Winston Churchill

[RUCK4444]

Going off on a tangent here but from VE day this year:

Obviously you'd expect the UK to be more aware of the UK's contribution to a certain extent but that stark a difference in opinion makes me wonder about how WWII is taught in schools. Too much emphasis on the UK's role, not enough on those of other countries?

It's particularly interesting given how the mythology of WWII ("we stood alone", the blitz spirit, Dunkirk, etc.) still seems to play such a big part in national identity and discussion in the UK. It was striking that in the case of both Brexit and the coronavirus there were fairly regular references to WW2, as if this was the prism through which all national struggles are viewed.

Maybe being taught a less insular view of WWII history would puncture some of that, while still allowing the UK to take pride in how sucessfully it fought alongside other countries. Or maybe I'm wrong and that's what is already taught in UK history lessons.

Ironically this post sort of helps prove the massive importance Churchill had in the war as a whole.

If the old fecker signs that agreement to let Hitler and the Germans carry on their merry slaughter of Europe and Britain turn a blind eye then Germany win. No doubt about that.

The US backed the UK. You take those two players out of the war and it would have been a landslide victory for Germany across Europe.

If the Russians went head to head with Germany without the same combined effect of Uk and USA the death toll would have been even more horrendous for them.

Single biggest decision of WW11. Love or hate the man.

EDIT: Not to mention that I feel those figures are skewed massively by the fact that Britain is the most hated nation in most parts of the world, many would prefer to pat America on the back rather than the Brits.
PS I feel offended by that actually, I’m going to look for a statue to take down to make me feel better

 

[Posh Red]

Yes exactly, I’ve been labelled a racist for pointing out these very comparisons. Mental.

Especially agree with your last sentence in bold, this is where the focus should be going forward.

It’s a shame this whole statue situation is detracting from the real momentum this movement was gaining. The leaders of the movement, if there are any, should steer it back on course and push the education Issue.

It’s not really detracting though is it? People are still talking about BLM. It’s only a distraction if you’re looking for one as far as I can see.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I hope this isn't a hint at the Dunkirk abandonment causing French capitulation myth because that is nonsense.

France was not invaded until 10 May 1940. It capitulated 25th June. I guess that is where the 7 weeks comes from.

Unless you think the tactic of surrendering before you are attacked is valid then I don't know how you can capitulate earlier than France did.

Dunkirk evacuation was between the 27th May and 4th June so they were invaded before they surrendered but as I said in my post - they were overwhelmed by the German invasion as were the British which is why they abandoned their military hardware and they couldn't take it with them in their retreat. Luckily they managed to get away to an island . Took them 4 years to come back . If Hitler had pressed on the outcome would have been completely different.

 

[711]

Ironically this post sort of helps prove the massive importance Churchill had in the war as a whole.

If the old fecker signs that agreement to let Hitler and the Germans carry on their merry slaughter of Europe and Britain turn a blind eye then Germany win. No doubt about that.

The US backed the UK. You take those two players out of the war and it would have been a landslide victory for Germany across Europe.

If the Russians went head to head with Germany without the same combined effect of Uk and USA the death toll would have been even more horrendous for them.

Single biggest decision of WW11. Love or hate the man.

EDIT: Not to mention that I feel those figures are skewed massively by the fact that Britain is the most hated nation in most parts of the world, many would prefer to pat America on the back rather than the Brits.
PS I feel offended by that actually, I’m going to look for a statue to take down to make me feel better

To add to the irony, if that's the word, I have heard it said that Churchill's greatest contribution to the war was gaining US support in 1940, well before Pearl Harbour. Most of the US at that time was for 'no more European involvement' following WW1. Whilst the British public dismissed the supply of old destroyers that, and the US protection of convoys in the western atlantic, probably saved Britain from having to seek terms with Germany before it's entire merchant navy was sunk, they were being lost that fast. Churchill was half-American of course, which might have helped.

 

[Wedge]

Churchill will always be a difficult figure to truly understand, he had views which looking back through the lense of history was wrong, cruel and shows the man in a grim light. Then you look at his war years some decisions right or wrong had to be made and he was the only man at the time who could do it. I don't agree with his decision to divert resources away which led to the famine but many argue, he didn't have much choice. Churchill only had the British people in mind, keep the British people and nation out of the grip of a true tryant. Let's no forget he was voted out as soon as possible, he was never the man to lead a nation in a time of peace because he was a dinosaur, but for the period of the war he was possibly the only man to able to rally a nation at war. I think Churchill in schools, both sides of the man should be taught and also what a cruel nation Britain was during colonial times.

 

[Wedge]

To add to the irony, if that's the word, I have heard it said that Churchill's greatest contribution to the war was gaining US support in 1940, well before Pearl Harbour. Most of the US at that time was for 'no more European involvement' following WW1. Whilst the British public dismissed the supply of old destroyers that, and the US protection of convoys in the western atlantic, probably saved Britain from having to seek terms with Germany before it's entire merchant navy was sunk, they were being lost that fast. Churchill was half-American of course, which might have helped.

Some do say that churchill knew about the Japanese plans for pearl harbour but let it happen as he knew that the US reaction would be.

 

[Cassidy]

Until the US were dragged in because of Pearl Harbour And the soviet union were dragged in because hitler betrayed their alliance and invaded them. Britain were the only ones to do the right thing and declare war on Nazi Germany once their aggressive plans became apparent and manifest.

Not true

 

[711]

Some do say that churchill knew about the Japanese plans for pearl harbour but let it happen as he knew that the US reaction would be.

I suppose most conspiracy theories have an element of plausibility but I would need some evidence on that one!

 

[Wedge]

I suppose most conspiracy theories have an element of plausibility but I would need some evidence on that one!

When I say Churchill knew i might be wrong but there was a good conspiracy theory saying the US president knew something was going to happen.

 

[Sky1981]

Being a Prime Minister of Britain in WW II against the AXIS.... boy you need a whole sets of standards to judge them.

We're talking about counterinsurgency, sending suicides commando to sabotage the german behind enemy lines, sending diversion divisions as baits, people dies. And let's not start on worldwide level. They're moving soldies like pawns, a flick of their fingers kills millions.

You don't have the luxury of playing morally right moves all the time.

I'm not Brits, I'm asian who's supposed to dislike Brits but even I can see some merit in Churchill, so much I'd name my son Winston after him when I have one

 

[Gehrman]

Not true

Yeah someone covered that before. France declared war the same time as Britain but surrendered within 7 weeks and it's true and the british commonwealth: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa joined in a few days later.

 

[sullydnl]

Ironically this post sort of helps prove the massive importance Churchill had in the war as a whole.

If the old fecker signs that agreement to let Hitler and the Germans carry on their merry slaughter of Europe and Britain turn a blind eye then Germany win. No doubt about that.

The US backed the UK. You take those two players out of the war and it would have been a landslide victory for Germany across Europe.

If the Russians went head to head with Germany without the same combined effect of Uk and USA the death toll would have been even more horrendous for them.

Single biggest decision of WW11. Love or hate the man.

EDIT: Not to mention that I feel those figures are skewed massively by the fact that Britain is the most hated nation in most parts of the world, many would prefer to pat America on the back rather than the Brits.
PS I feel offended by that actually, I’m going to look for a statue to take down to make me feel better

Not sure how that works out. Of the three other countries asked in that poll, the UK definitely isn't the country the US or Germany hate the most. In fact the idea that there's some big rivalry between Germany and the UK is itself quite a one-sided UK perspective, probably based in that same WW2 narrative. Germany generally seems to be far less interested in the UK than the UK is in Germany.

 

[Sied]

BLMUK (or at least its offshoots) overplayed their hand with this one, imo.

The issue comes down to what symbols actually mean. I'd argue that since objectivity is impossible on the concept of symbolism, you can only derive meaning from consensus.

I think almost everyone looks at Colston and sees a symbol of the slave trade. So the majority agree with his statue's removal.

With Churchill, the vast majority in this country see him as a Prime Minister who led the country through to its greatest ever moment. To them, he's a symbol of British triumph over an undoubted evil. But to others, he's a symbol of racist war-time policies that killed millions. Obviously, both aspects of his character are true. So it all comes down to the subjective reality of which symbol is stronger in the public consciousness. That subjectivity is necessarily what his statue represents, whether you like it or not.

I think it's pretty clear that the statue of Churchill is being celebrated for his victory over the Nazis rather than for his racist policies. You can't force Brits to change their shared perception into something negative, when it already has a strong emotional resonance with something positive.

Leave the fat fecker where he is. There may come a time when the majority think differently, but that's a discussion for then. Changing minds will at best it'll be a slow process, and one that certainly won't be achievable through a single shock of vigilantism.

Very few people would look at a statue of George Best and think it's celebrating alcoholism. Until they do, it's fair enough to keep it standing as a celebration of his football. Same idea applies to Churchill.

Yep, sums up my thoughts on the matter.

 

[RUCK4444]

It’s not really detracting though is it? People are still talking about BLM. It’s only a distraction if you’re looking for one as far as I can see.

Well it is, almost entirely. All we’ve heard is talks about statues that will affect nothing regarding of the outcome.

As I’ve pointed out even before it started, the issue will only harden racists views, we are seeing that on the streets now.

It has halted a lot of the momentum and will have a longer negative impact that’s for sure, instead of trying to educate and encourage dialogue and reasons for change.

The last thing they needed to do was give racists something to cling onto, they’ve given them dozens of symbols to protect now. Entirely counterproductive

 

[amolbhatia50k]

BLMUK (or at least its offshoots) overplayed their hand with this one, imo.

The issue comes down to what symbols actually mean. I'd argue that since objectivity is impossible on the concept of symbolism, you can only derive meaning from consensus.

I think almost everyone looks at Colston and sees a symbol of the slave trade. So the majority agree with his statue's removal.

With Churchill, the vast majority in this country see him as a Prime Minister who led the country through to its greatest ever moment. To them, he's a symbol of British triumph over an undoubted evil. But to others, he's a symbol of racist war-time policies that killed millions. Obviously, both aspects of his character are true. So it all comes down to the subjective reality of which symbol is stronger in the public consciousness. That subjectivity is necessarily what his statue represents, whether you like it or not.

I think it's pretty clear that the statue of Churchill is being celebrated for his victory over the Nazis rather than for his racist policies. You can't force Brits to change their shared perception into something negative, when it already has a strong emotional resonance with something positive.

Leave the fat fecker where he is. There may come a time when the majority think differently, but that's a discussion for then. Changing minds will at best it'll be a slow process, and one that certainly won't be achievable through a single shock of vigilantism.

Very few people would look at a statue of George Best and think it's celebrating alcoholism. Until they do, it's fair enough to keep it standing as a celebration of his football. Same idea applies to Churchill.

Good post. And I agree.

I believe we should also be mature enough to understand the reason for a particular statue being erected. In this case, it clearly exists in the UK because of what the UK sees him as - one of their great leaders. And at the very least - merely as one of their leaders. What I as an Indian see him as is not completely irrelevant but surely is not as relevant as what Brits feel on the matter. It resides on their soil. If the point is to broaden the discussion on him then sure, that's probably a good idea. But going beyond, doesn't really seem to make sense.

 

[oates]

Well it is, almost entirely. All we’ve heard is talks about statues that will affect nothing regarding of the outcome.

As I’ve pointed out even before it started, the issue will only harden racists views, we are seeing that on the streets now.

It has halted a lot of the momentum and will have a longer negative impact that’s for sure, instead of trying to educate and encourage dialogue and reasons for change.

The last thing they needed to do was give racists something to cling onto, they’ve given them dozens of symbols to protect now. Entirely counterproductive

I'm sure there's still time but so far what it has achieved is motivate Johnson and his Tories to talk about bringing into effect a new law that will make the defacing of war memorials punishable by up to ten years in prison. Ignoring the fact that it was already covered by an existing law.

Meanwhile we're still waiting for David Lammy's Review of disproportionality in the criminal justice system to be acted upon from 2017. Plus the Tories hiding 69 pages of a report into the higher proportion of deaths of BAME People from Covid-19.

 

[2cents]

Here's what the Indians did at the Mutiny Memorial in Delhi, which was originally built in 1863 to commemorate those on the British side (both British and their Indian allies) who lost their lives during the siege of Delhi in 1857. Rather than pull it down they basically just flipped the narrative. I doubt this helps to increase our understanding of those events very much, but at least it provides some corrective/balance:

The original:

The amendment:

 

[villain]

Well it is, almost entirely. All we’ve heard is talks about statues that will affect nothing regarding of the outcome.

As I’ve pointed out even before it started, the issue will only harden racists views, we are seeing that on the streets now.

It has halted a lot of the momentum and will have a longer negative impact that’s for sure, instead of trying to educate and encourage dialogue and reasons for change.

The last thing they needed to do was give racists something to cling onto, they’ve given them dozens of symbols to protect now. Entirely counterproductive

I really don't understand this argument.

You're basically suggesting that black & ethnic minorities protest in a way that is only perceived positively by the very people who view them negatively (racists) not only is that impossible, it's asinine & unnecessary.
Secondly, it hasn't halted the momentum - media coverage of BLM has always been slanted to perceive the protests in a bad light, which is why they focus only on the violence/riots - there's plenty more footage of peaceful protests, marches, and coming together of community that isn't reported in mainstream media. I wonder why that would be? It's not exactly a million pound question.
Thirdly, you've basically admitted that the 'protection' of these symbols isn't done so because of some connection & association with british history that will be erased with their destruction. It's a way for racists to show their true colours - and if you ask me, these protests are necessary to ensure that the wider public see these people for who they are.
They're not 'football lads', or whatever cutesy nickname they've been given by the Sun or DM - they're racists & they're not a 'fringe' minority. Many have been unmasked as teachers, retail workers, service men etc - normal people who feel so emboldened that the term 'black lives matter' is enough to rile them up.

Protests aren't meant to be convenient or polite, they are there to disrupt & cause chaos otherwise nothing gets done.

 

[RUCK4444]

Not sure how that works out. Of the three other countries asked in that poll, the UK definitely isn't the country the US or Germany hate the most. In fact the idea that there's some big rivalry between Germany and the UK is itself quite a one-sided UK perspective, probably based in that same WW2 narrative. Germany generally seems to be far less interested in the UK than the UK is in Germany.

Of the other three one is the US themselves (who would be inclined to back themselves in their view), then we have our close friends the French and Germans my point being neither are going to say Britain.

Anyway we digress.

 

[RUCK4444]

I really don't understand this argument.

You're basically suggesting that black & ethnic minorities protest in a way that is only perceived positively by the very people who view them negatively (racists) not only is that impossible, it's asinine & unnecessary.
Secondly, it hasn't halted the momentum - media coverage of BLM has always been slanted to perceive the protests in a bad light, which is why they focus only on the violence/riots - there's plenty more footage of peaceful protests, marches, and coming together of community that isn't reported in mainstream media. I wonder why that would be? It's not exactly a million pound question.
Thirdly, you've basically admitted that the 'protection' of these symbols isn't done so because of some connection & association with british history that will be erased with their destruction. It's a way for racists to show their true colours - and if you ask me, these protests are necessary to ensure that the wider public see these people for who they are.
They're not 'football lads', or whatever cutesy nickname they've been given by the Sun or DM - they're racists & they're not a 'fringe' minority. Many have been unmasked as teachers, retail workers, service men etc - normal people who feel so emboldened that the term 'black lives matter' is enough to rile them up.

Protests aren't meant to be convenient or polite, they are there to disrupt & cause chaos otherwise nothing gets done.

Ok you’ve missed the overall point spread across three days and hundreds of posts pointing out that the statue does not and was not created to celebrate Churchill’s racist opinions, I’m not going to summarise further for you sorry mate.

If you think a monument designed to mark a MASSIVE moment in British history should be brought down because it offends people in 2020 then all the best with that. It won’t happen.

 

[villain]

Ok you’ve missed the overall point spread across three days and hundreds of posts pointing out that the statue does not and was not created to celebrate Churchill’s racist opinions, I’m not going to summarise further for you sorry mate.

If you think a monument designed to mark a MASSIVE moment in British history should be brought down because it offends people in 2020 then all the best with that. It won’t happen.

The fact you think that I have missed any posts is hilarious. And no where in my post did I say that the Churchill statue should be brought down, nowhere did I even mention Churchill.

 

[Gehrman]

BLMUK (or at least its offshoots) overplayed their hand with this one, imo.

The issue comes down to what symbols actually mean. I'd argue that since objectivity is impossible on the concept of symbolism, you can only derive meaning from consensus.

I think almost everyone looks at Colston and sees a symbol of the slave trade. So the majority agree with his statue's removal.

With Churchill, the vast majority in this country see him as a Prime Minister who led the country through to its greatest ever moment. To them, he's a symbol of British triumph over an undoubted evil. But to others, he's a symbol of racist war-time policies that killed millions. Obviously, both aspects of his character are true. So it all comes down to the subjective reality of which symbol is stronger in the public consciousness. That subjectivity is necessarily what his statue represents, whether you like it or not.

I think it's pretty clear that the statue of Churchill is being celebrated for his victory over the Nazis rather than for his racist policies. You can't force Brits to change their shared perception into something negative, when it already has a strong emotional resonance with something positive.

Leave the fat fecker where he is. There may come a time when the majority think differently, but that's a discussion for then. Changing minds will at best it'll be a slow process, and one that certainly won't be achievable through a single shock of vigilantism.

Very few people would look at a statue of George Best and think it's celebrating alcoholism. Until they do, it's fair enough to keep it standing as a celebration of his football. Same idea applies to Churchill.

I agree with this.

 

[Synco]

Of the other three one is the US themselves (who would be inclined to back themselves in their view), then we have our close friends the French and Germans my point being neither are going to say Britain.

Sully is right about attitudes in Germany. Out of the three options in the poll, the British were seen in the most favourable light during my lifetime, and it may have already been that way since the end of the war. (Can't say for sure, but I think it's likely.)

The by far biggest resentment in German attitudes on the war was and still is against the Soviet Union ("the Russians"). I doubt this will ever change. Post-war anti-Americanism is not to be underestimated either. These days, there's no special interest in the British anymore, be it in context of the war or contemporary matters. As far as I can tell, this includes the bombing campaigns, with the exception of Dresden.

Btw, I don't want to diminish the massive contributions and sacrifices the British made in bringing down the Third Reich with this. It's not about a contest who contributed the most.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Dunkirk evacuation was between the 27th May and 4th June so they were invaded before they surrendered but as I said in my post - they were overwhelmed by the German invasion as were the British which is why they abandoned their military hardware and they couldn't take it with them in their retreat. Luckily they managed to get away to an island . Took them 4 years to come back . If Hitler had pressed on the outcome would have been completely different.

Paul Reynaud called Churchill on the 16th to say that France had lost because of the break through at Sedan.That is five days after the start of the German attack. If you want to try and make the evacuation the cause of the defeat then I would suggest you look at what was going on in the French command which descended into a farce. Highlights being abandoning fortresses, refusing air support, generals out of communication with no radios flying around and missing each other and around the 21st a critical army group being commanded by a man in a coma for 2 days.

 

[berbatrick]

Until the US were dragged in because of Pearl Harbour And the soviet union were dragged in because hitler betrayed their alliance and invaded them. Britain were the only ones to do the right thing and declare war on Nazi Germany once their aggressive plans became apparent and manifest.

The USSR had proposed a collective security policy in the mid-30s, joining the League of Nations and making an alliance with France. But it was ignored by Britain and its ruling Tory party. This policy was abandoned after the Munich agreement, the foreign minister was sacked, and Molotov (of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) was appointed. To his credit Churchill might have been outside the party mainstream on this.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Ironically this post sort of helps prove the massive importance Churchill had in the war as a whole.

If the old fecker signs that agreement to let Hitler and the Germans carry on their merry slaughter of Europe and Britain turn a blind eye then Germany win. No doubt about that.

The US backed the UK. You take those two players out of the war and it would have been a landslide victory for Germany across Europe.

If the Russians went head to head with Germany without the same combined effect of Uk and USA the death toll would have been even more horrendous for them.

I’d suggest you to refrain from such definitive assessment on hypotheticals when historical facts didn’t line up anywhere near as neatly to that popular narrative.

9 out of every 11 German casualties were on the Eastern front. The reality was the Western front were primarily used by the 3rd Reich to recycle and recuperate the troops from the Eastern front for the remainder of the war, once Operation Barbarossa commenced. Would it make life harder for the USSR had Britain signed a peace treaty with Germany in 1940? Undoubtedly. Would the raw material and manpower potentially diverted from the North African theater be enough to ensure ‘a landslide victory across Europe’ for Germany? Nope. Russian winter and incompatible rails would still posed massive logistical problem to millions of German troops already deep into enemy territories, they would still have a severe shortage of fuel and industrial manpower to keep the war effort going, and Stalin’s cold blooded psychopathic impulses driving counteroffensives after counteroffensives would still see horrendous German casualties, testing the populace’s patience and fueling resistance effort in occupied Europe.

Britain resistance and American participation hastened the war to its conclusion, but the USSR did the heavy liftings and were likely to beat Germany regardless. Also Japan’s imperial designs and their desire to control the Pacific put them on a collision course with the US, so America’s entering the war was a matter of when, not if.

 

[berbatrick]

This was posted on a different thread a month ago

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

This was posted on a different thread a month ago

The most powerful army in the world, it turned out, were in Hollywood’s studios.

 

[Gehrman]

The USSR had proposed a collective security policy in the mid-30s, joining the League of Nations and making an alliance with France. But it was ignored by Britain and its ruling Tory party. This policy was abandoned after the Munich agreement, the foreign minister was sacked, and Molotov (of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) was appointed. To his credit Churchill might have been outside the party mainstream on this.

Thank you, did not know this.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I’d suggest you to refrain from such definitive assessment on hypotheticals when historical facts didn’t line up anywhere near as neatly to that popular narrative.

9 out of every 11 German casualties were on the Eastern front. The reality was the Western front were primarily used by the 3rd Reich to recycle and recuperate the troops from the Eastern front for the remainder of the war, once Operation Barbarossa commenced. Would it make life harder for the USSR had Britain signed a peace treaty with Germany in 1940? Undoubtedly. Would the raw material and manpower potentially diverted from the North African theater be enough to ensure ‘a landslide victory across Europe’ for Germany? Nope. Russian winter and incompatible rails would still posed massive logistical problem to millions of German troops already deep into enemy territories, they would still have a severe shortage of fuel and industrial manpower to keep the war effort going, and Stalin’s cold blooded psychopathic impulses driving counteroffensives after counteroffensives would still see horrendous German casualties, testing the populace’s patience and fueling resistance effort in occupied Europe.

Britain resistance and American participation hastened the war to its conclusion, but the USSR did the heavy liftings and were likely to beat Germany regardless. Also Japan’s imperial designs and their desire to control the Pacific put them on a collision course with the US, so America’s entering the war was a matter of when, not if.

In the end yes, but how applicable is that to the moment the Soviet Union came closest to defeat? You add an extra mechanized army in the south unlimited supplies for Germany and cut off completely to external supply for Russia. Its possible the Soviets lose early before the main slaughter.

What we know for certain is that in 1940 there was only Britain and its empire fighting and a lot of that was down to Churchill. All the rest is speculation. With the war in Europe over and presumably all the oil he needs Hitler might not have attacked Russia at all.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Paul Reynaud called Churchill on the 16th to say that France had lost because of the break through at Sedan.That is five days after the start of the German attack. If you want to try and make the evacuation the cause of the defeat then I would suggest you look at what was going on in the French command which descended into a farce. Highlights being abandoning fortresses, refusing air support, generals out of communication with no radios flying around and missing each other and around the 21st a critical army group being commanded by a man in a coma for 2 days.

I'm not saying that. The French and British government were both farcical in their approach to Hitler in the 30s. France building the Maginot line not thinking the Germans would go around it was farcical. Neither country was prepared for the war but both let Hitler do what he liked in the 30s. The french government of the time are not held in high esteem by the French. Pétain and Laval afterwards are not praised as heroes.

My point is that the French had nowhere to go, unlike the British. If the UK was attached to continental Europe it would almost certainly suffered the same fate. Additionally if Hitler had a competent leader of the Luftwaffe instead of Göring , didn't have an intelligence service that was basically useless and being a lunatic wanting to invade the USSR and making poor decisions in 1941 the UK could have easily suffered the same fate.

 

[Member 60376]

What a curse to be British It must be quite annoying to have the whole world (including half your own population) weigh in on your history and demand repentence and reparations and whatnot for the deaths of a millions of people, despite the fact that since 1688 it is by far the country which has contributed most to human freedom and prosperity. Despite all its cruelties you'll be hard pressed to find a more benign Empire in human history in terms of leaving a lasting legacy of lifting generations of people out of poverty, bondage and repression.

And now it boils down to "Let's remove the statue of the guy who symbolizes facing and defeating an existential threat to everything we value".

I wish you guys never got our curry recipes.

Also the small matter of bankrupting the country, all the famines and genocides, and of course dividing it as a permanent feck you before leaving.

Thanks for the trains though.

 

[RedTiger]

Thanks for the trains though.

And the convoluted bureaucracy.

 

[DoomSlayer]

This was posted on a different thread a month ago

Seems like the anti-soviet propaganda worked like a charm.

 

[RUCK4444]

And the convoluted bureaucracy.

Interesting question, I guess the native people of India wanted their own freedom and independence but I bet a lot wish we Brits stuck around?

I mean is it fair to say there would be a far better economy and healthcare system along with better Protection for woman as a few examples?

I ask as it’s a subject I haven’t studied much, mean no offence to anybody of course.

 

[berbatrick]

waiting tobe told to be grateful that i can communicate in english

 

[sammsky1]

The most powerful army in the world, it turned out, were in Hollywood’s studios.

I've not seen that many movies about the USA role in WW2 in Europe, cant really even remember one.

There was Pearl Harbour, but that has very little to do with activities in western Europe. What movies are you referring to?

 

[sammsky1]

Interesting question, I guess the native people of India wanted their own freedom and independence but I bet a lot wish we Brits stuck around?
I mean is it fair to say there would be a far better economy and healthcare system along with better Protection for woman as a few examples?
I ask as it’s a subject I haven’t studied much, mean no offence to anybody of course.

 

[nimic]

I've not seen that many movies about the USA role in WW2 in Europe, cant really even remember one.

There was Pearl Harbour, but that has very little to do with activities in western Europe. What movies are you referring to?

Saving Private Ryan and Fury. There are probably quite a few older ones, but I am not old (I'm not!)

The movie doesn't have to take place in Europe for people who watch it to come away with the general impression that the US "won the war", but it's definitely a lot more nuanced and complicated than just that. Cold War politics, for example.

 

[RUCK4444]

Hah, that’s a no then?