII.
I am aware that he authorized the use of poison gas on the Kurds but I read somewhere that it didn’t happen because they happened to be out of supplies at the time.
-
You trying to say he was “praising Hitler” is utter bunk; its commonly agreed that Hitler was a “strong leader.” That doesn’t imply he was a moral or compassionate one. Similar to what Churchill said in 1935 or 1937. Also, saying it then pre-war and pre-Holocaust is very different than say, Pat Buchanan in 1977. Churchill was the lead European to end Hitler do (and what I said earlier about Stalin’s poor supporting role is well documented, Montefiore’s “Stalin: In the Court of the Red Czar” is a good place to learn about Stalin)
-
Empire was the order of the day; where are you anti-imperialist types criticizing the Ottoman or other Caliphates? Or is “empire” only evil when whites do it?
-
Even for the flaws in Churchill’s India policy, fact is that his heroism against evil Nazism and later communism, with his rousing Iron Curtain speech outweights everything. Churchill=Hero.
Seriously, is this all you have to go with? “He didn’t praise him, he just said he admired his courage, perseverance and vital force”, followed by a “and the muslims were worse”, with a soupçon of “and Stalin was really shit”.
Congratulations. Your moral compass only praised Hitler’s courage, perseverance and vitality, and was probably less of a wanker than Stalin. Jesus, I hope they don’t pick you to give my eulogy, you take ‘damned with faint praise’ to a whole new level.
Oh, and just to really piss on your chips, you do realise he didn’t even deliver most of his key speeches right?
You want to praise people for defeating the Nazis? How about the poor sods who actually fought and died for the cause?
It was tear gas.
(Source)
Churchill is arguing for the use of tear gas rather than conventional artillery because it will scare the “uncivilised tribes” into obedience with minimal casualties. He is not advocating using chemical weapons to kill.
I think you’re right about it not being used.
Sorry - italics are mine in the quote above.
He did, but they weren’t always recorded simultaneously with the initial live broadcast (and the most famous were delivered in the House of Commons, which didn’t allow sound, let alone TV, recording until much more recently). So some of the recordings we hear today were those made by Norman Shelley (that has been known for years) for later re-broadcast on the BBC’s overseas services, or were made after the war by Churchill himself as a fund-raising exercise (which is why some of them sound less inspiring in delivery than you might expect).
What does “whites” have to do with the Ottoman as a contrast? Or is white something that is in your head meaning “Anglo Christians”? Or protestant, in the way somehow the irish or the Italians were not-white to you americans on their first immigration? (or maybe you think Ottoman Turk = Saudi…)
the strange combination of the racial animus and the religious prejudice is puzzling (or what relevance to the British empire).
There’s also the whole “the thread is about British politics” thing. The British Empire is relevant. The Ottomans, not so much. My views on the Sasanian, Ashanti and Sikh Empires are likewise limited in the context of this thread. And the Caliphate…sorry, when exactly did we get an actual Caliphate again?
the hypocrisy of “anti-imperialists” is very relevant. In their eyes, its only wrong when non-Muslims are imperialists. When you criticize the concept of imperialism, if the caliphates are not included alongside the British, French, etc., its hypocrisy.
I oppose the caliphate! I also oppose the Galactic Empire. I’m only slightly more worried about the former actually occurring than the latter.
So every time some one is critical of the British Empire, they need to explicitly include all other empires, or they’re being hypocritical? Because I haven’t seen anyone in this thread saying that the British Empire is bad and all (or any) other empires (Muslim or not) are good.
The British Empire (and the Roman Empire, and the Japanese Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, and the French Empire, and the Chinese Empire, and the Ethiopian Empire, and the Akkadian Empire, and the Spanish Empire, and the Achaemenid Empire, and the Incan Empire–I’m tired of typing) had some bad points.
Kind of like that?
When you’re done building your empire of strawmen*, perhaps you could address what actual people in this thread have said.
You might also explain what the hell you mean by “the caliphates”. If you mean ISIS, I certainly condemn them but any reported resemblance to anything like a “caliphate” is pure delusion on their part. They’re closer to the “local warlord” model.
- Which I condemn, unless they’re Muslim strawmen, obviously.
Oh no. it is only wrong when the pasty Anglos prone to the gout, we completely support the Roman imperialism…
(funny the ‘white’ ID he used as contrast to the Ottoman, the racial animus bleeding through to the religious)
Oh no, you are enabling the Chinese red imperialism, since you have not cited them explicitly you must approve of it, Hypocrisy!!!
I mean the Caliphates from Muhammed and the Rashiduns until the Ottomans. My point is “post-colonialist” ideas which form the basis of the common “America/Israel evil colonialist neo-colonialist blah blah” sprung forth by communist demagogues Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi, and used to bolster the Palestinians, is hypocrisy.