If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
"Gandhi should be starved to death", says Churchill
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
---
0
Comments
As for Ghandi, well, what a Git, how sarcastic do you have to be.
I think the term of phrase for Churchill comments would be "politically incorrect"
The person who reminds me of Churchill is the Queen's husband(can't mind his name). He's let a few comments that have been unacceptable in modern times to the public domain.
Did he not rant about supposed jewish conspiracies as well?
Why, because he fought against tyranny? He was ideological, politically incorrect before we new the phrase, and our finest statesman of the 20th century. We could do with a man like him today.
Yeah 'cos gassing the Kurds was a blow against tyranny eh? As was advocating the forced sterlisation of the working classes and sending in troops against striking miners.
You think that is all he did?
Still, facts have never been any interest to you have they?
I don't dispute that the five years he spent fighting the Nazis were "great", I don't dispute that he was the right man at the right time. But the rest of his career before and after WW2 was a complete flop...
Bollocks.
He just the one which our generation knows best. There were others before which built the nation and empire he had to defend. Without them he was nothing.
A complicated and multifaceted man, no doubt.
But there is absolutely no doubt that his personal leadership during the Battle of Britain saved the country from making a deal with the Nazis.
Great response there, Blaggy.
I can imagine 50 years from now, people talking about countries that investing in stem cell research in such a way. And 400 years ago people were repulsed by the notion that the world was round.
But the thing is the Nazis were frowned upon for believing that... But so did Churchill.
a lot of proof that history keeps repeating itself cos we never learn.
political correctness shouldn't even be getting a lookin in this thread!
not viwed the same then as now?
bollox!
do you people know anything about the outcry in the first world war about chemical warfare?
but it's ok forty years later for our prime minister wanting to chemicaly destroy inocent civilians ...the same ones saddam did?
it' was ok back then to talk of starving some irratable imprissoned man to death?
what a load of bollox.
can you see why history keeps repeating itself?
cos WE keep excusing it!
So society hasn't changed between then and now? Well you can't genuinely believe that.
To Moonrat: The nazis may very well be frowned upon for their eugenics policy, but i think you'll agree their implementation was very much different from our own governments, and indeed the rest of the governments of the western world with such a policy. The 20th century was the greatest ever century of scientific advancement, i'd call it silly not to at least look into eugenics, rather than discard the idea of the cuff.
very little about human nature or politics and power have though.
i think you fall into the same trap more or less every generation falls into.
thinking ...hey ...things like that don't happenin modern times!
the roman teenagers would have thought pretty much the same ...along with those in ancient egypt.
both examples are of very clever very modern civilisations.
egypt must have had a very complex education system ...especialy higher education.
similar with rome.
we may now have play stations but all our shiny things have had very little impact on humanity.
dickensian london ...with its beggars and homeless people ...disease and poverty ...has our wisdom and generations of experience stopped such things happening in the world ...in london?
how many people in the world are hungry?
I'm sure many people in the world are hungry, I however have just eaten some pringles and washed it down with a glass of pepsi. World hunger is not my, or Britains responsibility. Individual nations have their own governments, (or at least a government that controls them). It's their responsibility to look after their citizens. If they're not up to standard that's not my fault. Look at Zimbabwe, everyone knows how terrible a leader Mugabe is, but if we tried to replace him? There'd be anti war posts all over this forum. That's just the way people think, it's ideological differences.
Don't get me wrong, i can appreciate the complete selfishness in this, but i'm not here to pretend i think any differently to what i do.
people saying that when churchill wanted to gass people and starve people ...it was more acceptable then than now ...is totaly wrong.
it's bollox.
in fact it was so wrong then ...as now ...that he couldn't possibly have stood on a platform and said such things ...there would have been outrage.
he was trying to do these things behind the backs of the people ...same as today.
when the mongol hoards swept through killing and poisoning etc ...do you think it was more accepted then?
i don't.
people were so fucking outraged they formed armies to try and stop such behaviour.
we're back to why history keeps repeating itself.
it's wrong if saddam does it ...very very wrong ...evil in fact.
but when our smiling respectable suits do it ...you don't have a problem with it.
worrying but not unusual unfortunately.
I respect people who will get up and shout from the rafters not to do such things, i guess i'd probably be the voice saying yeah but was it neccesary?
You’re obviously unfamiliar with the liberal reforms which were for their time quite radical – his support for them were hardly the reflection of someone who did not care about the ordinary people of Britain. While Churchill’s support for Mussolini was a mistake you’re not considering it in context. Churchill expressed support for Mussolini a long time before Mussolini passed the 1938 anti-Semitic laws and engaged in a partnership with Hitler. Mussolini was supported by liberals in the Italian Duma at first – and by democratic politicians such as Churchill. Whilst this does indeed seem strange it’s important to distinguish between the early years of Mussolini’s regime and the years following the Matteotti crisis and the move to a dictatorship.
Anyway as has been discussed with you before the similarities between Mussolini’s fascism and socialism are striking although not surprising given that Mussolini was himself a socialist for a large section of his life, if not remaining committed to many socialist ideals throughout his entire life according to some of his biographers. (Nicholas Farrell being one).
Meanwhile I’m grateful that your opinion represents very few and is an extreme view of a very great man. I’m glad nearly half a million others agree with me in believing that Churchill was a great Briton. (Although personally I'd have placed Baroness Thatcher first and Churchill second).