Wake up

[WindFish]

Link?

I dont have a primary source

 

[Antilogic]

Beyond my typical objections/laughter at a MC thread, I have to question where the 660 million people figure came from.

 

[salty mud]

i dont have a primary source

"i do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the peace conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: Gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

 

[NickyJ]

I dont have a primary source

I know how you feel. For some reason, people just don't believe me when I point out that FDR gunned down 37 people in the streets of Pakistan with his AK-47. When they ask me where I heard it, I have to admit that I don't have a primary source, which is actually kind of embarrassing.

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

That quote was about the use of tear gas for Iraqi revolt of 1920. We still use tear gas as riot control, so I see no problem.

From what I understand of WindFish's post, he's saying that Churchill used lethal gasses, which simply isn't the case.

 

[Dachs]

From what I understand of WindFish's post, he's saying that Churchill used lethal gasses, which simply isn't the case.

Churchill was a member of the military hierarchy of the Asquith government during the First World War. He was quite incontrovertibly complicit in the use of lethal gas.

 

[Traitorfish]

Either way, if that's what helps you decide whether or not Churchill was a first-class douchenozzle, then you're not really paying attention. The man has a résumé of dickery a mile long.

 

[Quackers]

If Churchill was such a fascist TF, why didn't he favor the Nazis above the Soviets and French? Explain that to me brah!

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Churchill? Meh. Last time I was in charge of a small island besieged for 4 years by one of the most terrifying military forces in history I was totally cool.

 

[Dachs]

Churchill? Meh. Last time I was in charge of a small island besieged for 4 years by one of the most terrifying military forces in history I was totally cool.

Nobody's ever managed to give a good reason why Churchill's VORL during World War II would've been particularly high. And even if it were high, it wouldn't outweigh the utterly contemptible stuff he did for the rest of his career.

 

[Traitorfish]

If Churchill was such a fascist TF, why didn't he favor the Nazis above the Soviets and French? Explain that to me brah!

Churchill wasn't a fascist, and I didn't claim that he was.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Nobody's ever managed to give a good reason why Churchill's VORL during World War II would've been particularly high. And even if it were high, it wouldn't outweigh the utterly contemptible stuff he did for the rest of his career.

I figured there must be some contemptible stuff there but concluded my lack of knowledge about it didn't outweigh my desire to post a moderately punchy one-liner.

 

[Quackers]

Churchill wasn't a fascist, and I didn't claim that he was.

Ok, you claimed he was a "vocal supporter of fascism".
Still my point stands. He was a vocal supporter of it, why didnt he support it in mainland Europe Brah? Why didn't he support the axis? Why was he a rare individual in British politics who understood and vocalised his objections to the Nazis in the 30s?

The fact is Churchill defeated Fascism and is a hero of British history; which makes him an enemy of the British-hating left.

 

[Dachs]

I figured there must be some contemptible stuff there but concluded my lack of knowledge about it didn't outweigh my desire to post a moderately punchy one-liner.

"Keep England White" isn't good enough?

The fact is Churchill defeated Fascism and is a hero of British history; which makes him an enemy of the British-hating left.

/me is british-hating but not "left"

 

[Flying Pig]

Churchill was a member of the military hierarchy of the Asquith government during the First World War. He was quite incontrovertibly complicit in the use of lethal gas.

As were the other side. Again, I hardly think you can call him out for it; gas was seen as a legitimate if nasty weapon of war in those days, in the same way that nobody calls the soldiers of past wars (myself included) monsters for using landmines. Before long, I'm sure that international law will ban some of the key components of our modern arsenals. Times and opinions change.

If Churchill was such a fascist TF, why didn't he favor the Nazis above the Soviets and French? Explain that to me brah!

Ah... As usual waiting for a Dachs-slap, but one of the reasons why Britain appeared to cozy up to Hitler in the years before the war was that a strong, fascist Germany could provide a buffer against Communism - and after what everybody saw happen to Russia in 1917, anything was better than another Communist revolution. Well, except that, but nobody had seen that yet.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ok, you claimed he was a "vocal supporter of fascism".
Still my point stands. He was a vocal supporter of it, why didnt he support it in mainland Europe Brah? Why didn't he support the axis? Why was he a rare individual in British politics who understood and vocalised his objections to the Nazis in the 30s?

I don't understand why any of that is incompatible with holding fascist sympathies. Fascism it is not and never was an internationalist ideology, and there were plenty of fascists, para-fascists and pro-fascists across Europe who participated in military resistance against the Axis powers.

The fact is Churchill defeated Fascism and is a hero of British history; which makes him an enemy of the British-hating left.

Eh, whatever you say.

Ah... As usual waiting for a Dachs-slap, but one of the reasons why Britain appeared to cozy up to Hitler in the years before the war was that a strong, fascist Germany could provide a buffer against Communism - and after what everybody saw happen to Russia in 1917, anything was better than another Communist revolution. Well, except that, but nobody had seen that yet.

Noting, of course, that Churchill's objections to Bolshevism had nothing to do with ethical or humanitarian concerns, and everything to do with a hostility to what he described as "subversive forces". If it had been otherwise, he probably wouldn't have used his political office to actively increase and extend the suffering which you simplistically attribute to "communist revolution", however we're defining that.

 

[Ajidica]

Ah... As usual waiting for a Dachs-slap, but one of the reasons why Britain appeared to cozy up to Hitler in the years before the war was that a strong, fascist Germany could provide a buffer against Communism - and after what everybody saw happen to Russia in 1917, anything was better than another Communist revolution. Well, except that, but nobody had seen that yet.

Plus the Brits weren't exactly on best terms with the French and Dutch.

 

[choxorn]

Before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 there were about 1.4 million Christians in Iraq, a Muslim-dominated nation of nearly 30 million. Since then, about 50% of Iraq's Christians have fled the country, taking refuge in neighboring Jordan, Syria, Europe and the USA, according to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

So have lots of non-Christians. You see, being in a place where people are blowing each other up sucks, and lots of people like leaving places where people are blowing each other up, whether they're Christian or not.

 

[Ajidica]

Plus, if memory serves most of the Iraqi Christans were in the Iraqi 'middle class' giving them the financial resources to high tail it out of there once it became apparent the things weren't going that great.

 

[Flying Pig]

Noting, of course, that Churchill's objections to communism had nothing to do with ethical or humanitarian concerns, and everything to do with a hostility to what he described as "subversive forces". If it had been otherwise, he wouldn't have used his political office to actively increase and extend the suffering which you attribute to" Communism", whatever that is.

The 'subversive forces' which he was afraid would start a revolution in the UK, with the death, suffering and general nastiness which those things generally carry with them.

 

[Quackers]

It's quite flimsy reasoning. So odd, how a vocal pro-fascist leader led his own country to war against other fascists..