Cambridge University strikes again.

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
I find it strange that it appears that you either have to accept Churchill was a wrong un or that he should be judged at his time at the very best, and that if you think otherwise it makes you some sort of far right fruitloop.

I'd imagine that some people outside of this board are of the opinion that our wartime leader was a great man ?
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
I find it strange that it appears that you either have to accept Churchill was a wrong un or that he should be judged at his time at the very best, and that if you think otherwise it makes you some sort of far right fruitloop.

I'd imagine that some people outside of this board are of the opinion that our wartime leader was a great man ?
Personally I think the whole “Great Man” thing is all a bit fantasy island.

However, I’m not sure I’d refer to anyone as a right wing fruit loop regardless. What I do think though is that there are many many people who accept the myth of Churchill with very limited insight into the man himself.

In fact for many a few excerpts from speeches played over Jerusalem on a YouTube video is the extent of their insight if you are lucky.
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
Were the assembled people made up of entirely non-English?
Interesting how supporters of the great man were not allowed entry and also, maybe someone should tell them that Germany started the war that killed millions of people and had we (and our allies) not intervened then God only knows what the outcome would have been
Maybe Professor Priyamvadi Gopala would not be here today to spout all her rhetoric.

Imagine if a group of English professors and historians attend the top university in India and delivered a seminar (without inviting people of contrary views and having bona fide proof that they are wrong) that Ghandi was a racist who was responsible for the deaths of millions etc! They would be hung, drawn and quartered for inciting racism and offending a great leader.

As the term “rabbits” is an obvious reference to how they breed how does she know that was his view? Where is the narrative to prove that?

And by the way, the above was in no way a discussion or a debate it was a group of racists whose sole intent was to discredit a great ENGLISHMAN ! And in the great halls that were named after him.
An absolute disgrace and an insult not only to Winston but to our Country.
Non English? Onyeka Nubia, Kehinde Andrews and Andrew Roberts are all English.

Why would you assume they weren't English?
 

Recidivist3

Well-known member
🙄 I think he means white

As for Oooh, it’s a Zulu, he sleeps under a St George’s flag duvet cover and has long since cornered the market in fruit loopery
 

Old_Laytonian

Well-known member
More important news about Churchill:

A pair of velvet slippers that belonged to Winston Churchill which adorned with his initials are expected to sell for up to £15,000 at auction.

The worn shoes, which date back to the 1950s, are going up for sale along with a brandy glass owned by the Second World War prime minister, which is expected to sell for up to £10,000.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
Were the assembled people made up of entirely non-English?
Interesting how supporters of the great man were not allowed entry and also, maybe someone should tell them that Germany started the war that killed millions of people and had we (and our allies) not intervened then God only knows what the outcome would have been
Maybe Professor Priyamvadi Gopala would not be here today to spout all her rhetoric.

Imagine if a group of English professors and historians attend the top university in India and delivered a seminar (without inviting people of contrary views and having bona fide proof that they are wrong) that Ghandi was a racist who was responsible for the deaths of millions etc! They would be hung, drawn and quartered for inciting racism and offending a great leader.

As the term “rabbits” is an obvious reference to how they breed how does she know that was his view? Where is the narrative to prove that?

And by the way, the above was in no way a discussion or a debate it was a group of racists whose sole intent was to discredit a great ENGLISHMAN ! And in the great halls that were named after him.
An absolute disgrace and an insult not only to Winston but to our Country.
Out of interest, what is it that makes you think it was necessary to involve pro-Churchill (presumably white) individuals in this discussion?

I mean arguably the best qualified individuals to talk about the negative aspects of the British Empire etc.. would be those who suffered or whose ancestors and nations suffered at the hands of it in any case...
 

Curryman

Well-known member
BFCx3 said - I mean arguably the best-qualified individuals to talk about the negative aspects of the British Empire etc.. would be those who suffered or whose ancestors and nations suffered at the hands of it in any case...

So would you include Irish in the debate?

Oh, and what about relatives of the poor on the mainland in England, Wales and Scotland, where a lot of the poorer ones not forced up chimneys, were made to work punishing hours in Mills and Mines and then to top it off with the loss of what little work they had due to the dreaded machine? Isn't that what the Luddites, the proposed march of the Blanketeers, Peterloo etc was about? I can think of nothing more negative than not having a voice and being subservient to those who don't care, and the poor of The UK suffered in their thousands.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
BFCx3 said - I mean arguably the best-qualified individuals to talk about the negative aspects of the British Empire etc.. would be those who suffered or whose ancestors and nations suffered at the hands of it in any case...

So would you include Irish in the debate?

Oh, and what about relatives of the poor on the mainland in England, Wales and Scotland, where a lot of the poorer ones not forced up chimneys, were made to work punishing hours in Mills and Mines and then to top it off with the loss of what little work they had due to the dreaded machine? Isn't that what the Luddites, the proposed march of the Blanketeers, Peterloo etc was about? I can think of nothing more negative than not having a voice and being subservient to those who don't care, and the poor of The UK suffered in their thousands.
What are you on about you silly old fool?

Seriously watch the video of the discussion itself and educate yourself instead of spouting tripe with zero understanding of what you’re talking about.
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
Why do keep thinking I'm talking specifically about this subject? I'm making the general point about people posting articles to back up their own pov.
I assumed that, as articles had been posted on this thread, you’d be talking about articles on this thread. Not some other thread.
 

Curryman

Well-known member
It takes a bigger fool to know an old fool. Defend and reply to what I have asked you instead of playing the idiotic know F all .
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
It takes a bigger fool to know an old fool. Defend and reply to what I have asked you instead of playing the idiotic know F all .
Just watch the discussion that you’ve derided based on someone else telling you what to think, rather than shouting at me for actually taking the time to watch without prejudice.

You may gain some important insight that fill in the gaps in your understanding.
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
BFCx3 said - I mean arguably the best-qualified individuals to talk about the negative aspects of the British Empire etc.. would be those who suffered or whose ancestors and nations suffered at the hands of it in any case...

So would you include Irish in the debate?

Oh, and what about relatives of the poor on the mainland in England, Wales and Scotland, where a lot of the poorer ones not forced up chimneys, were made to work punishing hours in Mills and Mines and then to top it off with the loss of what little work they had due to the dreaded machine? Isn't that what the Luddites, the proposed march of the Blanketeers, Peterloo etc was about? I can think of nothing more negative than not having a voice and being subservient to those who don't care, and the poor of The UK suffered in their thousands.
I’ve just watched the event (well 60 minutes - until the Q&A) and would be happy to see another one including Irish academics and academics representative of the English working classes to get their view of Churchill.

To be fair to the panelists they did say that the “traditional” view of Churchill wasn’t shared by everyone in the U.K. They particularly mentioned Miners (as you do) and, coming from a family of Yorkshire miners (father, both grandfathers and several uncles), I can confirm that their views were not quite as rose tinted as some.

Anyway it was interesting and not quite how you’d imagine from the report in the Telegraph. I didn’t agree with everything they had to say, but learnt a lot - I knew nothing about the Bengal Famine in 1942 and Churchill’s comments at the time for instance. I can recommend it if anyone has a spare hour.
 
Last edited:

Archibald Knox

Well-known member
In 1939, Churchill described Russia as “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”. He might as well have been talking about himself.

As the son of a third son of a Duke he was privileged and felt entitled. But not properly entitled as he would inherit little. Money was always a problem for him in keeping up his lifestyle. Although part of the Establishment he was atheist or at least agnostic for most of his life.

He crossed the floor of the Commons twice, from Tory to Liberal to Tory, saying at the latter action after 20 years as a Liberal MP... “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat”. And yet was honourable in much else.

He treated the working class like shite, especially the miners in the General Strike of 1926. He said “It is a conflict which, if it is fought out to a conclusion can only end in the overthrow of parliamentary government or its decisive victory.” And he wanted to take it all the way rather than compromise, reputedly saying “a little blood-letting would be all to the good”.

His Gallipoli Campaign was a complete disaster using the Anzacs and the northern regiments, like the Lancashire Fusiliers, as cannon fodder. And yet, when dismissed from government took on the role of Lt Colonel of one of the Royal Scots Fusiliers‘ battalions and went to the Western Front with them, albeit in a rather quiet sector with no offensives but rather a lot of shelling to endure..

He spent many years in the “wilderness” being contrary with his own party leadership and was proven right by luck as well as judgement. Luck, because few wanted him to replace Neville Chamberlain and the King was reluctant too. At times early as a politician, he had espoused Aryan views, and yet regarded resisting fascism and Naziism as the greatest fight of his life. Churchill alluded to his hitherto anti-communist views by saying... "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil"

In his “finest hour” he spent most evenings fairly well sloshed, his consumption of pints of champagne and brandy was prodigious with a “weak” whisky and soda his usual breakfast tipple. His Chief of the General Staff, Alanbrooke, spent most of his time dissuading Churchill from many wild and risky military schemes, and yet Churchill realised he had to restrain the impetuous Americans from launching a premature invasion of Europe and wait until the Soviets had done the hard work in grinding down the Wehrmacht. But his great skill was getting Americans to commit in the first place. He permitted the bombing of Germany to continue past the point where it was needed, culminating in Dresden.

He was a staunch imperialist, with the defence of the British Empire his primary aim, and condoned some horrific treatment of those who fought for independence in countries such as Kenya etc. The Indian famine in WW2 was forced on him, the UK had little means available to help, considering the Japs were on the doorstep. Yet his language was clearly racist at times and unhelpful and demeaning. He called Indians “a beastly people with a beastly religion”. In 1955, Churchill expressed his support for the slogan "Keep England White" because he opposed immigration from the West Indies.

He stoked the Cold War but was one of the first world leaders to truly comprehend the global extinction danger posed by the H-bomb, and spent much time convincing the USA leaders that it was not “just another bomb but bigger” to be used whenever needed. In his last term as PM he eventually recognised that the Empire would have to be broken up. His main domestic concern in the early 50s was in building 300,000 new houses each year for his 4 years in office, the ubiquitous semi-detached and council houses continuing Atlee’s initiative.

There are far too many events in his life to sum Churchill up in a simple, succinct way, yet many of his opinions and actions seem contradictory. Unfathomable (literally).
 
Last edited:

Tangerinenick

Well-known member
No need to sneer. We talk about all sorts of politics on here and this item is no different. The OP raises fair points about what appear at first glance, to be a ridiculous string of accusations against Churchill. Others come in with their own take and in the end we all agree. Same as always.
No sneering in my post. Of course its an open board everyone's opinions are welcome. Like our universities - absolute bedrock of free speech...well kinda.
One mans Lenin is another mans tellytubby that what I say.
 

Curryman

Well-known member
Just watch the discussion that you’ve derided based on someone else telling you what to think, rather than shouting at me for actually taking the time to watch without prejudice.

You may gain some important insight that fill in the gaps in your understanding.
X3, it was you who provided the insults, so I had every right to respond.

I will watch the video when I have time but would note you still haven't answered my question posed.

I have read, recently, about the Bengal Famine of 1943, whilst reading a book about the Burmese campaign in WW2, although was aware of it beforehand. I would hold my hands up that what Churchill said about the situation and his lack of tackling the reasons were a part of the overall problem, but not the only problem that contributed to the disaster.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
X3, it was you who provided the insults, so I had every right to respond.

I will watch the video when I have time but would note you still haven't answered my question posed.

I have read, recently, about the Bengal Famine of 1943, whilst reading a book about the Burmese campaign in WW2, although was aware of it beforehand. I would hold my hands up that what Churchill said about the situation and his lack of tackling the reasons were a part of the overall problem, but not the only problem that contributed to the disaster.
Well firstly...It wasn’t a ‘debate’, which you would have realised, had you actually taken the time to properly research the subject of your O/P, rather than reacting to a obviously biased media account.

So to that extent, the discussion that took place did not require input from any additional sources. As was made clear by the participants it was one of a myriad of discussions taking place on the subject.

I’m sure that if you were seeking a range of opinion on Churchill, then you might want to engage with a whole range of different individuals, though I’m struggling to see why that is relevant, hence my comment....

Despite the (pathetic IMHO) reactionary response to anyone daring to criticise the Myth of Churchill, there is nothing to fear (apart from perhaps improving the breadth of your understanding) in listening to what is a very interesting discussion.
 

1966_and_all_that

Well-known member
In 1939, Churchill described Russia as “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”. He might as well have been talking about himself.

As the son of a third son of a Duke he was privileged and felt entitled. But not properly entitled as he would inherit little. Money was always a problem for him in keeping up his lifestyle. Although part of the Establishment he was atheist or at least agnostic for most of his life.

He crossed the floor of the Commons twice, from Tory to Liberal to Tory, saying at the latter action after 20 years as a Liberal MP... “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat”. And yet was honourable in much else.

He treated the working class like shite, especially the miners in the General Strike of 1926. He said “It is a conflict which, if it is fought out to a conclusion can only end in the overthrow of parliamentary government or its decisive victory.” And he wanted to take it all the way rather than compromise, reputedly saying “a little blood-letting would be all to the good”.

His Gallipoli Campaign was a complete disaster using the Anzacs and the northern regiments, like the Lancashire Fusiliers, as cannon fodder. And yet, when dismissed from government took on the role of Lt Colonel of one of the Royal Scots Fusiliers‘ battalions and went to the Western Front with them, albeit in a rather quiet sector with no offensives but rather a lot of shelling to endure..

He spent many years in the “wilderness” being contrary with his own party leadership and was proven right by luck as well as judgement. Luck, because few wanted him to replace Neville Chamberlain and the King was reluctant too. At times early as a politician, he had espoused Aryan views, and yet regarded resisting fascism and Naziism as the greatest fight of his life. Churchill alluded to his hitherto anti-communist views by saying... "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil"

In his “finest hour” he spent most evenings fairly well sloshed, his consumption of pints of champagne and brandy was prodigious with a “weak” whisky and soda his usual breakfast tipple. His Chief of the General Staff, Alanbrooke, spent most of his time dissuading Churchill from many wild and risky military schemes, and yet Churchill realised he had to restrain the impetuous Americans from launching a premature invasion of Europe and wait until the Soviets had done the hard work in grinding down the Wehrmacht. But his great skill was getting Americans to commit in the first place. He permitted the bombing of Germany to continue past the point where it was needed, culminating in Dresden.

He was a staunch imperialist, with the defence of the British Empire his primary aim, and condoned some horrific treatment of those who fought for independence in countries such as Kenya etc. The Indian famine in WW2 was forced on him, the UK had little means available to help, considering the Japs were on the doorstep. Yet his language was clearly racist at times and unhelpful and demeaning. He called Indians “a beastly people with a beastly religion”. In 1955, Churchill expressed his support for the slogan "Keep England White" because he opposed immigration from the West Indies.

He stoked the Cold War but was one of the first world leaders to truly comprehend the global extinction danger posed by the H-bomb, and spent much time convincing the USA leaders that it was not “just another bomb but bigger” to be used whenever needed. In his last term as PM he eventually recognised that the Empire would have to be broken up. His main domestic concern in the early 50s was in building 300,000 new houses each year for his 4 years in office, the ubiquitous semi-detached and council houses continuing Atlee’s initiative.

There are far too many events in his life to sum Churchill up in a simple, succinct way, yet many of his opinions and actions seem contradictory. Unfathomable (literally).
Very good and informative post.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
Personally I think the whole “Great Man” thing is all a bit fantasy island.

However, I’m not sure I’d refer to anyone as a right wing fruit loop regardless. What I do think though is that there are many many people who accept the myth of Churchill with very limited insight into the man himself.

In fact for many a few excerpts from speeches played over Jerusalem on a YouTube video is the extent of their insight if you are lucky.

Not the reply I was expecting to be honest but a fair one.

That is not to say that I expect unfair responses from your good self.

I don't want to put words in to your mouth but you appear to accept that some people are of the opinion that Churchill was a great man despite believing that is a fantasy yourself.
 

Scaramanga

Well-known member
In 1939, Churchill described Russia as “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”. He might as well have been talking about himself.

As the son of a third son of a Duke he was privileged and felt entitled. But not properly entitled as he would inherit little. Money was always a problem for him in keeping up his lifestyle. Although part of the Establishment he was atheist or at least agnostic for most of his life.

He crossed the floor of the Commons twice, from Tory to Liberal to Tory, saying at the latter action after 20 years as a Liberal MP... “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat”. And yet was honourable in much else.

He treated the working class like shite, especially the miners in the General Strike of 1926. He said “It is a conflict which, if it is fought out to a conclusion can only end in the overthrow of parliamentary government or its decisive victory.” And he wanted to take it all the way rather than compromise, reputedly saying “a little blood-letting would be all to the good”.

His Gallipoli Campaign was a complete disaster using the Anzacs and the northern regiments, like the Lancashire Fusiliers, as cannon fodder. And yet, when dismissed from government took on the role of Lt Colonel of one of the Royal Scots Fusiliers‘ battalions and went to the Western Front with them, albeit in a rather quiet sector with no offensives but rather a lot of shelling to endure..

He spent many years in the “wilderness” being contrary with his own party leadership and was proven right by luck as well as judgement. Luck, because few wanted him to replace Neville Chamberlain and the King was reluctant too. At times early as a politician, he had espoused Aryan views, and yet regarded resisting fascism and Naziism as the greatest fight of his life. Churchill alluded to his hitherto anti-communist views by saying... "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil"

In his “finest hour” he spent most evenings fairly well sloshed, his consumption of pints of champagne and brandy was prodigious with a “weak” whisky and soda his usual breakfast tipple. His Chief of the General Staff, Alanbrooke, spent most of his time dissuading Churchill from many wild and risky military schemes, and yet Churchill realised he had to restrain the impetuous Americans from launching a premature invasion of Europe and wait until the Soviets had done the hard work in grinding down the Wehrmacht. But his great skill was getting Americans to commit in the first place. He permitted the bombing of Germany to continue past the point where it was needed, culminating in Dresden.

He was a staunch imperialist, with the defence of the British Empire his primary aim, and condoned some horrific treatment of those who fought for independence in countries such as Kenya etc. The Indian famine in WW2 was forced on him, the UK had little means available to help, considering the Japs were on the doorstep. Yet his language was clearly racist at times and unhelpful and demeaning. He called Indians “a beastly people with a beastly religion”. In 1955, Churchill expressed his support for the slogan "Keep England White" because he opposed immigration from the West Indies.

He stoked the Cold War but was one of the first world leaders to truly comprehend the global extinction danger posed by the H-bomb, and spent much time convincing the USA leaders that it was not “just another bomb but bigger” to be used whenever needed. In his last term as PM he eventually recognised that the Empire would have to be broken up. His main domestic concern in the early 50s was in building 300,000 new houses each year for his 4 years in office, the ubiquitous semi-detached and council houses continuing Atlee’s initiative.

There are far too many events in his life to sum Churchill up in a simple, succinct way, yet many of his opinions and actions seem contradictory. Unfathomable (literally).
Sounds like you picked the nasty bones out of a book and ignored all the good stuff on purpose. I wonder why 😄
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
Not the reply I was expecting to be honest but a fair one.

That is not to say that I expect unfair responses from your good self.

I don't want to put words in to your mouth but you appear to accept that some people are of the opinion that Churchill was a great man despite believing that is a fantasy yourself.

I accept that people hold the opinion that Churchill was a great man. I don’t have an issue with that, but I do have an issue with people who dismiss alternative opinions as invalid or worse still ‘borderline illegal’, just because they conflict with the heavily romanticised version of Churchill, that tends to be the accepted without question.
 

gjr69

Well-known member
I agree but it didn't stop the anarchy taking place last summer! Of which some on here no doubt approved of.
I cant say I was upset by the statue of a 17th century slave trader being tossed in the water at Bristol but my feeling is that all statues should stay up with a plaque in place giving a few facts about the life of the individual.
A bit of street history for us all to enjoy, and if you think about it the family of Jimmy Armfield could be proud of their plaque but Eddie Colstons descendants may be a little sheepish.
Churchill's would definitely make interesting reading but how would we agree on what is written on the mini biography.
I would go for unbiased truth, who could be unhappy with that.
 
Last edited:

gjr69

Well-known member
Sounds like you picked the nasty bones out of a book and ignored all the good stuff on purpose. I wonder why 😄
Strange, I read it and thought there were some positives, dissuading the Americans from excessive use of nuclear weapons and building 100s of 1000s of houses for working people not positive in your opinion!!
 

Scaramanga

Well-known member
Strange, I read it and thought there were some positives, dissuading the Americans from excessive use of nuclear weapons and building 100s of 1000s of houses for working people not positive in your opinion!!
Of course, but a mere tiny portion of the sneering Left wing garb of the rest of the post. But you seem to have missed that bit.
 

gjr69

Well-known member
Of course, but a mere tiny portion of the sneering Left wing garb of the rest of the post. But you seem to have missed that bit.
I read all of it, I just picked out some positives. I think Chuchills legacy is strong enough that his story can be told warts n all.
Or do you want his biographies to be like some piece of celebrity fluff that the Kardashians might commission!
 

hertfordseasider

Well-known member
I have met many Academics, my other half has worked at one of the colleges in Cambridge for several years and I can honestly say that you can spot a Cambridge Academic at a 100 yards. They are usually horrifically socially awkward, can't look you in the eye but have a superiority complex. They are probably on the spectrum somewhere, have been used to being Molly coddled from the day they stepped into Cambridge or Oxford and have been continuously Molly coddled for the duration of their life as an Academic at the college.

They would struggle to sit on the bog seat the right way round and wouldn't survive 5 minutes in the "real World".

I make this opinion based on many years of living in the University city and a lot of contact with this group. I am not talking about Oxbridge students who have been to the colleges and left to get on with their lives, I am talking about those who go as a student and never leave. These academics are a really weird bunch, brilliant minds who come up with brilliant ideas, but also brilliant minds who can come up with ideas that are completely bonkers, as a non academic I find them all a bit strange.
 

20togo

Well-known member
I have met many Academics, my other half has worked at one of the colleges in Cambridge for several years and I can honestly say that you can spot a Cambridge Academic at a 100 yards. They are usually horrifically socially awkward, can't look you in the eye but have a superiority complex. They are probably on the spectrum somewhere, have been used to being Molly coddled from the day they stepped into Cambridge or Oxford and have been continuously Molly coddled for the duration of their life as an Academic at the college.

They would struggle to sit on the bog seat the right way round and wouldn't survive 5 minutes in the "real World".

I make this opinion based on many years of living in the University city and a lot of contact with this group. I am not talking about Oxbridge students who have been to the colleges and left to get on with their lives, I am talking about those who go as a student and never leave. These academics are a really weird bunch, brilliant minds who come up with brilliant ideas, but also brilliant minds who can come up with ideas that are completely bonkers, as a non academic I find them all a bit strange.
....nah stop, don't go there. 😉
 

Seaside Aggro

Well-known member
We already have free speech in Universities, hence why people are able to boycott and no platform speakers. Academics do not have the time, and the majority don’t have the inclination to indoctrinate students in Marxist ideology.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
I accept that people hold the opinion that Churchill was a great man. I don’t have an issue with that, but I do have an issue with people who dismiss alternative opinions as invalid or worse still ‘borderline illegal’, just because they conflict with the heavily romanticised version of Churchill, that tends to be the accepted without question.

Fair enough.

I think the default view on here is that he was a wrong un but there's no point in us arguing about that.
 
Top
X