The Anarchy by William Dalrymple throws some light on Clive's life as well.
I found that book a real slog
The Atrocious Robert Clive
11–20 of 38 posts
Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive
#12I am assuming that readers interested in the original post would be interested in India's colonial history in general. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/rethinking-churchill-... Churchill is usually seen in much better light. That light, however, hides many of his atrocities. History is indeed written by the victorious. The author of the articles is Shashi Tharoor, a name that some might recognize. Part 2 is her…
People often forget that a lot of people in the UK disliked Churchill - my father was in the RAF during WW2 and he hated him. Churchill was removed from office by a general election right after the end of the war - though he was elected again a few years later.
Churchill’s ascendency to PM is an amazing story simply because everyone hated him so much. He had barely any support in parliament at the time, and even after taking over during the war he was still hated.
But had he not taken over it’s likely that most of the Europe would be speaking German today.
Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive
#13I don't understand this piece. its a "humorous" slating of a historical person, but the footnotes talk about some prick from arizona? am I missing some extra context here?
I could only get through half of it. While I wouldn't neccesarily disagree with the "ass" assertion of Clive here, the writer seems to be trying to get a stamp on his, "I'm a nice guy" card, then redeem it later on to get laid. There are plenty of assholes in history. Hell, plenty of celebrated individuals in history are complete assholes if you pull back the right curtain. Pointing out "bad deeds are bad" is kind of... eh, so what? All forms of progress, technological or social, has blood on their hands. Just depends who you think is the hero and what blood you think is sacred and which is sacrificial.
Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
In case anyone else wants a summary of these links, they are criticisms of three historical allegations against Churchill, respectively that he: - Used gas against Iraqis - Exacerbated the Bengal famine - Used anthrax bombs against Nazi Germany I don't believe any of these allegations are made in the preceding comment's link, although it does quote him as being in favour of the option of using gas against Arab native…
Or if you really want to open up a can of worms - the firebombing of Dresden in which (it's suggested) 25,000 people, mostly civilians, died as a result of an attempt to intimidate/frighten the German population. But to take an overview, we should then return to the question of Hiroshima and that second bomb on Nagasaki. How far is one prepared to go to win a war?
It’s always amazing to think in the complete chaos of war there were still rules to follow.
Things like after sinking a ship letting the enemy know where they should come pick up their survivors. Not using hollow point rounds. Banning gas. Etc.
The problem is that in most wars there always seems to be a force of good and a force of evil who is not willing to follow the rules. The Germans, Japanese, Italians, Russians of that time were led by truly evil regimes.
Or maybe this is just our collective 20th century bias. How did Europe see Napoleon for example? How did countries see the actions of other nations during the previous decades?
Back to the point though, it did seem like Britain saw themselves on the side of the light and fought within the rules as much as possible. To fight an evil without becoming evil yourself is quite a challenge for humanity in general.
Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive
#15I am assuming that readers interested in the original post would be interested in India's colonial history in general. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/rethinking-churchill-... Churchill is usually seen in much better light. That light, however, hides many of his atrocities. History is indeed written by the victorious. The author of the articles is Shashi Tharoor, a name that some might recognize. Part 2 is her…
I wonder what the formula is for victories vs atrocities in terms of historical respect and modern acceptance. It seems we have entered into a period of no matter how much good you did, there is a hard red line of unacceptability set in a modern context as to which all historical figures are judged.
If Churchill wasn’t made PM there is a good argument to be made that the Jewish population would have been all but wiped out, and Europe today would be a fascist slave state to Germany. But then would the communist purges in Russia and China not have happened. No Vietnam. Peace for Europe but under brutal authoritarian rule.
Any criticism of Churchill’s historical significance really needs to consider the alternative outcome without him. I don’t think there is anyone who would want to take him out of history having acknowledged this. I think most criticism of him comes from ignorance to history.
But yes, the facts are important and it’s good that everything about history is discussed again and again.
Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive
#16History for Millennials. I’m sure the tone of the article could be used to take down any historical figure the author wished to.
Not a defence of the subject matter, but this kind of rambling writing style about history is poison. I don’t want my history written like a 2020 New York Times article.
Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
People often forget that a lot of people in the UK disliked Churchill - my father was in the RAF during WW2 and he hated him. Churchill was removed from office by a general election right after the end of the war - though he was elected again a few years later.
Churchill’s ascendency to PM is an amazing story simply because everyone hated him so much. He had barely any support in parliament at the time, and even after taking over during the war he was still hated. But had he not taken over it’s likely that most of the Europe would be speaking German today.
Can I get sauce on this? You keep claiming Churchill saved the world from ze Germans, it sounds like a wild claim, where can I read more about this?
Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive
#18The Anarchy by William Dalrymple throws some light on Clive's life as well.
I found that book a real slog
I'm working through it now. It's odd; I'm finding it interesting but at the same time, as you say, a real slog. Not sure why. It seems to hop about a lot and I have real trouble keeping track of who's who.
Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the interests of providing a little balance: - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022064745.h... - https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/did-churchill-cause-t... - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00963402.1987.11...
In case anyone else wants a summary of these links, they are criticisms of three historical allegations against Churchill, respectively that he: - Used gas against Iraqis - Exacerbated the Bengal famine - Used anthrax bombs against Nazi Germany I don't believe any of these allegations are made in the preceding comment's link, although it does quote him as being in favour of the option of using gas against Arab native…
> - Used gas against Iraqis
Proposed the use of tear gas. Didn't carry it out.
> - Exacerbated the Bengal famine
Its more the japanese cutting off the rice supply, However I have some sympathy with exacerbate.
> - Used anthrax bombs against Nazi Germany
No. Planned to use it in retaliation. The Nazis were keen to avoid using chemical weapons because they were aware that the british had a far greater capacity to create and deploy them compared to the Nazis. (well in 1939-42)
There are very real faults we can lay at churchill's career.
1) the bombing campaign. lots of "dehoming" (ie attacking civilians instead of industrial targets)
2) dresden
3) hamburg
4) fucking up Galipoli
Re: The Atrocious Robert Clive
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or if you really want to open up a can of worms - the firebombing of Dresden in which (it's suggested) 25,000 people, mostly civilians, died as a result of an attempt to intimidate/frighten the German population. But to take an overview, we should then return to the question of Hiroshima and that second bomb on Nagasaki. How far is one prepared to go to win a war?
It’s always amazing to think in the complete chaos of war there were still rules to follow. Things like after sinking a ship letting the enemy know where they should come pick up their survivors. Not using hollow point rounds. Banning gas. Etc. The problem is that in most wars there always seems to be a force of good and a force of evil who is not willing to follow the rules. The Germans, Japanese, Italians, Russians…
> Things like after sinking a ship letting the enemy know where they should come pick up their survivors.
This did happen, at least early on, in the Battle of the Atlantic. And some U-boat crews not only stopped to pick up survivors but gave up their own bunks for them. Eventually Dönitz had to order them to stop, on the grounds that it put the sub at risk.
You might also be interested in the Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler incident [1] - sometimes a spark of human decency shines through even when you'd least expect it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown_and_Franz_Stigle...