Page 27 of 45 FirstFirst ...
17
25
26
27
28
29
37
... LastLast
  1. #521
    Legendary! Thekri's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    6,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Fincayra View Post
    That's why I don't think they should be on display. Clearly people who were involved in the slave trade shouldn't have statues in the town square honoring them.
    I think it is totally appropriate to display them in a museum. However unpleasant, both sides of the Civil Rights movement are part of our history. The lynchings and beatings are forever part of the story of the marching and speeches. It is uncomfortable, it is embarrassing, but it is true. The fact that places still have statues of Nathan Bedford Forrest in their parks in 2020 is something that is noteworthy, and worth remembering. It is worth remembering Forrest himself, and all the horrible things he did. The slave-trading, POW slaughtering, KKK forming, Terrorist son of a bitch is part of American History, and forgetting him does a disservice to our understanding of history.

    But outdoor public display is seen as an honor to that persons memory. It is making a positive statement about that persons impact on history. We don't need the sun to shine on that shit, put it in a museum and surround it with the context of his behavior.

  2. #522
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    https://www.census.gov/library/publi...o/p60-267.html

    In 2018, 85.1 percent of full-time, year-round workers and 68.5 percent of people who worked less than full-time, year-round had private coverage.


    24.7 percent of people in households with incomes below $25,000, the lowest income category, had private coverage in 2018
    47.9 percent of people in households with household income of $25,000 to $49,999, had private coverage in 2018.
    65.9 percent of people in households with household income of $50,00 to $74,999, had private coverage in 2018.


    a substantial amount of those people who are getting the 600 dollars had to replace the private coverage they had. This does not include public coverage (Medicaid) since most of that is cost free.

    From a poverty tracking:

    Total, poverty universe = 67.3% had private coverage.

    Below 100 percent of  poverty 22%
    Below 138 percent of  poverty 24.7%
    Between 100 to 199  percent of poverty 41.6%
    What does this indicate? You've not indicated the worth of the benefit...typically there are benefits but they are 1)a large portion of the salary 2)not very robust, with still high payments

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...s-cost-voxcare

    Half of all Americans get their health insurance through work. Trouble is, doing so is becoming less and less affordable — especially for already low-wage workers.

    In 2019, the Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits Survey — an annual account of roughly 2,000 small and large businesses’ employer-sponsored insurance — found the average annual premium to cover a family through work was a whopping $20,576, and $7,188 for an individual. Employers cover most of that, but families still contributed an average of $6,015 in premiums, and single Americans covered about $1,242 of the annual cost.

    The kicker? Over the past 10 years, the cost of the portion of employer-sponsored health insurance premiums that falls on American families has increased by 71 percent. Overall, premiums have gone up 54 percent since 2009. That’s faster than the rate of inflation and faster than the average wage growth.

    Nearly half of all Americans get their health insurance through work, a system that covers roughly 153 million people. And for lower-wage workers it’s a system that is increasingly unaffordable.

    Workers at companies with a significant number of low-wage employees (which the Kaiser Family survey quantifies as a company in which at least 35 percent of employees are making an annual salary of $25,000 or less) have lower premiums than those who work at companies with fewer low-wage workers, probably because their plans cover less. But at the same time, workers at firms with a significant number of low-wage employees are faced with high-deductible plans, and also pay a larger share of the premium cost than workers at companies with fewer lower-wage employees.

    According to the survey, workers at lower-wage companies pay an average of $7,000 a year family plan — $1,000 more than employees at companies with higher salaried workers.

    “When workers making $25,000 a year have to shell out $7,000 a year just for their share of family premiums,” Drew Altman, the president of Kaiser Family Foundation, said in a statement, that’s where cost becomes prohibitive. Such employees are putting almost 30 percent of their salaries toward premiums.

    The takeaway is clear. Health care is getting more and more expensive, and families and employers are having to bear more of the cost, which research has shown not only has an effect on how much workers are actually getting paid, but how many workers are hired.
    I noted that they do not have substantial benefits having benefits, and having benefits worth a damn are two totally different things.

  3. #523
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    28,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Yadryonych View Post
    Why don't ask Britons? Oh wait they have already been asked

    People vote for shitty people, anything else is new? Not even a mention of Alan Turing?

  4. #524
    Quote Originally Posted by Yadryonych View Post
    Why don't ask Britons? Oh wait they have already been asked
    Nothing like decades of conservative hagiography to fix a vote.

    Of course he wouldn't have made it through WW2 without Clement Attlee as deputy PM who oversaw all domestic affairs during the war. Attlee became PM after the war and established the NHS in 1948. The NHS being the favourite government function amongst all Britons.

  5. #525
    Legendary! Thekri's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    6,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Yadryonych View Post
    Why don't ask Britons? Oh wait they have already been asked
    Of course they did. Part of the story of Winston Churchill is understanding the image of Churchill. He was charismatic, funny, and stubborn. He was a person they looked too when the times were desperate, and he was there for them. Churchill built an image of himself as the icon of British resilience, and it wasn't total bullshit. People were more then willing to overlook his incompetence because he projected strength.

    The US was more than willing to play along, even as Churchill's international political capital evaporated. He was an extremely useful propaganda tool, but an incompetent fool. The UK military was an absolutely pathetic mess for the entire war, not at the tactical level, where their soldiers were just as brave and resourceful as any other nation, but the upper ranks were infested with the sort of arrogant, incompetent, hereditary fools that defined Britains caste system. Even ignoring his insanely bad moral record, which I posted before, he had an absolutely pathetic track record in the war.

    A couple things to consider about Churchills "Brilliant" Leadership:
    The Fall of France- I know this one mostly falls on the French, who had similar systemic failings, but come on, the British Army there was pathetic. They had all the advantages and they lost to a numerically inferior force they knew was coming. Churchill's genius here was managing to spin Dunkirk as a victory. I am not misusing the term there, that does take a special kind of genius to make Dunkirk sound like a victory because some of you survived.

    The Fall of Norway- This one is even worse. Look at a map. Tell me how the most powerful navy in the world lost Norway to the Germans... The answer is directly tied to political incompetence by Churchill, who was obsessed with holding the navy in reserve for a decisive engagement with a German fleet that didn't exist (The same strategy he used in WWI, but with even more disaster). During this clusterfuck, the Royal Navy managed to lose a large aircraft carrier to a pair of battleships. The HMS Glorious was just sailing along, with no real escort and no fucking idea what was going on, and bumped into the only two German Battleships in the North Sea, which were also completely unnoticed and unmolested.

    North Africa- Like all of it. How the hell did the Royal Navy not control the Mediterranean when they controlled 3/4s of its shoreline, either directly or by alliance? They had a massive fleet, no real opposition by the Italian Navy, and the French navy was never used against them. Once again, Churchill managed to spin the disastrous attempts to resupply Malta as a victory, while Rommel was resupplying with absolute impunity. Once again, a fundamental problem was Churchills unwillingness to actually commit his fleets to supporting his armies. He let thousands die, to preserve Britain's fleet, which he viewed as critical to preserving the post-war empire (Which didn't exist, because Britain was never going to make the rules again, thanks to Churchill).

    I could go on. The whole war was a repeat of the same. Over time, Americans increasingly sidelined Churchill and Montgomery, cutting them out of key decisions. Their operations were inherently political, with no significant insight into strategic reality. Operation Market Garden is a perfect example.

    Once again, Churchill, the charismatic master orator and charmer, spun all this as proof of his greatness. The man almost singlehandedly destroyed the British Empire, made the Royal Navy an irrelevant joke (Instead of the most powerful force on the planet, which it was when Churchill got control of it, and had been for 4 centuries), and turned the UK into a satellite of its former colony. He is basically the opposite of Thatcher. Who was an unlikeable bitch that got shit done.

  6. #526
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    Slippery slope has actually been pretty accurate in recent times. "Lol.. what will they do next? Tear down Thomas Jefferson or George Washington?" And look. They are trying to do that now.
    Wisconsin has gone full radical in extremist; Demonstrators on Tuesday night toppled two statues outside of the state's Capitol, one depicting the fictional "Lady Forward" and another targeting anti-slavery activist Hans Christian Heg. Photos showed the Heg statue removed from its base and dumped in a nearby body of water.

    State Sen. Tim Carpenter (D) said that he was assaulted by protesters and "kicked in the head" Tuesday night as he filmed demonstrators outside of the state Capitol. He tweeted that he was "Punched/kicked in the head, neck, ribs. Maybe concussion, socked in left eye is little blurry, sore neck & ribs. 8-10 people attacked me."

    -----

    Violence for violence sake...wtg.

  7. #527
    I'm not sure if it's been discussed in this shitshow of a thread, but in Wisconsin they tore down a statue of a white Union abolitionist who died trying to end slavery.

    https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...ow/3248692001/

    Heg migrated to Waukesha County in Wisconsin from Norway in 1840. After two years in California during the Gold Rush of 1849, he returned to Wisconsin to care for his younger siblings and manage the family farm.

    Heg soon entered local politics and joined the Free Soil Party, which was centered around opposing the expansion of slavery into the western United States.

    He was also a leader of Wisconsin's Wide Awakes, an anti-slave catcher militia.

    In 1859, Heg used his position as state prison commissioner to advocate for vocational training rather than the punishment of prisoners.

    Heg was appointed colonel of the 15th Wisconsin Infantry — a group consisting mostly of recent immigrants from Scandinavia — in the fall of 1861. He trained at Camp Randall in December and left for the South on March 2, 1862.

    He defeated a number of Confederate armies in battles in Kentucky and Tennessee. On Dec. 30, 1862, Heg lost more than 100 men and had his horse shot out from under him. His general later called him "the bravest of the brave," according to the Wisconsin Historical Society.

    Heg's brigade chased a retreating Confederate army to Chickamauga, Georgia, on Sept. 19, 1863.

    Outnumbered, Heg was leading a charge in front of his troops when he was shot in the abdomen. He died the next morning.

    A triangular pyramid monument of 8-inch shells stacked 10 feet high marks the spot where Heg was mortally wounded, according to the National Park Service.


    Absolutely no reason or defense for tearing down this statue at all.

  8. #528
    Legendary! Thekri's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    6,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Stelio Kontos View Post
    I'm not sure if it's been discussed in this shitshow of a thread, but in Wisconsin they tore down a statue of a white Union abolitionist who died trying to end slavery.

    https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...ow/3248692001/

    Heg migrated to Waukesha County in Wisconsin from Norway in 1840. After two years in California during the Gold Rush of 1849, he returned to Wisconsin to care for his younger siblings and manage the family farm.

    Heg soon entered local politics and joined the Free Soil Party, which was centered around opposing the expansion of slavery into the western United States.

    He was also a leader of Wisconsin's Wide Awakes, an anti-slave catcher militia.

    In 1859, Heg used his position as state prison commissioner to advocate for vocational training rather than the punishment of prisoners.

    Heg was appointed colonel of the 15th Wisconsin Infantry — a group consisting mostly of recent immigrants from Scandinavia — in the fall of 1861. He trained at Camp Randall in December and left for the South on March 2, 1862.

    He defeated a number of Confederate armies in battles in Kentucky and Tennessee. On Dec. 30, 1862, Heg lost more than 100 men and had his horse shot out from under him. His general later called him "the bravest of the brave," according to the Wisconsin Historical Society.

    Heg's brigade chased a retreating Confederate army to Chickamauga, Georgia, on Sept. 19, 1863.

    Outnumbered, Heg was leading a charge in front of his troops when he was shot in the abdomen. He died the next morning.

    A triangular pyramid monument of 8-inch shells stacked 10 feet high marks the spot where Heg was mortally wounded, according to the National Park Service.


    Absolutely no reason or defense for tearing down this statue at all.
    Yeah, I am really confused about that as well. They apparently beat up a State Senator in the process, as Shadowferal posted. I am really not sure who is doing this, is it people just tearing down statues assuming they all must be bad? Or is it White supremacists making a statement? I am really confused as to what is going on here.

    Mob mentalities are bad. I get destroying monuments as a form of protest. I don't agree with it, but I get it. But the random violence and destruction is counterproductive and weird. I am curious to learn more about this incident.

  9. #529
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    Of course they did. Part of the story of Winston Churchill is understanding the image of Churchill. He was charismatic, funny, and stubborn. He was a person they looked too when the times were desperate, and he was there for them. Churchill built an image of himself as the icon of British resilience, and it wasn't total bullshit. People were more then willing to overlook his incompetence because he projected strength.

    The US was more than willing to play along, even as Churchill's international political capital evaporated. He was an extremely useful propaganda tool, but an incompetent fool. The UK military was an absolutely pathetic mess for the entire war, not at the tactical level, where their soldiers were just as brave and resourceful as any other nation, but the upper ranks were infested with the sort of arrogant, incompetent, hereditary fools that defined Britains caste system. Even ignoring his insanely bad moral record, which I posted before, he had an absolutely pathetic track record in the war.

    A couple things to consider about Churchills "Brilliant" Leadership:
    The Fall of France- I know this one mostly falls on the French, who had similar systemic failings, but come on, the British Army there was pathetic. They had all the advantages and they lost to a numerically inferior force they knew was coming. Churchill's genius here was managing to spin Dunkirk as a victory. I am not misusing the term there, that does take a special kind of genius to make Dunkirk sound like a victory because some of you survived.

    The Fall of Norway- This one is even worse. Look at a map. Tell me how the most powerful navy in the world lost Norway to the Germans... The answer is directly tied to political incompetence by Churchill, who was obsessed with holding the navy in reserve for a decisive engagement with a German fleet that didn't exist (The same strategy he used in WWI, but with even more disaster). During this clusterfuck, the Royal Navy managed to lose a large aircraft carrier to a pair of battleships. The HMS Glorious was just sailing along, with no real escort and no fucking idea what was going on, and bumped into the only two German Battleships in the North Sea, which were also completely unnoticed and unmolested.

    North Africa- Like all of it. How the hell did the Royal Navy not control the Mediterranean when they controlled 3/4s of its shoreline, either directly or by alliance? They had a massive fleet, no real opposition by the Italian Navy, and the French navy was never used against them. Once again, Churchill managed to spin the disastrous attempts to resupply Malta as a victory, while Rommel was resupplying with absolute impunity. Once again, a fundamental problem was Churchills unwillingness to actually commit his fleets to supporting his armies. He let thousands die, to preserve Britain's fleet, which he viewed as critical to preserving the post-war empire (Which didn't exist, because Britain was never going to make the rules again, thanks to Churchill).
    Some simple reasons. 1 Britian didnt have infinite amount of fuel needing to import it from elsewhere. 2 air superoirity of the german luftwaffe in denmark and siciliy prevented the royal navy from doing anything. And do not unestimate the importance of Dunkirk. If the BEF in dunkirk was lost britian would have lost its best trained and most experienced soldiers and NCO´s and would have been crippeld for the rest of the war.

  10. #530
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    Honestly, who the fuck cares about some irrelevant shit like that. He helped unite the world against the Nazi's. There would literally be no one in history that is "okay" according to these far left rioters. Get over it that some people didn't live up to your 2020 standards while sitting in your basement on a computer getting fat on cheetos. Privileged ass people that look down on people in a different time and culture. It's honestly incredibly aggravating.

    It's real easy to just sit there on your computer and complain about heroes in the past that weren't perfect or made mistakes while ignoring the great achievements and strides they made for humandkind.
    So fuck 2-3 million people dying of starvation and other related deaths due to Churchill's actions as leader? You seriously going to say that or is it because they are brown skinned Indian people then who the fuck cares about them? There is no trying to hold somebody to a 2020 standard here because mainly his actions as leader and "scorching" the land in India up to 3 million innocent men, women, and children died. That is monstrously reprehensible in any fucking age of history. You can't just whitewash that away that is on Churchill.

  11. #531
    Legendary! Thekri's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    6,167
    Quote Originally Posted by DKjaigen View Post
    Some simple reasons. 1 Britian didnt have infinite amount of fuel needing to import it from elsewhere. 2 air superoirity of the german luftwaffe in denmark and siciliy prevented the royal navy from doing anything. And do not unestimate the importance of Dunkirk. If the BEF in dunkirk was lost britian would have lost its best trained and most experienced soldiers and NCO´s and would have been crippeld for the rest of the war.
    Not trying to turn this into a WWII thread, the point is more that he was an objective failure at pretty much everything he touched, and always managed to spin it in a way that made himself look good.

    As far as those two cases 1) The UK had fuel problems, but not nearly as bad as Germany did and 2) Yeah, exactly. That air superiority is part of the problem. Churchill consistently refused to use the RAF in anything other than as terror bombing and defensive tool. There is absolutely no reason that the UK could not have forward deployed the RAF and actually contested that air space. You know, like the US did everywhere it went. If the US could create airfields out of nothing in the middle of the pacific, and contest the air within days of landing, there is no reason Britain could not have used the permanent and established airfields across North Africa, Norway and their Mediterranean possessions to contest. But they didn't, and the Germans did. The Germans invaded Crete from the air, they could do that because they were willing to actually use their air forces like a modern nation does. Britain was never willing to do that.

    And I am not underestimating the importance of Dunkirk, but it wasn't a victory, it was a rout. The fact that much of the BEF survived is important, but it was an escape from a fight that was winnable. The Wermacht was not invincible, the British and French armies were riddled with political officers that were shit at fighting a war, and made decisions based on what was good for their personal careers, not what allowed them to win wars. And that is a culture that starts at the top.

    Sorry, rant. The fundamental point that is relevant to this thread is that there are many legitimate reasons why not everyone views Winston Churchill as a national hero. While I do not believe statues of him should be torn down, his historical character really needs to be revisiting with the blinders of wartime propaganda removed.
    Last edited by Thekri; 2020-06-25 at 02:13 AM.

  12. #532
    Banned Yadryonych's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Матушка Россия
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Wisconsin has gone full radical in extremist; Demonstrators on Tuesday night toppled two statues outside of the state's Capitol, one depicting the fictional "Lady Forward" and another targeting anti-slavery activist Hans Christian Heg. Photos showed the Heg statue removed from its base and dumped in a nearby body of water.

    State Sen. Tim Carpenter (D) said that he was assaulted by protesters and "kicked in the head" Tuesday night as he filmed demonstrators outside of the state Capitol. He tweeted that he was "Punched/kicked in the head, neck, ribs. Maybe concussion, socked in left eye is little blurry, sore neck & ribs. 8-10 people attacked me."

    -----

    Violence for violence sake...wtg.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stelio Kontos View Post
    Absolutely no reason or defense for tearing down this statue at all.
    Just like i said, they topple statues not because they actually have anything in mind, but because these are bad whitey.

    - - - Updated - - -
    @Thekri sorry I won't cite your legit criticism of Churchill because it's too long for a quote and I'm not sure if Britons didn't have this all in mind when they erected a statue of him and named him the greatest Briton, but again, people who are willing to topple his statue do so not because they weighted and reconsidered his figure but because he's a bad whitey. Honestly though, people coming from abroad and willing to benefit from nation forged by him and others should cope with his and others' statues some more
    Last edited by Yadryonych; 2020-06-25 at 03:23 AM.

  13. #533
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    What does this indicate? You've not indicated the worth of the benefit...typically there are benefits but they are 1)a large portion of the salary 2)not very robust, with still high payments

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...s-cost-voxcare



    I noted that they do not have substantial benefits having benefits, and having benefits worth a damn are two totally different things.

    in the context of the discussion we were having, it indicates that the 600 dollars was meant to also help people pay for insurance they were losing on top of other benefits. That when you factor this into the equation a lot of people in the bucket of people "making more money by not working" they really are not making more. And if they are a lot of them are making substancially less than the report stated.

    sure the benefits might suck, but they still have to replace the insurance they lost that their employer was picking up part of the cost, they now have to pick up the full cost.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    I noted that they do not have substantial benefits having benefits, and having benefits worth a damn are two totally different things.
    its quite substancial when you get cancer or COVID-19 and end up in the hospital for a few weeks....
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  14. #534
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    in the context of the discussion we were having, it indicates that the 600 dollars was meant to also help people pay for insurance they were losing on top of other benefits. That when you factor this into the equation a lot of people in the bucket of people "making more money by not working" they really are not making more. And if they are a lot of them are making substancially less than the report stated.

    sure the benefits might suck, but they still have to replace the insurance they lost that their employer was picking up part of the cost, they now have to pick up the full cost.



    its quite substancial when you get cancer or COVID-19 and end up in the hospital for a few weeks....
    Is it? Because when my friend had surgery they covered 90%. She had to still pay 12k.

  15. #535
    Banned Yadryonych's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Матушка Россия
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by CommunismWillWin View Post
    Not even a mention of Alan Turing?
    Alan Turing voted 21st. At least now we know what statue must to be topled by a goon swarm so that the idea of statues being toppled is a bad thing gets into your head

  16. #536
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Is it? Because when my friend had surgery they covered 90%. She had to still pay 12k.
    whelp i will one up your specific one related example.

    my mother died of breast cancer that then moved into her lymph nodes and eventually lungs and brain. She survived it once before now had to fight it all over again. She lost but.....

    she had to pay 8k out of her pocket that year.
    She did not have to pay over a million dollars worth of services out of her pocket.



    Insurance is insurance. it sure does not seem worth it with a fender bender, but when your car gets in a huge wreck.....man are you lucky you had it
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  17. #537
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    whelp i will one up your specific one related example.

    my mother died of breast cancer that then moved into her lymph nodes and eventually lungs and brain. She survived it once before now had to fight it all over again. She lost but.....

    she had to pay 8k out of her pocket that year.
    She did not have to pay over a million dollars worth of services out of her pocket.



    Insurance is insurance. it sure does not seem worth it with a fender bender, but when your car gets in a huge wreck.....man are you lucky you had it
    What the fuck is your argument?!!!

    we are talking about people making 47k or less right? consider that these people have barely any money and people who made 25k were spending about 7k a year already on insurance and premiums do you think throwing in another bill helps?

    "hey they only had to pay 8k instead of a million"

    Does it matter when neither is feasible at the time?

    The overwhelming majority of jobs lost were shows in this lower bracket. My friend didn't have to pay 120k, just 12k! In the brackets we are talking about that is 12k on top so we are looking at 19k... on a 25kish salary...

    as I said HAVING BENEFITS DOESN'T MATTER IT IS ABOUT HOW SUBSTANTIAL THOSE BENEFITS ARE many lower income people pay a huge amount for premiums and such, and then another huge amount if someone happens

  18. #538
    Quote Originally Posted by Yadryonych View Post
    Why don't ask Britons? Oh wait they have already been asked

    "Ask those people, he mostly didn't fuck over? What a totally reliable source. Bengali and Anzacs were at those times direct subjects of the british crown, Churchill considered disposeable. Since the political landscape however shifted, when BBC conducted the poll, pretty sure, they weren't asked in the first place.

    Also, the famine of Bengal was heavily censored in concurrent british press, since it completely would have destroyed public image of the government and Churchill.
    Last edited by josykay; 2020-06-25 at 09:42 AM.

  19. #539
    Quote Originally Posted by josykay View Post
    "Ask those people, he mostly didn't fuck over? What a totally reliable source. Bengali and Anzacs were at those times direct subjects of the british crown, Churchill considered desposeable. Since they political landscape however shifted, when BBC conducted the poll, pretty sure, they weren't asked in the first place.

    Also, the famine of Bengal was heavily censored in concurrent british press, since it completely would have destroyed public image of the government and churchull.
    And yet when they speak out now the argument will often be ''why didn't you say anything X years ago'' or ''why are you being PC''.

  20. #540
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    Not trying to turn this into a WWII thread, the point is more that he was an objective failure at pretty much everything he touched, and always managed to spin it in a way that made himself look good.
    Winston Churchill has made mistakes. But a lot of your complaints has nothing to do with mistakes but the fact that Germany was industrially and manpower wise far more powerful than Britain. Against a superior enemy you will lose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    Sorry, rant. The fundamental point that is relevant to this thread is that there are many legitimate reasons why not everyone views Winston Churchill as a national hero. While I do not believe statues of him should be torn down, his historical character really needs to be revisiting with the blinders of wartime propaganda removed.
    This is still the man that kept Britain in the war despite knowing his position was all but hopeless. And this ultimately culminated in the destruction of Nazi Germany.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •