"Churchill was a warmonger and a bloodthirsty imperialist." | Not Everyone Loved Winston Churchill
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 03. 2024
- While celebrated by some as a pivotal historical figure, Churchill also drew condemnation from prominent voices. In this video we examine some of the most controversial quotes about the iconic leader.
The fact is, Churchill was the right man at the right time. If the British public never voted him out after the war, Britain would never had gone through such harsh times after the war.
Question: Who was not an imperialist during the lifetime of Sir Winston? It was pretty normal back then.
The leaders and people of the colonized countries probably :)
Nice! Keep going :)
There are good and bad sides to every person, but he was a remarkable leader!
You mean a "remarkable" war monger such as Obama?
Very good orator and writer with the benefit of being a full member of the British establishment. He was, however a very poor military strategist and many believe Britain was successful in spite of him.
He also was a warmonger who caused the deaths of millions.
You must be American
@@localkiwi9988 afraid not, although of course one of Churchill's main influences, his mother, was.
Which wars do you think he mongered?
he was all of the above mentioned, but also a necessary evil. the history is filled with such characters..
What made Churchill so special. Because he was the last white bloke to be called Winston
🫠
:)))))))
Churchill was not regarded well in Australia after his doomed to fail WW1 Dardanelles campaign as First Sea Lord which cost Australia, New Zealand and other dominions/colonies dearly.
That failed campaign is also what kept him away from the Prime Minister role for so long, and even when he was elected, he wasn't the first choice, as Lord Halifax was the Conservative Party's ideal candidate, but he declined.
As a disciple of Lord Grey didn't Churchill vote to swing the government to ensure they entered WW1 and 1919 went badly. He entered politics when Britain was the most powerful and one of the wealthiest countries in the world, he left politics with Britain as an impoverished middle power. Not my personal definition of success.
You also skipped the Irish opinion.
I mean, I do hate churchill, but I am a fair person on this point, he was kinda fighting a savage warmachine
Well he was regarded by many as a warmonger...
But the success that he, indeed, had, was a crucial one.
This guy is like is the Richard Prescott Of WW2.
😅
we remember the bengal holocast.. He is just english version of Hitler
Wow! 😐
that wasn't his fault
just like hitler isnt responsible for holocaust..his bureaucrats did@@TapWaterNationalist
@@akashzz4347 Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit the agenda with which, doubtless, you have been indoctrinated.
*Winston Churchill was the right man to be PM during WW2!* (Too bad they didn't pay attention to him when he warned about Germany rearming both the German army and navy --
Nipping that in the bud would have saved millions of lives!)
The German navy directly challenged Britain's means to
maintain it's far-flung empire.
Fortunately, for the world, after WW2, the US Navy was able to step into Britain's former role to police the high seas. Why?
Because global trade can not exist unless the seas are a safe place for all countries merchant fleets to sail. Goods can be
traded without every country having to maintain a navy to guard shipping routes.
The USA is currently withdrawing from that role and is "pivoting" towards maintaining naval superiority in the
Pacific ocean.
This is going to leave the sea lanes between Europe and East Asia (via Indian Ocean) open to piracy and national zones of
naval power where "enemies"/rivals (other countries) will come to blows.
Europe is now going to have to step up and guard the approaches to the Suez canal and the Gulf of Hormuz.
Can Europe do it? Can Europe simultaneously re-arm, and train up a strong army to resist Russia's newfound desire to
restore the borders of "Greater Russia"/the USSR?
Churchill was definitely the best man in that position at that time, I can't imagine what the world would look like if someone less courageous and determined would've been in his place at that point...
And global trade is at high risk right now, Houthis are constantly attacking cargo ships that are passing through the Gulf of Eden. Many ships have to reroute because of this, which costs a lot of money, and cause many problems, giving that it's one of the world's key routes. But US has actually announced a couple of months ago that it will try to fight the Houthis out of the Red Sea by creating a naval protection force. It was said that Britain will also participate.
Germany was put under a harsh and unfair treaty after WW1. Germany wasn't hostile towards Britain, it was the other way around. You could easily argue that Britain or the West had nothing to worry about Germany remilitarizing
@@MrSupercat48 I suspect that Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, & Belgium, all invaded without the courtesy of a declaration of war, might well have had something to worry about.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 literally, all of those countries accept 2 were taken by Germany before Britains declaration. Nice try, I guess.