Winston Churchill was a monster

[Terrywoodenpic]

Google african Wehrmacht soldiers and you will find there were very many of them.
lots of pictures too.

Not something I was aware of.

There were also Indian soldiers and even som Jews
Foreign volunteers in the German Army (WWII) - Metapedia

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you were Russian, and saw what they saw, you'd probably want to hand out a little street justice, too.

By taking it out on random innocents on the street who had nothing to do with what they saw?

My point is that Churchill doesn't meet the qualification of monster.

If not over WWII then what of his handling of India?

 

[Wirey]

By taking it out on random innocents on the street who had nothing to do with what they saw?

If not over WWII then what of his handling of India?

You mean all those nice Germans who worked in factories and actually voted Hitler in? The crowds who lived under the banners that said "Ein Reich, Ein Volk"? I can't imagine why a nation that was invaded and had 20 million of it's citizens killed would come looking for vengeance (remember, Churchill was the monster).

And as for his handling of India, it certainly wasn't perfect, but he never set out to kill them. Being a bad bureaucrat hardly makes one Ted Bundy. That's just more revisionist history that applies today's standards to yesterday's acts. Was Thomas Jefferson a stain on America for owning, and sleeping with, slaves?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You mean all those nice Germans who worked in factories and actually voted Hitler in? The crowds who lived under the banners that said "Ein Reich, Ein Volk"?

There were plenty of Germans who did not support Hitler, agree with his policies, or support his ways and war. Most of them, however, had no choice or say in the matter. I have German family and know several Germans. I know, for a fact, he did not have the universal support that people like the think. Saying they did is like saying Americans, as a whole, support what their government does in places like Central America.

And as for his handling of India, it certainly wasn't perfect, but he never set out to kill them. Being a bad bureaucrat hardly makes one Ted Bundy. That's just more revisionist history that applies today's standards to yesterday's acts. Was Thomas Jefferson a stain on America for owning, and sleeping with, slaves?

How does with-holding supplies and forcing people into a position of needless suffering and death not make him a monster? Why should someone who said the things he did about the Indian people (or any people) not be called out on their crap?
And, yes, everyone who ever owned slaves is a stain on American history. Many of the founding fathers did free their slaves, but it doesn't excuse the fact they saw their fellow humans as property.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Meh...I've kinda stayed out pending clarification of what the OP was really trying to state/question but haven't had a response so...

Monster is my main issue with it all. He was a human. Flawed, wrong, inspiring...I think demonising him or taking his actions out of context is disingenuous.

Personally, I also found him a pompous arse who was at least partially delusional about the place of England in the 20th century world. I suspect getting a mass of English to buy into this self delusion was actually part of the reason for his war time success.

 

[Underhill]

I would say Churchill was know for his leadership and his strength. He put the line in the sand and held that line against all opposition. But there is no doubt a large percentage of wealthy white privileged people shared his moral foibles at the time.

I remember being surprised as a kid when I realized my grandfather was racist. I always considered him to be a good man, a WW2 vet who accomplished a great deal in his life. He was. But his generation had different and wrong views on race, just as the next generation had different and wrong views on sexual orientation. The good news is, we seem to be making progress.

Probably the next generation will view us as morally bankrupt due to our treatment of animals or the number of starving people in the world... I can only hope.

 

[Wirey]

I would say Churchill was know for his leadership and his strength. He put the line in the sand and held that line against all opposition. But there is no doubt a large percentage of wealthy white privileged people shared his moral foibles at the time.

I remember being surprised as a kid when I realized my grandfather was racist. I always considered him to be a good man, a WW2 vet who accomplished a great deal in his life. He was. But his generation had different and wrong views on race, just as the next generation had different and wrong views on sexual orientation. The good news is, we seem to be making progress.

Probably the next generation will view us as morally bankrupt due to our treatment of animals or the number of starving people in the world... I can only hope.

Listen, pal, this is the internet. Say one more sensible thing and we're kicking you out!

 

[goodhunter819]

Not sure whether Winston Churchill was a monster however I can tell you on a unrelated incident which involves literature on Winston Churchill during WWII.

During one of my visits to HM establishment I here in England for a punch up and subsequent damage of someone’s personal property, I was placed in a segregation wing on good order and discipline for damaging government property, the item in question being a book in which Winston Churchill reintroduced the old colonial method of issuing identity cards for non English natives of one of the countries in the African continent, on see this I exploded and defaced the book, I was adjudicated and place in a polit cell ( a cell with nothing at all in it, no books, no nothing not even a blanket ) until I saw the nature of my error, my response to the governor when asked why I defaced the book was that I disliked colonialism, after being released some nine days later onto normal location I went back to read the book, having calmed down and had my wage reduced for a fortnight to pay for the book, I found out that the reason Winston Churchill reintroduced identity cards to the natives of the country was to help reduce the attempt of the Nazi’s marching in through the back door of the country, had he not instigated this identity card program the country may well have been overran with fifth columnists and subsequently the British and allied forces could have lost the country to the Nazi’s giving them a well needed strong hold which could have well cost field Marshall Montgomery to lose the battle against the desert fox Rommel, a true and interesting fact, at least I think so? (the African continent is very large so it is not worth assuming which country I am talking about?