Quote: vastman "Wonderfull recreation of history. '"
Which is what you are about to do.
Quote: vastman "Yes it's hugely fashionable for the lefties to debunk Churchill no matter
how fantastic or twisted the claims.'"
Most of them are well documented, Churchill was an extremely flawed character.
Quote: vastman "It's easy to poke at things from a different era, an era when Eugenics was considered a legitimate science.'"
Legimate by who? Sterilisation in the UK was never legal, it was not considered mainstream science and only
two Higher Education Institutions offered curses in Eugenics. Also the brand of Eugenics popular in the UK
was based on social groups rather than Race. Churchill's own views on eugenics were highly controversial and did not have
acceptance in mainstream politics or public commentary. Most countries that practiced eugenics attempted to keep the practices
out of the realms of the general public which would suggest those practices were not considered "legitimate science".
Quote: vastman "This attempt to pin modern ideals on people who existed in different eras is futile, pathetic and cheap.'"
Not modern ideals they were ideals contemporary to the time, Eugenics in the UK received little funding and approval of
of pro-eugenics legislation. Several countries outrightly rejected eugenics
Quote: vastman "Churchill by the standards of the day and relative to the background he came from was a great leader.'"
He was directly involved in the bombing of refugees, using tear gas on the Kurds, formalised a plan that
could have kicked off world war three, had great admiration for the conduct of Mussolini, his involvement in some
of the unsavoury practices putting down revolts and protests during the waning of the British Empire is hardly something
to be proud. This is before his own personal views are taken into account regarding people who are not WASPs.
Quote: vastman "Gandi's relentless pushing of the Hindu cause and thus partition led to countless millions being killed.'"
This is not what happened though, he never supported the scheme for partition blaming him for this is like blaming
Churchill for the 'Final Solution'. He was in favour of the Muslim League and Indian congress working together over Indian
independence unfortuntely rather like what happened in the Middle East the British Empire gave little regard for
the consequences.
Quote: vastman "For his many faults Churchill has nowhere near that amount of blood on his hands'"
Of course he does one was a pro imperialist intent on administering an empire at the end of a gun barrel who
believed mass destruction was acceptable if it achieved the required outcome the other was a person who
firmly believed and stuck to non violent protest and non co-operation to achieve the required outcome.
love it.
