The glorious 12th

janfebmar wrote: »

Statues of Churchill ....100,000 Irish people fought in the British war effort and generally I think they thought he was fine. I never heard any of them complaining about him anyway, and I knew a few quite well. He was elected by the British people, if they want to keep a statue of an elected Prime Minister that is ok with me, it is not my country or business.

What do you think of churchill? Not a loaded question,just a straightforward one.if you could reply with an answer and not a question it would be appreciated

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Yeah can you name any of those dev had executed?

I’ll wait

I can indeed. It was not in your history book though and I bet not taught in your school.

droidman123 wrote: »

What do you think of churchill? Not a loaded question,just a straightforward one.if you could reply with an answer and not a question it would be appreciated

Overall, a great man, to whom the western world owes a debt of gratitude. Not without his flaws, but nevertheless a great leader.

janfebmar wrote: »

I can indeed. It was not in your history book though and I bet not taught in your school.

Once again. Can you name them?

Here please?

All ears

citytillidie wrote: »

Indians now in Britain might find it offensive to have a statue of Churchill for what happened in India or is that not in your history books too

Actually the Indians I know in the UK are very enterprising and hard working, and believe in democracy, which is why they moved to England, and one I know in particular praises Churchill for his role in saving the UK in WW2.

janfebmar wrote: »

Overall, a great man, to whom the western world owes a debt of gratitude. Not without his flaws, but nevertheless a great leader.

Not without his flaws?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html
Now assuming there is a semblence of truth in that article would you still only describe him as "not without his flaws"?

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Once again. Can you name them?

Of course I can, but it would be more interesting to see if any Republicans are aware of their own history.

janfebmar wrote: »

Of course I can, but it would be more interesting to see if any Republicans are aware of their own history.

So you can’t name them.

Asking again.

Can you name any of them? Here. Type their names.

Cmon you can do it.

droidman123 wrote: »

Not without his flaws?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html
Now assuming there is a semblence of truth in that article would you still only describe him as "not without his flaws"?

He is best remembered as one of the most important men in the world, if not the most important, in saving Europe from Nazism.

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

So you can’t name them.

Asking again.

Can you name any of them? Here. Type their names.

Cmon you can do it.

You go first and I'll see if you are correct. Now, I have other commitments for a few hours so that gives you plenty of time. Come on, learn your Republican history, lad.

janfebmar wrote: »

He is best remembered as one of the most important men in the world, if not the most important, in saving Europe from Nazism.

He was minister for defence and created the Black and Tans which ravaged ordinary people all over Ireland on a level with anything the Nazis did.

Still gets a pass?

janfebmar wrote: »

He is best remembered as one of the most important men in the world, if not the most important, in saving Europe from Nazism.

But again i ask you,what do you think of that article about him?

janfebmar wrote: »

He is best remembered as one of the most important men in the world, if not the most important, in saving Europe from Nazism.

By little Englanders maybe.

By others, reviewing ALL the facts he was and is seen as a flawed (some would say deeply flawed, like Indians, residents of Dresden and Colonge, some Irish) man who did many evil and simply wrong things, while also doing some good things.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2015/04/24/winston-churchills-terrible-leadership-failure/#151a5a144dbe

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

https://www.channel4.com/news/winston-churchill-50th-anniversary-successes-failures

endainoz

janfebmar wrote:

He is best remembered as one of the most important men in the world, if not the most important, in saving Europe from Nazism.

Stalin had much more of a hand in saving Europe from Nazism, and lost a hell of a lot more too. America finished it for them, main things the Brits did was win the battle of Britain, (which in fairness was a great achievement) and the glorious evacuation of Dunkirk. Not much else, they played their part in D - Day for sure, but Russia won the eastern front first and truly turned the tide.

Junkyard Tom

Britain appeased Germany for tactical reasons before WWII. There were multiple opportunities for the future allies to make life difficult for the rise of the Nazis but a rearmed Germany was viewed as a sort of bulwark against the Reds further east.

Churchill even wanted to team up with what remained of the Nazi regime after their defeat to go conquer Russia. WWII was never about freeing small nations or liberating concentration camps for Churchill.

It's really quite bizarre to read the teeth gnashing over Sean Russell, by colonialism fetishists, while they wilfully ignore Britain's presiding over some of history's most shameful episodes.

_blaaz

janfebmar wrote: »

I did not say the rifles were "antiques", but it is well know that rifle technology was advancing at the time and the German dealers wanted to get rid of some stuff that was superseded, but still perfectly ok for terrorist / guerilla warfare type operations, call it what you want.

Except.it was same stuff used in trenches at the time,why are you lying??

now, any evidence that the leaders of 1916 imported "Artillery", as was claimed on this thread?

I never claimed this,so what difference it make to.me?

janfebmar wrote: »

citytillidie wrote: »

Indians now in Britain might find it offensive to have a statue of Churchill for what happened in India or is that not in your history books too

Actually the Indians I know in the UK are very enterprising and hard working, and believe in democracy, which is why they moved to England, and one I know in particular praises Churchill for his role in saving the UK in WW2.

It's only really Ireland that has this view of Churchill,the US named a war ship in his honour which is an example of the esteem he is held by those countries who recognize his contribution to the defence of Europe alongside the allies.

RobMc59 wrote: »

It's only really Ireland that has this view of Churchill,the US named a war ship in his honour which is an example of the esteem he is held by those countries who recognize his contribution to the defence of Europe alongside the allies.

ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesl.../#151a5a144dbe American I believe

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767 British I believe

https://www.channel4.com/news/winsto...esses-failures British too, I believe

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html Indian view in a British newspaper (Obviously for the more discerning consumer of historical data)

steddyeddy

RobMc59 wrote: »

It's only really Ireland that has this view of Churchill,the US named a war ship in his honour which is an example of the esteem he is held by those countries who recognize his contribution to the defence of Europe alongside the allies.

Indians seem to hate Churchill and with good reason it seems. The British secretary of state, Leo Amery, said of Churchill:

On the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane... I didn't see much difference between his outlook and Hitler's

Which again isn't surprising as Churchill told Amery:

I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesl.../#151a5a144dbe American I believe

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767 British I believe

https://www.channel4.com/news/winsto...esses-failures British too, I believe

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html Indian view in a British newspaper (Obviously for the more discerning consumer of historical data)

Churchill had his flaws as Jan rightly pointed out ,nobody has ever said he was a saint... but name me a great world leader who was perfect?Roosevelt and Stalin had their faults-without these three leaders the world would be a very different place for the worse imo.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indians seem to hate Churchill and with good reason it seems. The British secretary of state, Leo Amery, said of Churchill:

Which again isn't surprising as Churchill told Amery:

It really does show a certain level of arrogance and ignorance of your own history to vote for this particular man as your 'Greatest' as Britain really did.

It is small wonder that a country cannot find a political class smart enough to keep them out of constant chaos.

steddyeddy

RobMc59 wrote: »

Churchill had his flaws as Jan rightly pointed out ,nobody has ever said he was a saint... but name me a great world leader who was perfect?Roosevelt and Stalin had their faults-without these three leaders the world would be a very different place for the worse imo.

Yes people with drive like that had faults but I don't by the "man of his time" label.

RobMc59 wrote: »

Churchill had his flaws as Jan rightly pointed out ,nobody has ever said he was a saint... but name me a great world leader who was perfect?Roosevelt and Stalin had their faults-without these three leaders the world would be a very different place for the worse imo.

And the point was, (way back in the dim past, before jan's Irish bad crusade and blanch's deflections) - Russell's statue does not honour his opportunistic dalliance with the Nazi's but rather, his entire contribution to the republican cause.
If you wish to take his down because of an act that had no effect whatsoever on anything, then you need to get started on a whole more destruction of effigies of men whose acts had massive negative effects on people.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indians seem to hate Churchill and with good reason it seems. The British secretary of state, Leo Amery, said of Churchill:

Which again isn't surprising as Churchill told Amery:

Over a million Indian soldiers fought in WW1 and two and a half million fought in WW2 .The British said they could`nt have got through WW1 and WW2 without the Indian army, India is a member of the commonwealth(perhaps Ireland will shallow it`s pride and join in the future?)-so to imply there is bad feeling between Britain and India is more pathetic extremist republican propaganda

RobMc59 wrote: »

Over a million Indian soldiers fought in WW1 and two and a half million fought in WW2 .The British said they could`nt have got through WW1 and WW2 without the Indian army, India is a member of the commonwealth(perhaps Ireland will shallow it`s pride and join in the future?)-so to imply there is bad feeling between Britain and India is more pathetic extremist republican propaganda

Oh god. Dig up Rob/jan/Fran/downcow. whoever you are right now.

Or even stop digging.

https://carnegieindia.org/2018/04/11/india-and-commonwealth-redirecting-relationship-pub-76054

RobMc59 wrote: »

Over a million Indian soldiers fought in WW1 and two and a half million fought in WW2 .The British said they could`nt have got through WW1 and WW2 without the Indian army, India is a member of the commonwealth(perhaps Ireland will shallow it`s pride and join in the future?)-so to imply there is bad feeling between Britain and India is more pathetic extremist republican propaganda

'Tis Britain trying to woo India to take the Commonwealth seriously Rob. Not the other way around. It served it's purpose for them. Come out of the bubble.

However, in recent years, India’s political leaders have not attended its summits, either for want of time or out of deliberate avoidance. This absence has not gone unnoticed among those who watch the Indo-Commonwealth relationship’s potential for serving India’s long-term strategic goals. Despite India’s institutionalized ties with the Commonwealth since independence, has the organization mattered to the country’s vital security and development objectives in past decades? Furthermore, when many alternative forums also address the Commonwealth’s values of “democracy, freedom, peace, the rule of law and opportunity for all,” what is the importance of the organization today to a rising international power like India? Equally important is the present task of regularizing the kind of close engagement India brought in, particularly during the years 2008 through 2016, when Indian diplomat Kamalesh Sharma served as the Commonwealth secretary general.

On a visit to India in November 2017, Prince Charles extended an invitation on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II, the organization’s head, to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) to be held later this month in London. According to commentators, the United Kingdom wants to use the conference to reboot the Commonwealth, given the uncertainty caused by its decision to quit the European Union. Because India is an important contributor to the Commonwealth as well as a rising power, the United Kingdom likely hopes that it will be a valuable partner. Modi has signaled that he may attend the meeting. If true, this would increase India’s current diplomatic visibility. The Commonwealth has much to gain from India’s engagement as well.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the point was, (way back in the dim past, before jan's Irish bad crusade and blanch's deflections) - Russell's statue does not honour his opportunistic dalliance with the Nazi's but rather, his entire contribution to the republican cause.
If you wish to take his down because of an act that had no effect whatsoever on anything, then you need to get started on a whole more destruction of effigies of men whose acts had massive negative effects on people.

All I know about Sean Russell is he was an ira leader who lorded over 300 ira bombs in Britain during WW2 and who died on a u boat RETURNING to Ireland(which possibly indicates suspicions of u boats docking/refuelling in Ireland is true),if people choose to look up to him that`s their choice.

_blaaz

RobMc59 wrote: »

It's only really Ireland that has this view of churchill

Have you read or seen any of his correspindance regarding ireland....he also actively planned to invade ireland "for defensive purpose" during ww2

He can take his empire building rubbish elsewhere and fcuk off tbh

To simply say that churchill "had his flaws" is extremely insulting to the indians,kenyans,africa,ireland and the many other countries the british stuck their big noses into,apart from the 1000,s of people he had a hand in murdering.....a scumbag i think would be a more appropriate description