Defacing the Cenotaph and Churchill statue

American_Mary said:
Who knows what would have happened if Churchill had not been Prime Minister, someone else may have taken different actions that meant that millions of lives were saved, whilst not degenerating Churchill’s influence the idea that he was solely responsible for the outcome of the war overlooks so many significant other factors, Hitler’s racial prejudice was against the Jewish race, in 1940 the Jewish population of Britain was around 375k at present there are around 280k Jews in the UK, the mass immigration of none whites from the British colonies didn’t start until the 1950’s.
Click to expand...

I am not saying he was SOLELY responsible for the outcome of the war, obviously Russia and the USA were key to that. I am saying that if Churchill had not been there we would have lost the war because Russia and the USA would not have won on their own. In fact Russia would probably have lost when Hitler turned on them because Nazi Germany would no longer have been fighting in the west and all resources would have been concentrated in the east.

If we had lost the war Hitler would have installed a puppet PM, probably Mosely, who would have fully complied with the murder of not only Britain’s Jewish population but also gypsies, the disabled, gay people and anyone different in any way and probably anyone who stood against Hitler and his ideology - just as he did with anyone who stood up to him in Germany.

Obviously Mosely would also never have tolerated mass immigration into Britain in the 50s and 60s - so many of the people who exercised their democratic right and freedom to protest and demonstrate yesterday would not even exist.
 
Foggysfplandiet3 said:
I am saying that if Churchill had not been there we would have lost the war because Russia and the USA would not have won on their own.
Click to expand...
Surely that makes the assumption that whoever would have been PM instead of Churchill wouldn't have been competent, which is just a hypothesis. The reality is we don't know, it might have made zero difference, or in fact have been helpful to have someone else. The only known is that with Churchill, we won.

Lets not forget that this apparent infallible leader, cannot have been adored by the people of his time, because he was roundly thrashed in the election of 1945, just months after peace broke out in Europe. In fact it was a 20% point turnaround, with Churchills tories losing 189 seats and Attlee's labour gaining 239 seats. That is pretty damning quantitative evidence of the people's views of Churchill at the end of the war. Without the lens of historical nationalist pride.
 
I often pondered over his peacetime failure and will read up on it I think . Certainly born to lead during the war but that old saying is teasing . Won the war and lost the peace !
 
BoroMart said:
Surely that makes the assumption that whoever would have been PM instead of Churchill wouldn't have been competent, which is just a hypothesis. The reality is we don't know, it might have made zero difference, or in fact have been helpful to have someone else. The only known is that with Churchill, we won.

Lets not forget that this apparent infallible leader, cannot have been adored by the people of his time, because he was roundly thrashed in the election of 1945, just months after peace broke out in Europe. In fact it was a 20% point turnaround, with Churchills tories losing 189 seats and Attlee's labour gaining 239 seats. That is pretty damning quantitative evidence of the people's views of Churchill at the end of the war. Without the lens of historical nationalist pride.
Click to expand...

But the 1945 election wasn't a comment on Churchill's leadership! It was a comment on what people wanted in the future. The people wanted the changes that Attlee promised; an NHS, free education, dental care, eye care, new houses, public ownership of key industries, you know the rest. People still adored Churchill and were massively appreciative of what he had done for this country in WW2 but they wanted socialism and all that it brought after 6 years of war.

And don't forget - Churchill was re-elected in 1951.
 
Foggysfplandiet3 said:
But the 1945 election wasn't a comment on Churchill's leadership! It was a comment on what people wanted in the future. The people wanted the changes that Attlee promised; an NHS, free education, dental care, eye care, new houses, public ownership of key industries, you know the rest. People still adored Churchill and were massively appreciative of what he had done for this country in WW2 but they wanted socialism and all that it brought after 6 years of war.

And don't forget - Churchill was re-elected in 1951.
Click to expand...
I understand Churchill was staunch conservative thus Defo gonna read up on this
 
Borobarmy said:
I understand Churchill was staunch conservative thus Defo gonna read up on this
Click to expand...
Not exactly

“I am an English Liberal. I hate the Tory Party, their men, their words and their methods.” So said Winston Churchill in 1903.

As a Liberal, Winston Churchill held high government office and, along with Lloyd George, was regarded as one of the driving forces of Asquith’s reforming administration.

His views certainly changed as he got older but he wasn’t a staunch conservative.
 
Last edited:
Foggysfplandiet3 said:
But the 1945 election wasn't a comment on Churchill's leadership! It was a comment on what people wanted in the future. The people wanted the changes that Attlee promised; an NHS, free education, dental care, eye care, new houses, public ownership of key industries, you know the rest. People still adored Churchill and were massively appreciative of what he had done for this country in WW2 but they wanted socialism and all that it brought after 6 years of war.

And don't forget - Churchill was re-elected in 1951.
Click to expand...

The Labour Party's 1945 campaign effectively drew on the electorate's memory of the 1930's which was an austere decade with mass unemployment and poor housing conditions. Churchill was a great statesman but wasn't effective as a domestic politician and didn't empathise with the country when they wanted social change. And yet his approval rating going into that election was over 80%.
 
Don’t forget he was never really the people’s PM he took over early in the war from chamberlain, peacetime is different to war.

but as above he did win the election in 1951 and was given a state funeral as well.

some of the scenes in London have been shameful ( Peaceful protest aside).
 
Borobarmy said:
You’re right we’ll never know but Hitler only ‘started’ on the Jews and was after the gypsies next ( already began ) and wasn’t sympathetic to the disabled . Where would he have stopped and whittled it down to showpiece Arian’s ?
Click to expand...

He started on the disabled and the gypsies before the Jews, the first bout of gassings was on disabled Germans and Austrians as part of the T4 program which started in early 1939, the Roma genocide which was the Nazi’s first wave of ethnic cleansing began later in Autumn 1939 and the Holocaust and mass extermination of the Jews began in 1941. A program of selective breeding and eugenics rather than further racial pogroms was the cornerstone of his desire for an Aryan race, all of which is absolutely abhorrent to me, but it’s worth understanding policy and the behaviour of their occupying armies when considering what might have happened had things turned out differently.
 
American_Mary said:
He spent time as a Member of the Liberal Party for 20 years and his first ministerial posts were as part of Asquith’s government in 1908.
Click to expand...
Cheers for that illustration of those events . Blimey he started on the Austrians and he was an Austrian himself !
 
Borobarmy said:
Cheers for that illustration of those events . Blimey he started on the Austrians and he was an Austrian himself !
Click to expand...

No problems, it’s an horrific period of history but one that I think try to understand and contextualise is very important, the very first victims were Polish asylum inmates but they then concentrated on asylum inmates and the severely disabled in Germany and Austria, they would reroute their exhaust system on wagons, disguised in some cases as ambulances, and gas the passengers in the back, claiming they were taken them for a trip to the country or to the hospital for a routine check up.

We have massacres like Babi Yar, Odessa and Operation Harvest Festival that a lot of people are unaware of but highlight the absolute cold brutality of the Nazi regime and the willingness of some of those from occupied territories, not just to accept Nazism, but to fanatically support it in blood and terror, as much as we might like to think the UK would have been different the likelihood is we’d have been exactly the same.
 
all those soldiers who gave their lives for our freedom to fight fascism and genocide. they fought the good fight and payed the ultimate price. they certainly didn’t do it to protect statues of racists or to stop pieces of stone being painted on.. get a grip. respect their lives by fighting against fascism and against racism. help in anyway you can x
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top