The war wasn't a sporting contest - it was a fight for our country, our way of life and our very existence. The consequences of defeat would have been extreme.

 

An attack on Churchill's statue is not an attack on Churchill, it is an attack on what it represents - the triumph of democracy over facism.

 

That is why it is positioned outside Parliament, a reminder that democratic institutions are our very way of life, something we may take for granted now but came periliously close to losing.

 

Isn’t his statue right beside the Oliver Cromwell one ?

 

On a separate note I find the Second World War origins really fascinating and it rightly dominates the history circumulum. You state above, quite rightly, it was a fight between fascism and democracy. But it all originated from the first war which wasn’t a just war imo, it was an imperialist one that European nations fought for continued or renewed dominance in the world.

Edited March 16, 20214 yr by steve201

Isn’t his status right beside the Oliver Cromwell one 😅?

 

On a separate note I find the Second World War origins really fascinating and it rightly dominates the history circumulum. You state above, quite rightly, it was a fight between fascism and democracy. But it all originated from the first war which wasn’t a just war imo, it was an imperialist one that European nations fought for continued or renewed dominance in the world.

 

Of course history is an outgoing series of events, with Germany's surrender and defeat in 1918, reparations and subsequent economic crisis laying the foundations for Hitler's rise to power but also don't forget that 1930s politicians having lived through the first world war were desperate to avoid a repeat. Churchill was a virtual lone voice warning of the dangers of the rise of fascism and a lot of the world didnt wake up to that reality until it was virtually too late.

He wasn’t a loan voice there were many in the opposition who stood with him such as Attlee and Bevan!

He wasn’t a loan voice there were many in the opposition who stood with him such as Attlee and Bevan!

 

Actually Attlee and Bevan were at first opposed to rearmament, Bevan strongly criticised the British government's rearmament plans in a conference speech in 1937.

 

Can you give me a source for that? Not saying your wrong I would just like to read the speech?

Can you give me a source for that? Not saying your wrong I would just like to read the speech?

 

Whilst it is true that Bevsn was anti-fascist he believed that the best way of defeating it was to form alliances with socialist countries such as the Soviet Union and therefore unnecessary to rearm as he under estimated Hitker's military ambitions. The irony was of course Stalin killed tens of millions of his own people, far more of his own citizens than Hiitler did.

 

I cant find a full transcript of the speech online but have cut and pasted the following:

 

https://spartacus-educational.com/TUbevan.htm

 

He argued at the 1937 National Conference that the Labour Party should not give any support to Chamberlain's foreign policy, including his desire to spend large sums of money on the military. Bevan believed that the present government could not be trusted to use this new military power against its own people: "We are not going to put a sword in the hands of our enemies that may be used to cut off our own heads." However, Bevan was easily defeated by 2,167,000 to 228,000 when the vote was taken. (43)

 

Winston Churchill accused Bevan of giving the impression to Adolf Hitler that Britain was divided. Bevan rejected Churchill's argument that "the Opposition must refrain from opposing because if he does so Hitler will hear of it and be encouraged thereby. The fear of Hitler is to be used to frighten the workers of Britain into silence. In short Hitler is to rule Britain by proxy. If we accept the contention that the common enemy is Hitler and not the British capitalist class, then certainly Churchill is right. But it means abandment of the class struggle and the subservience of the British workers to their own employers."

 

Thanks I knew the Tribune group felt like that was talking about the leader of the TUC Earnest Bevin.

Whilst it is true that Bevsn was anti-fascist he believed that the best way of defeating it was to form alliances with socialist countries such as the Soviet Union and therefore unnecessary to rearm as he under estimated Hitker's military ambitions. The irony was of course Stalin killed tens of millions of his own people, far more of his own citizens than Hiitler did.

 

I cant find a full transcript of the speech online but have cut and pasted the following:

 

https://spartacus-educational.com/TUbevan.htm

 

He argued at the 1937 National Conference that the Labour Party should not give any support to Chamberlain's foreign policy, including his desire to spend large sums of money on the military. Bevan believed that the present government could not be trusted to use this new military power against its own people: "We are not going to put a sword in the hands of our enemies that may be used to cut off our own heads." However, Bevan was easily defeated by 2,167,000 to 228,000 when the vote was taken. (43)

 

Winston Churchill accused Bevan of giving the impression to Adolf Hitler that Britain was divided. Bevan rejected Churchill's argument that "the Opposition must refrain from opposing because if he does so Hitler will hear of it and be encouraged thereby. The fear of Hitler is to be used to frighten the workers of Britain into silence. In short Hitler is to rule Britain by proxy. If we accept the contention that the common enemy is Hitler and not the British capitalist class, then certainly Churchill is right. But it means abandment of the class struggle and the subservience of the British workers to their own employers."

 

The thing is with death count arguments, they are very disputed and impossible to verify and really are much of a muchness sadly when discussing to the general badness of a leader, though any leader that killed millions probably doesn't deserve to have a statue in their country of origin, though what makes considering Hitler worse than the rest is the systematic extermination of people for being undesirables - compared to Stalin and Churchill letting millions starve, that's an evil above. Hitler's overall death count I'd put above Stalin's. Consider also that for a long while, the biggest army holding off Hitler's forces was the Soviet army, buying time with excessive amounts of blood for the rest of the Allies to mobilise. I don't think Bevan would have been too far off the mark there, if there hadn't been a united front against fascism including with socialist countries, Germany would have won. Far more likely a way to make Germany win is if you remove the Soviet Union from the equation than hypotheticals about who the British leader might have been were it not Churchill.

Funny you all mention Stalin. He has a bunch of statues over here and propaganda made it possible for him to be remembered as a good leader.

 

Also yes, Soviet Union was the reason Hitler was defeated. That’s the first and only thing we learned in our history lessons. Come through USSR babes <3

All European leaders fall when getting greedy and trying to conquer the east!

History has not been kind to dictators who try to conquer Russia, hitler should have taken a leaf out of Napoleon's book.

 

We seem to be ranking who is the least worst dictator here, an "Hitler may have gassed 6 million Jews but at least he didnt let them starve". Wait - WHAT????

 

Remember the Soviets "came not as liberators but as conquerors" as they raped, pillaged and sacked the whole of Eastern Europe, committing war crimes as they went.

 

Stalin was attributed to at least 20 million deaths of his own people on top of those who died in the Soviet famine, which estimated at 5-6 million.

 

When the allies liberated the concentration camps and prisoner of war camps and the russian prisoners returned home Stalin ordered that they be shot - his view was they should have fought to the death rather than surrender as cowards.

 

 

Total Soviet losses in wwii were around 27 million. Many more millions wete displaced. This was by far thecworst death toll for any country.

 

History has not been kind to dictators who try to conquer Russia, hitler should have taken a leaf out of Napoleon's book.

 

We seem to be ranking who is the least worst dictator here, an "Hitler may have gassed 6 million Jews but at least he didnt let them starve". Wait - WHAT????

 

Remember the Soviets "came not as liberators but as conquerors" as they raped, pillaged and sacked the whole of Eastern Europe, committing war crimes as they went.

 

Stalin was attributed to at least 20 million deaths of his own people on top of those who died in the Soviet famine, which estimated at 5-6 million.

 

When the allies liberated the concentration camps and prisoner of war camps and the russian prisoners returned home Stalin ordered that they be shot - his view was they should have fought to the death rather than surrender as cowards.

Total Soviet losses in wwii were around 27 million. Many more millions wete displaced. This was by far thecworst death toll for any country.

 

Iz didn't say that at all.

 

'Any leader that killed millions probably doesn't deserve to have a statue in their country of origin, though what makes Hitler considerably worse than the rest is the systematic extermination of people for being undesirables'

Iz didn't say that at all.

 

'Any leader that killed millions probably doesn't deserve to have a statue in their country of origin, though what makes Hitler considerably worse than the rest is the systematic extermination of people for being undesirables'

 

Yes i apologise.

Pol Pot was arguably worse than all of the above having been responsible for the murder of up to a third of the population of Cambodia.

Look all genocides are bad, Hitler's, Stalin's, Pol Pot"s, Mau's. We could go on discussing which is the baddest or least baddest.

Shouldn’t the discussion really be why people think statues need more protection than living women?

Shouldn’t the discussion really be why people think statues need more protection than living women?

 

THIS!

See, Stalin as said, there is propaganda to make Russians think that he was a good leader. While not on the same level, is it not the case that the discouragement of teaching of the crimes of Empire in schools is also propaganda? There are parallels to be made between all past leaders, and I don't think any of them should be venerated.

 

I do think Churchill's statue should stay up as he was an extremely important figure in our history, removing it will solve absolutely no problems. I honestly just want both want both 'sides' (it's a shame it's come to me saying that) to leave it alone. It's being used as some bizarre symbol for both and it should not be important at all in current affairs because...what is defacing or defending that statue gonna prove in the long run? The man's long dead, he has no bearing on current politics. It just doesn't make sense.

 

I wanted to return to this point because I don't know, I think he does.

 

This article has stuck in my mind ever since I read it last year: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocr...1Z8MBEiuSX6uYoI

 

In summary, Churchill and the attitudes and values of his type of Britishness, the stiff upper lip, the never say die, the British exceptionalism, that he has come to represent, are the same values that are almost always presented by the contemporary incarnation of the Tory Party. That drags large numbers of the population to vote for them, even those who do not stand to gain from them being in government. Which is a majority of the country. Going against these values is asking to be crucified by the press. So when I ask for the ability to critique Churchill, I am also asking for the ability to imagine a British society that is not so dominated by the exceptionalism and nationalism that many of us rightly find embarassing and outdated.

 

Basically, keeping his statue up is a cultural signifier that British conservative culture is here to stay. Which stands in opposition to the protests of rightful causes now and last summer.

Pol Pot was arguably worse than all of the above having been responsible for the murder of up to a third of the population of Cambodia.

 

He was responsible for genocide for 1.5-2 million people which is a far lower total death toll than Hitler.

He was responsible for genocide for 1.5-2 million people which is a far lower total death toll than Hitler.

That's why I referred to one-third of the population rather than the raw numbers. To match Hitler in pure numbers, he would have needed to wipe out the entire populatio0n of his own country.