Apologetics for Churchill
donaloc at peterquinn.com
Fri Nov 29 04:12:38 MST 2002
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 02:32:36PM +0000, Ian Willmore wrote:
> But it is still possible to argue (and I would agree) that he played a
> central role in defeating the Nazis and was the only politician capable of
> leading the UK in that task at the time.
At least David Welch and myself agree on something - and how! This is the
worst trash I've ever read on marxmail. In fact, it's much further down the
scale than stuff written by people who got kicked off.
Winston Churchill was an evil, imperialist bastard. His actions during WWII
were no better than his actions against the Welsh miners, Irish republicans,
Africaaners, Mesopotamians tribesmen, Indians and goodness knows who else.
To say that there was no-one equal to him in facing the equally evil Hitler
is way off the richter scale in bad taste. I can certainly understand why
Irish Republicans engaged in a bombing campaign against Britain in the early
40s - as the saying goes, 'Better the Devil himself than the British in
Ireland'. Besides the people of the Soviet Union won the war despite British
and US support rather because of it.
Besides, its incredibly poor analysis for someone participating on a marxism
forum. Individuals are, IMO, only as historically important as the groups to
which they speak. Churchill spoke to old-fashioned bloody-headed British
(should I say English) imperialism.
The whole bourgeois thing of focussing on Best Briton or whatever is just a
sideshow. The fact that they chose Churchill is reflective of the sort of
people who phoned up and the massive difficulties which remain in front of
those trying to drag Britain kicking and screaming into the post-imperialist
era. The fact that a 'socialist' can sing his praises is even worse.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism