Turns out when you save the world from Hitler, you don't have to be a paragon.
Whenever I say that about Stalin, people get mad at me.
stalin was worse than hitler. caused much more death and misery.
The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
91–100 of 151 posts
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#92> “History,” Churchill himself said, “will judge me kindly, because I intend to write it myself.” He did, penning a multi-volume history of World War Two, and won the Nobel Prize for Literature for his self-serving fictions. One of my favorite conspiracy theories is the idea that Churchill and Roosevelt conspired to allow the attack at Pearl Harbor to occur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledg…
I would not be surprised if that was the case since the US was quite isolationist at the time. It would take quite a bit to get the population's buy-in for a war. A direct attack seems to be like a needed pretext.
Dan Carlin points out (in his current podcast series "Supernova in the East") that while the US was largely against going to war, it supported the sanctions against Japan (due to their behavior in China). Those sanctions are why Japan went to war.
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#93FWIW, the (in)famous “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas” quote was in reference to tear gas. Ultimately banned for use in warfare by international treaty, but still commonly used today in civilian matters. https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/churchills-1919-war-...
More than "for what it's worth", that's an important difference. The full quote puts a very different spin on Churchill's position. The article: "When some British officials objected to his proposal for “the use of gas against natives,” he found their objections “unreasonable.” In fact he argued that poison gas was more humane than outright extermination: “The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life shou…
If the use of gas is so reasonable, one wonders why he only supports using it against "uncivilized tribes".
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#94While we're Churchill-bashing, let's not forget his legacy as First Lord of the Admiralty. He had the bright idea to force the Dardanelles by landing at Gallipoli. Utterly futile, terrible loss of life, particularly among the ANZAC corps, no military gain.
I believe his original plan was to force the passage using naval firepower; the landings were a compromise with the Navy, who didn't want to lose all their old battleships.
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#95I guess beating up on Churchill is the latest in the "Let's oversimplify history and find some new villains" game.
Fair enough. Times change.
A related article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/14/winsto...
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is perhaps most apparent with the Romani, who were targeted for extermination by the Nazis and are still hated today by a great many Europeans. It's always surprising to me how many Europeans chime in whenever this point is raised with "Well actually..." defenses for why their prejudice against Romani is justified.
This is from the Guardian, not some right wing newspaper: "Most recently, postal workers said they were so frightened delivering in Eastwood after being mugged for their parcels that they no longer went out alone. “They are terrified because of the level of intimidation,’” said Champion. She went out on a round with two postal workers: “If I wasn’t with two post people, I would have been running away. I was really sh…
Is it the chicken or the egg, though?
Do they behave this way because they are inherently inferior or because they have been marginalized by society for hundreds of years?
I truly believe that being rejected by society leads to antisocial behaviour. It doesn't excuse it, but it does explain some of it.
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What about the benefit of actual living quarters for the tenants? Would you argue that patents and copyright should last infinitely long because the world is richer forever due to the one solitary act of the inventor? Landlords hold a monopoly over the land they own as much as copyright holders own a monopoly on the IP they own. I think it's quite reasonable to ask if that monopoly deserves to be forever. I agree w…
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're advocating for the landlord to lose ownership of their property? If so, question of my own. The landlord worked and spent resources (time, money) to increase his assets (develop the property). You, at your job, worked and spent resources (time, etc.) to increase your assets (e.g. size of your bank account). Do you think you should have indefinite ownership of your bank accou…
A key idea here is the distinction between what many consider to be personal property (one's toothbrush and probably bank account and house) and private property, which is used to the ends of profit or production otherwise, in older terms, production of surplus value. Land is an interesting case that cannot be compared to bank accounts also because it's a finite natural resource, in some sense still only given only by permission of the state, which represents the people (or it is supposed to do so anyway).
From Proudhon's What Is Property? (1840):
>Let us complete the argument of M. Ch. Comte. A man who should be prohibited from walking in the highways, from resting in the fields, from taking shelter in caves, from lighting fires, from picking berries, from gathering herbs and boiling them in a bit of baked clay, — such a man could not live. Consequently the earth — like water, air, and light — is a primary object of necessity which each has a right to use freely, without infringing another’s right. Why, then, is the earth appropriated?
>Water, air, and light are common things, not because they are inexhaustible, but because they are indispensable; and so indispensable that for that very reason Nature has created them in quantities almost infinite, in order that their plentifulness might prevent their appropriation. Likewise the land is indispensable to our existence, — consequently a common thing, consequently insusceptible of appropriation; but land is much scarcer than the other elements, therefore its use must be regulated, not for the profit of a few, but in the interest and for the security of all. In a word, equality of rights is proved by equality of needs. Now, equality of rights, in the case of a commodity which is limited in amount, can be realized only by equality of possession.
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#98While we're Churchill-bashing, let's not forget his legacy as First Lord of the Admiralty. He had the bright idea to force the Dardanelles by landing at Gallipoli. Utterly futile, terrible loss of life, particularly among the ANZAC corps, no military gain.
I believe his original plan was to force the passage using naval firepower; the landings were a compromise with the Navy, who didn't want to lose all their old battleships.
Not clear on how the original plan would have been better? If I recall correctly it was tried and abandoned because the passage was heavily mined.
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
More than "for what it's worth", that's an important difference. The full quote puts a very different spin on Churchill's position. The article: "When some British officials objected to his proposal for “the use of gas against natives,” he found their objections “unreasonable.” In fact he argued that poison gas was more humane than outright extermination: “The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life shou…
If the use of gas is so reasonable, one wonders why he only supports using it against "uncivilized tribes".
I wonder, ethically/morally, is that better or worse than using it on your own people?
Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
More than "for what it's worth", that's an important difference. The full quote puts a very different spin on Churchill's position. The article: "When some British officials objected to his proposal for “the use of gas against natives,” he found their objections “unreasonable.” In fact he argued that poison gas was more humane than outright extermination: “The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life shou…
If the use of gas is so reasonable, one wonders why he only supports using it against "uncivilized tribes".
Well to be honest I'm sure Churchill would not have any qualms of using gas against the Irish or the Welsh.