You must log in or register to comment.

RonSwansonsOldMan t1_j1uzc3q wrote

TIL that Churchill was still in power during the Korean war.


chemo92 t1_j1w50vs wrote

Technically he wasn't still in power.

He was PM from 1940-1945 and then PM again from 1951-1955.


Joe_Doblow t1_j1xe6cb wrote

So was he still in power or nah?


threwzsa t1_j1xgxmd wrote

He was still in power, he wasn’t still in power consecutively.

He’s just goofing around with the way the word “still” is used in this context.


chemo92 t1_j1ymoqc wrote

He was back in power :P

I'm just being pedantic now


picado t1_j1u7xhq wrote

Maybe Churchill thought they should use poison gas.

> "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he declared in one secret memorandum. He criticised his colleagues for their "squeamishness"


Billypisschips t1_j1um2jt wrote

The gas Churchill advocated for is what we would now call "tear gas", often used for crowd control and dispersal. Memorandums specifically say "lachrymatory gas". Not nice, but not exactly mustard gas either, and less damaging than bullets.


Fit-Owl-3338 t1_j1v9m3f wrote

He was also responding to the Amritsar massacre where British troops opened up with machine guns on protesters killing like 300 people. I’m sure using tear gas is lame to all of us in 2022, but tear gas instead of machine guns sounds downright progressive for something that happened 100 years ago


Aq8knyus t1_j1vyuxl wrote

Not British Army troops, but British Indian Army troops made up of Gurkhas and Sikhs.


stonercd t1_j1vs1im wrote

he was referring to non lethal gas for crowd control, something that's still banned in UK


GrantDN t1_j1uwy29 wrote

Lol, I was just gonna say “he thought it wasn’t cruel enough?”

Winston Churchill may be a hero if you fixate on his actions during WW2. Otherwise he was not a good man.


danteheehaw t1_j1uyyjb wrote

Very very few players in any of the world wars were actually good people. Roosevelt was probably the few who actually seemed like a well rounded good dude. But even then the whole Japanese concentration camps were shitty as fuck.


Cetun t1_j1vo4ix wrote

Until you realize that at the beginning of the war Britain was a world power, entered the war to protect Poland, and had the world's most powerful navy. At the end of 1955 the Polish government in exile was still in London while half of Poland was now part of the Soviet Union and the other half was a puppet government of the Soviet Union, it had lost half it's colonies already and about to lose the other half, and it had been eclipsed as a world power by the United States handily, who now has the world's largest navy. On top of that it was saddled with a tremendous amount of debt that it constantly struggled to pay, all thanks to Churchill.

The reason for this is Churchill did what all 'great' leaders did, pull out the checkbook and credit cards and started writing notes to everyone to fix their problems for them. He promised America to decolonize for loans, he promised Stalin half of Europe to take on the majority of fighting. Even then much of the British army was commonwealth personal. The only meaningful thing he did was manage the blitz well, and that's because he couldn't pawn that off onto another country.


Aq8knyus t1_j1w01sp wrote

Britain is a small archipelago with a modest population. It is less than half the size of France and didn’t have a particularly large population.

It was always going to decline relative to huge continental sized nations once they got their act together. The world wars just accelerated a natural process.


Bravo-Six-Nero t1_j1w30z5 wrote

Are you smoking pot?

Britain is only 21% less populated than Germany and has the same population as france…


Aq8knyus t1_j1w4kil wrote

I used the past tense, so it seems you are the one smoking.

In 1800 the UK population was less than half of France. In 1913, it had nearly 20 million fewer people than Germany.

Also ‘only 21%’??? That is over 1/5 you daft sod, that is significantly smaller.


Bravo-Six-Nero t1_j1w5eoa wrote

But your saying “it was always going to decline” and it has done the opposite

Im also glad your good at turning percentages into fractions but relative to land mass size its little difference


Aq8knyus t1_j1wexlm wrote

The point is Britain is a tiny country, unremarkable even by European standards. Its rise to global prominence was never sustainable long term. It had already lost its economic dominance before WWI.

The current global hegemon is the US, it is a continent sized country with vast resources and a population of 300 million+. Its dominance makes sense.


how-puhqueliar t1_j1ynlb8 wrote think britain hasn't declined?


words_of_j t1_j1uy7y4 wrote

“Still allowed Americans…”. I don’t even know what to say about that characterization.

I don’t know, but perhaps he didn’t object publicly to Americans claiming support, …but that’s a far cry from such a grossly wrong and misleading statement that loudly proclaims Churchill somehow was the governing authority over America.


a_drive t1_j1v350v wrote

I think the implication is he allowed them to publish these things without opposition


words_of_j t1_j1v3qz2 wrote

Implication…. I’m sure you are right, but language matters. Anytime I have to make an assumption about what someone was trying to say or meaning to say, that’s writing primed to create misunderstanding. And I’m in a grumpy mood so I vented my pet peeve. In actual conversation we get a lot of other cues and can ask for clarification. In written words…. That is all absent.

My comment was certainly an overreaction, as judged by me on a day I’m feeling better. But today…. Well that title just hit me hard.


Aq8knyus t1_j1w10bp wrote

He was an Anglo-American, his mother was American and he believed passionately in Britain and America working closely together.


Slartibartfast39 t1_j1u8pah wrote

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill privately criticized the use of napalm in Korea, writing that it was "very cruel", as US/UN forces, he wrote, were "splashing it all over the civilian population", "tortur[ing] great masses of people". He conveyed these sentiments to U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Omar Bradley, who "never published the statement". Publicly, Churchill allowed Bradley "to issue a statement that confirmed U.K. support for U.S. napalm attacks".

So privately against but wouldn't make that public. He did well for the UK during the war but he was not good person and would be ostracized if he were around today.


jon332 t1_j1ug4je wrote

This is what it is , Churchill was a war time primeminister


ScrotiusRex t1_j1ut84d wrote

He was a war criminal and a racist is what he was.


HobgoblinKhanate t1_j1vvt3s wrote

Wait til you read about other leaders throughout history across the world


Frenchybaby01 t1_j1wdafm wrote

I dunno how many other 20th century leaders advocated for starving the bengalis in India or who had an incredible contempt for irish people. Churchill was a dickhead by their standards too.


HobgoblinKhanate t1_j1wdy7p wrote

Yeah I’m not arguing he was a dick or not. Like Stalin, he helped stop the world falling into fascism. Stalin was also a dick. So we’re many people throughout history

Though I don’t know why such a guy was against using napalm. Maybe he grew a conscience in the 50s


Billypisschips t1_j1vcv9y wrote

As a wartime leader Churchill is unsurpassed. His pig headed refusal to consider anything bar complete victory over the Nazis, and determination to fight on alone in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds against the greatest military force the world had ever seen, saved our island from the jack boot of fascism. As a peacetime leader he was a typical tory, with few, if any redeeming qualities. By the time of the Korean war, and his second stint as PM, he knew Britain was very much the junior partner in its relationship with the US, and spoke accordingly. Publicly supporting an ally whilst privately questioning the morality of their actions was about all he could do.


dressageishard t1_j1xaxbf wrote

I have nothing but the highest regard for Churchill. He had bulldogged determination to fight the Germans. The UK fought the war alone until the US got in. To me that deserves the world's respect.


tipdrill541 t1_j1yjutc wrote

Well the US did supply them with weapons and other resources during the years before pearl harbour, despite them officially being neutral


Billypisschips t1_j1ykc04 wrote

In those early days food was the most important thing. We should never forget the bravery of the merchant seamen, including thousands of Americans, that stopped Britain starving to death.


badabingbadaboey t1_j1ymxrl wrote

"Fight on alone"? You mean as the biggest navy and empire of history? With an excellently motorized and equipped army?

He made some good speeches but he's not the British Jesus..


Billypisschips t1_j1yqx2d wrote

Even the largest navy in the world couldn't defend an island against the luftwaffe. They had a relatively small standing army, which could never be described as excellently equipped, and less so after everything was left in Dunkirk, was also ineffective against the luftwaffe. The bulk of Britain's defence came from Hurricane and Spitfire fighter planes, and a dwindling number of pilots bolstered by volunteers from the commonwealth and Poland. Britain's most effective weapon was the ordinary men and women who worked round the clock to build and repair the fighter planes, often whilst being bombed, with unfailing resilience, surpassing even the Germans in terms of output. So with mainland Europe conquered, America still following an isolationist policy, and the Soviets hoping for the best; Britain was indeed alone in defying the Nazis.


Aq8knyus t1_j1w0r1s wrote

I dont actually like Churchill for his incompetent role at the Admiralty during 1914/15.

However, if you were born in 1874, you too would have grown up with attitudes that wouldn’t fly in polite society in 2022.


tipdrill541 t1_j1yk0gy wrote

Not just that but 99% of British politicians and high ranking and just regular military officers, have always come from the small white British Upper class. So of course there will be a lot of incompetence when all the leaders of the military and government are drawn from a very, very small pool that has absolutely nothing to do with merit nd just what family they were born into


Spacebutterfly t1_j1ujvxw wrote

Why is this Wikipedia thumbnail a video


Wiamly t1_j1xdw09 wrote

That’s autoplaying in the Apollo app.


-domi- t1_j1ue05d wrote

Napalm itself isn't the issue, how/where/at whom it's deployed might be.


CasaFlata t1_j1w62nw wrote

He must’ve been pissed.


chefdangerdagger t1_j1ykfyk wrote

Weird because he was very much in favour of bombing civilians during the war even when the research they conducted on their own population indicated it didn't erode moral like they hoped.


Top_Neighborhood_859 t1_j1x5ife wrote

How did he "allow" Americans to do anything. He wasn't in power during the Korean war... He certainly wasn't in power in America


mrbbrj t1_j1uy7uy wrote

Churchill supported bombing German civilian areas despite evidence it only makes the bombedmore united


allenout t1_j1v1faq wrote

I'm not sure where your evidence comes from but the bombings evidently worked.


mrbbrj t1_j1w5yfj wrote

The evidence was that the German bombing of England only made the English more resolute and united


panzer22222 t1_j1wksiy wrote

The Germans put 80% of their artillery as AA guns. For every 88mm gun shooting at a tank there were 4 pointing up at the sky.


what_Would_I_Do t1_j1uz9tw wrote

Churchill also had a body count of a couple million. Truly Soulless


black_dogs_22 t1_j1v7mrc wrote

yeah but he's not American so he's good and America bad, haven't you seen all the posts today?


what_Would_I_Do t1_j1ve7jk wrote

Naa, every country only teach the good history not the slaughter and starvation commited because ignorance is bliss. If I was actually wrong people would have commented not just disliked lol.


indicisivemulletmole t1_j1v1vtk wrote

He was also a racist asshole who supported the gassing of African tribes who rebelled against the empire. Fuck Churchill, he was a fat, angry, racist old drunk who's only redeeming quality was his penchant for violence against foreigners in a time of war.


stonercd t1_j1vt637 wrote

He's was arguing for the use of tear gas as an alternative to rioters getting shot actually.

he made a couple of statements that would be problematic if said today, but wouldn't have raised an eyebrow in the 40's

As a man of his time you could even consider him a progressive.


HobgoblinKhanate t1_j1u7yvf wrote

I wonder how much the American politicians of the time resented British politicians for not getting involved. Did they just ignore it or were they vocal about it?

Edit: I mean Vietnam not Korea


bafta t1_j1uk65m wrote

Britain was very involved in Korea,if that's what you mean, but not Vietnam


allenout t1_j1v1m9n wrote

The US said they would give Britain $1 billion for a single battalion. The entire Marshall plan funds to Britain were $4 billion. The US really wanted Britain involved.


Aq8knyus t1_j1w1pb1 wrote


The US chose Nasser over Britain and France.

France went their own way stepping back (But not leaving) NATO. Britain maintained a close alliance with the US but stayed out of Vietnam.

Should have stayed out of Iraq and Afghanistan, too.


HobgoblinKhanate t1_j1w6heb wrote

Ah yeah. I remember something about Suez

Iraq was a shit war, though I hate Saddam and he deserved to die