This was a really good discussion on Churchill, a flawed human, like all of us, and was a product of the times and his background. I think calling him racist, by the modern standard, is unfair and misleading, he was a product of a time, culture and education that gave him an arrogant air of superiority that may have had a race basis in its origins, but it is clear he was not racist in the way many claim. I have ordered David's book 👍👍
@@wildflower8481 I don't think, I know you do not know what you are talking about as you have no idea how things work. As the political appointment he was ultimately responsible, but the execution of the orders was the responsibility of the Admirals and Generals that had operational authority for the strategic and tactical prosecution of the operations in theatre.
@@wildflower8481 Attlee was mentioned, while his deputy in WW2 he also Churchill’s political opponent afterwards. Attlee thought Churchill was not the main culprit of Gallipoli, he should know being an junior officer wounded twice there, for him it was not the plan, it was the execution by the senior officers. But there are always the movies I suppose, With the not at all drunk racist, anti semitic actor who specialized in inaccurate anti British movies. Being hated by him is a badge of honor.
With respect, does it matter if he was? Most whit British were at the time. They ran a colonial empire based on white supremacy, as in the "white man's burden" to uplift the "lower peoples". This was the essential rationale for all of European colonialism by that era, compared to the early modern period and Age of Discovery. It would be like judging the Duke of Wellington or Pitt the Younger for thinking "women should know their place" when most men of all classes thought that way in their era.
Google his "Dogs in a manger" speech - he was so racist that he upported the "replacement" of native Americans, and black Australians. "Replacement" is code for genociode in a "settler colomialism." The only difference betwen Churchill and Hitler - is that Hitler dared do the "settler colonialism" on white Europeans, particularly towards the Slavs - and Churchill thought it obscene to treat white Europeans in the same way he treated non-white people - as he showed in the "Dogs in a manger" speech. How many millioins of Indians died as a result of famine when Britian confiscated their food to feed the British Army and Civil servants?
!["ซี - เอมี่ " ย้อนความรัก 19 ปี ที่ต้องทนกันและกัน... | แฉ 22 ต.ค. 67 [2/3] | GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ykv9ILzatHM/mqdefault.jpg)
Remember to subscribe to Times Radio History: www.youtube.com/@TimesRadioHistory?sub_confirmation=1
This was a really good discussion on Churchill, a flawed human, like all of us, and was a product of the times and his background. I think calling him racist, by the modern standard, is unfair and misleading, he was a product of a time, culture and education that gave him an arrogant air of superiority that may have had a race basis in its origins, but it is clear he was not racist in the way many claim.
I have ordered David's book 👍👍
I think he used Australian soldiers as cannon fodder so many people died
@@wildflower8481 I don't think, I know you do not know what you are talking about as you have no idea how things work. As the political appointment he was ultimately responsible, but the execution of the orders was the responsibility of the Admirals and Generals that had operational authority for the strategic and tactical prosecution of the operations in theatre.
@@jim.franklin He is not in Heaven if thats for sure
@@wildflower8481 Attlee was mentioned, while his deputy in WW2 he also Churchill’s political opponent afterwards.
Attlee thought Churchill was not the main culprit of Gallipoli, he should know being an junior officer wounded twice there, for him it was not the plan, it was the execution by the senior officers.
But there are always the movies I suppose, With the not at all drunk racist, anti semitic actor who specialized in inaccurate anti British movies.
Being hated by him is a badge of honor.
Churchill was a unique talent.
Yes. So was Ghandi
Gandhi
With respect, does it matter if he was? Most whit British were at the time. They ran a colonial empire based on white supremacy, as in the "white man's burden" to uplift the "lower peoples". This was the essential rationale for all of European colonialism by that era, compared to the early modern period and Age of Discovery. It would be like judging the Duke of Wellington or Pitt the Younger for thinking "women should know their place" when most men of all classes thought that way in their era.
Google his "Dogs in a manger" speech - he was so racist that he upported the "replacement" of native Americans, and black Australians. "Replacement" is code for genociode in a "settler colomialism." The only difference betwen Churchill and Hitler - is that Hitler dared do the "settler colonialism" on white Europeans, particularly towards the Slavs - and Churchill thought it obscene to treat white Europeans in the same way he treated non-white people - as he showed in the "Dogs in a manger" speech. How many millioins of Indians died as a result of famine when Britian confiscated their food to feed the British Army and Civil servants?
@@elbacr9501oh please
I think you will find that most people were racist in the historical past.
He sure was.
Britain never faced Hitler alone; it had an empire behind it. Myth-busting.
Exactly. All those Canadians, South Africans, Indians, Australians and others were vital.
By modern standards he was racist by th standards of his contemporary foes , no he wasn’t. Revisionism at its most delinquent.
Revisionism is not understanding the past and what will the future say of those that practice it.
Yes he was racist! However he should be remembered for his leadership during WW2.
He was deeply racist.