Home Politics & Debate
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.

"Gandhi should be starved to death", says Churchill

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well I've discussed the similarities between Mussolini's fascism and socialism and concluded that actually, the similarities are only superficial. Mussloni was originally a syndicalist but his swing to fascism represents a break with the past not a growth of it. If you're trying to gain support its hardly surprising that you might have a veneer of populism. That goes for Churchill as well as Mussolini.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Well I've discussed the similarities between Mussolini's fascism and socialism and concluded that actually, the similarities are only superficial. Mussloni was originally a syndicalist but his swing to fascism represents a break with the past not a growth of it. If you're trying to gain support its hardly surprising that you might have a veneer of populism. That goes for Churchill as well as Mussolini.

    I think that is probably true to a large extent - although since Mussolini was in his earlier years a pretty sincere socialist I think some of that did carry over into fascism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd have placed Baroness Thatcher first and Churchill second).

    I disagree. The only other parliamentarian who can match Churchill is Gladstone.

    As for the Greatest Briton - my vote goes to Shakespeare.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You all Judge Churchill by todays standards, but at the time, everything he did in his efforts were usually the right courses of action. Yes, he did have some stupendously massive fuck ups too, thats undeniable. But gassing the Kurds, imposing a stronger military rule over Palestine, etc were all the right things to do at the time to maintain the British Empire, you have to remember the context here, he was the Prime Minister of Britain and had a responsibilty as the PM to maintain the British Empire, hence why many of his actions were as they were.

    Saying he was a flop in everythign he did except the years he opposed the Nazis, is ignorance of the context of his life and history of the time. It is the same as saying Lord Halifax was a good man all the time except that decade where he swore allegience to Hitler and the Nazis as our superiors. Or the same as saying that Atlee was a great PM in everything he did when he was moderate at best.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What a ridiculous post. Yes, we have to put him in context and that context was someone who would do anything to protect the power of the ruling classes. That meant gassing Kurds, sending the army against strikers, expressing admiration for fascism etc. How does that make it any more defensible?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I disagree. The only other parliamentarian who can match Churchill is Gladstone.

    As for the Greatest Briton - my vote goes to Shakespeare.

    I wasn't really being serious, just trying to get a response out of someone..

    Greatest Briton, I dunno there are lots. Dickens, Elizabeth I, Shakespeare..Although I suppose the latter two can only really be called English since Britain did not exist whilst they were alive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Elizabeth I.

    Why?

    I've studied her, she didn't do much except live for a long time!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just to point out that even the ITV documentary on Churchill (which could hardly be seen as revisionist) detailed his wishes to use posion gas against Germany in the later stages of the war - thoughh bomber command rejected this as unacceptable given the amount of damage fire bombing was already doing. Churchill always comes across as an extreme man, restrained sometimes by those around him. Still rather him than Halifax.

    (and don't forget he was also responsible for the infamous black and tans being sent to Northern Ireland)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As for the Greatest Briton - my vote goes to Shakespeare.

    Brunel
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    Why?

    I've studied her, she didn't do much except live for a long time!

    I haven't studied her yet so might think differently after but she did a better job than the rest of the tudors. Economically she was successful and politically - with Spain, etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I haven't studied her yet so might think differently after but she did a better job than the rest of the tudors. Economically she was successful and politically - with Spain, etc.

    I don't doubt she was a successful monarch but I wouldn't go as far to call her the greatest Briton ever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hark at all these people wanking themselves silly over Churchill and simultaneously supporting the invasion of Iraq on the basis that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people.

    The sheep mentality still as prevelent as ever I see.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta! What an arrogant son of a bitch you are to completely dismiss historical context. I didnt say it made his action defensible, i said at the time what he did, to defend what was the way of Britian at the time, was normal.

    Your whole post is pointless, it is like saying Romans shouldnt have crucified people because they should of known better!

    At the time it was the normal way of doing things!

    You do not honestly think any of the people around him said, "hmmm Winston old boy, i think murdering all them kurds is a bad idea. Maybe you should reconsider it, old chap."

    They probably said, "Brilliant old man, excellent thinking."
    I bet no one even batted an eye lid at the suggestion.

    We are nearly a hundred years on the world is a different place.
    It is one of those arguments that people with sub-normal intelligence use, such as when the Labour Government said Saddam Gassed Kurds and that was a reason to remove him from power, every one jumped on the bandwago of, Britain gassed kurds too, so lets remove the Labour Government from power. The most idiotic argument ever, since Churchill not the Labour Government did it and he did it nearly a century ago, not last month!

    God, why can people not understand that whats bad at one time may not be later on and vice versa when they argue history. And thats another thing, when people one minute argue something like the kurds been gassed with saddam to oppose a war, then suddenly change tac and say it was ok to use drugs in the Victorian times but it isnt now to support their pro-drugs arguments!

    "Hypocracy!" In the words of Doc Holiday! "Hypocracy!"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think people who can't even spell hypocracy and make absolutely non-sensical statements such as -
    And thats another thing, when people one minute argue something like the kurds been gassed with saddam to oppose a war, then suddenly change tac and say it was ok to use drugs in the Victorian times but it isnt now to support their pro-drugs arguments!

    ..are the real ones displaying "sub-normal intelligence".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    I don't doubt she was a successful monarch but I wouldn't go as far to call her the greatest Briton ever.

    Indeed, although 'greatest Briton' generally does mean greatest famous Briton. Or at least it did for the BBC programme.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    Blagsta! What an arrogant son of a bitch you are to completely dismiss historical context.

    Errr...I haven't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I disagree. The only other parliamentarian who can match Churchill is Gladstone.
    Lloyd George?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    Hark at all these people wanking themselves silly over Churchill and simultaneously supporting the invasion of Iraq on the basis that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people.

    The sheep mentality still as prevelent as ever I see.

    Did Churchill actually gas anyone? Or order the gassing?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lloyd George? Gladstone? They were terrible, terrible leaders.

    D'Israeli was a brilliant PM however!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Did Churchill actually gas anyone? Or order the gassing?

    quick google seems to bring up articles relating, this was the only source I recognised but I'll make no claims on accuracy.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html

    Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job. (quote taken from article)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Did Churchill actually gas anyone? Or order the gassing?

    No, the RAF didn't have the means then to gas kurish civilians so they resorted to using conventional bombs to kill them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    Lloyd George? Gladstone? They were terrible, terrible leaders.

    D'Israeli was a brilliant PM however!
    The latter statement i'll agree with, but the former..........
    no way!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ok, maybe not Gladstone although he was a fanatical puritan who ran around paying prostitutes to listen to his sermons about riteous virginity!

    But Lloyd George was no good. Look at the shambles of the Versaille Treaty, he totally caved into the French Governments pressure.
Sign In or Register to comment.