world war two

[Gandalf]

@walrus

I don't really draw any distinctions. I think if you have carried out a form of genocide then you have to be included in the list. Hitler had to be resisted, of course he did, but that doesn't excuse Churchill for the Indian genocide. I would also add Blair to the list for Iraq. It was really the same thing Hitler was doing to other nations. It is just we are not meant to point out when we do it and we are urged to forget quickly. History is about making winners look good, just like economics is about protecting the rich. Clever words to keep us bleating.

[walrus]

@walrus

I don't really draw any distinctions. I think if you have carried out a form of genocide then you have to be included in the list. Hitler had to be resisted, of course he did, but that doesn't excuse Churchill for the Indian genocide. I would also add Blair to the list for Iraq. It was really the same thing Hitler was doing to other nations. It is just we are not meant to point out when we do it and we are urged to forget quickly. History is about making winners look good, just like economics is about protecting the rich. Clever words to keep us bleating.

Alright Miles, I disagree strongly that the invasion of Iraq is the same as what Hitler did. But I won't argue the fact, you are entitled to your opinion. I'm sorry but I don't understand Churchill and the Indians. Not a part of British history I'm familiar with. I'll have to look into it. I don't like what Winston did in the middle east, I think a lot of the boundaries the UK set are a big part of the problems we see now, of course we are looking back, I'm sure, or at least hope, the UK was acting with good intent after the fall of the Ottomans. Yes, history is written by the winners but there are plenty of ways to get at the truth these days. We have a lot of books and documentaries that go in-depth on most historical subjects. A lot of what we hear aren't cover ups so to speak but words handed down that have become common belief. I guess I operate different than you, in the forefront of my mind I keep the words I could be wrong, it keeps me more able to listen to others and able to learn. The more I know, the less I understand all the things I thought I knew. I have respect for People like you that think they are always right and dismiss other points of view, it must give you a feeling of power and security. I've never once heard you say in a debate here that the other party maybe right or at least say you would investigate further what they say. I did that for a while but to many times I found I was missing good stuff others were saying cause I was too bust being rightly wrong. God Bless you Miles, oh sorry, there is no God.

Ps, I'm not being sarcastic, I admire the I'm always right people, especially when it's so clear they are wrong.

[Gandalf]

I don't think anyone is truly right in a debate though, Walrus. You have your criteria and you tend to stay with that. If you think a bit of genocide is hunky dory, then Churchill might well be a hero, but I just don't see it that way. Far from thinking I am always right, I actually take the time to consider alternative points of view. It is the history winners that think they are always right. I just tend to challenge that kind of thinking as I know academia (particularly history and economics) is full of self satisfied people who exist to perpetuate existing systems. Not always so, but you will have a harder time having a successful career if you do not pay your dues and say the right things.

Not looking to have an argument with you as it is going off topic and I agreed not to do that. I just wanted to answer your question. On the topic of admitting wrong, I have apologised and changed my mind on countless topics. In fact, I probably do it more than most.

[walrus]

I don't think anyone is truly right in a debate though, Walrus. You have your criteria and you tend to stay with that. If you think a bit of genocide byis hunky dory, then Churchill might well be a hero, but I just don't see it that way. Far from thinking I am always right, I actually take the time to consider alternative points of view. It is the history winners that think they are always right. I just tend to challenge that kind of thinking as I know academia (particularly history and economics) is full of self satisfied people who exist to perpetuate existing systems. Not always so, but you will have a harder time having a successful career if you do not pay your dues and say the right things.

Not looking to have an argument with you as it is going off topic and I agreed not to do that. I just wanted to answer your question. On the topic of admitting wrong, I have apologised and changed my mind on countless topics. In fact, I probably do it more than most.

Can you point me to some info about this genocide if the Indians Churchill commuted, I know nothing about it

[Gandalf]

I don't like using the BBC, but for a general overview of Churchill controversies you can check out this article.

The 10 greatest controversies of Winston Churchill's career - BBC News

Google has all sorts of links to info about the Indian genocide. It wasn't just Churchill as the British frequently imposed genocide upon the Indians. The usual story of occupation for profit and starve the local population if so desired. Despicable man.

Winston Churchill to blame for Bengal famine: Book - The Times of India

The Bengal Famine: How the British engineered the worst genocide in human history for profit

[walrus]

Alright, thanks for the links. Our founding fathers did some horrible things to our natives but the English had used them as instruments of terror against the settlers. Still, the US government committed many atrocities which certainly could have been handled other ways. Interesting subnote, had the Indians here pulled it together they could have kicked us tight off the continent but they had too much internal division. Thanks for the links, I must admit I know little of Winston outside of the ww2 years so it will be interesting to follow up on.