Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

14

jon332 t1_j1ug4je wrote

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

37

ScrotiusRex t1_j1ut84d wrote

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

−40

HobgoblinKhanate t1_j1vvt3s wrote

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

17

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.

−5

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

1

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.

32

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.

1

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

1

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.

1

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..

−1

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.

2

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.

12

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

1