Poll: Churchill Statue

[Tambourine]

In truth, most statues have nothing to do with colonialism which is not really surprising.

There are thousands of statues of philosophers, scientists, inventors, writers, artists, poets, musicians, religious clerics, philanthropists, etc.

While such things are hard to quantify, a rational analysis would suggest there aren't going to be all that many countries which have contributed more in a number of these fields.

So if you take out colonialism, there's still key contributions to the industrial revolution and the development of modern science, the abolition of the slave trade, antibiotics, TV, telephone, telegraph, WWW, trains, jet engines, electric engines, Newton, Darwin, Hume, Locke, Bacon, Brunel, Watt, Faraday, Babbage, Jenner, Shakespeare, Dickens, etc., etc., etc.

List of British innovations and discoveries - Wikipedia

That sounds like the whole panic reaction over supposedly erasing precious European history is completely unfounded, then.

 

[Tambourine]

The reason as to why I generally don't watch videos is that I am never certain on whether I understand to what extent one agrees with it.

You can't deny how neat this MO is, though. He doesn't have to agree with anything in particular, doesn't have to build an argument or advocate a coherent position, and still gets to live out his contrarianism, but without facing any of the consequences for actually having to argue an opinion.

 

[Notanumber]

And I'm proud to be Canadian, but I still think we could do with a few less John A. McDonald statues.

Pride in one's country <> acquiescence to one's country's racist history.

The people throwing statues in the river are presumably proud of their country, too. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be taking action.

Any reasonable person would believe that democracy is better than anarchy.

 

[Augustus]

That sounds like the whole panic reaction over supposedly erasing precious European history is completely unfounded, then.

Well we also have to get rid of Darwin, Shakespeare, Locke and Hume for being "racists". Tbh there would be a whole load of Enlightenment thinkers getting cancelled on that point, and given it's contributions to the promotion of white supremacism, slavery and genocide we should probably be ashamed of it and stop celebrating racism by talking about it as a good thing.

Francis Bacon married a 14 year old so wouldn't get past the #metoo veto, Dickens would fall foul of them too.

Newton probably hated 'Popery', so gets cancelled for religious bigotry.

If you are Austrian, well Mozart was a Freemason and they discriminate against women and have a used to discriminate against non-whites too, can't have statues of racists. Freud, another racist prone to talk about 'savages'.

There is a reason why people wrote hagiographies about saints rather than biographies: moral purity rarely exists in real life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Any reasonable person would believe that democracy is better than anarchy.

Again: just because you don't approve of something doesn't make the thing anarchy.

Toppling a statue <> toppling a government.

And BTW: if you're a fan of democracy, British history probably isn't the best thing to want to celebrate.

 

[Notanumber]

Again: just because you don't approve of something doesn't make the thing anarchy.

Toppling a statue <> toppling a government.

And BTW: if you're a fan of democracy, British history probably isn't the best thing to want to celebrate.

History, good or bad must not be erased or re-written.

We learn from history.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

History, good or bad must not be erased or re-written.

We learn from history.

You're looking to whitewash history, not learn from it.

Anyone who cared about real history would not support any monument that creates the impression that Churchill had no innocent victims.

These sorts of statues are revisionist propaganda that seek to hide history.

 

[Augustus]

You're looking to whitewash history, not learn from it.

Anyone who cared about real history would not support any monument that creates the impression that Churchill had no innocent victims.

These sorts of statues are revisionist propaganda that seek to hide history.

How does a statue of an old man with a stick 'seek to hide history'? A statue isn't a biography.

How should the statue be designed so as to not 'hide history'?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How does a statue of an old man with a stick 'seek to hide history'? A statue isn't a biography.

I would have thought it was obvious, but here you go:

Honouring someone implies that their legacy is honourable. The statement implicit in most statues of a historical figure is that they did nothing so dishonourable as to make it inappropriate to honour them.

How should the statue be designed so as to not 'hide history'?

One option might be to add "supporters:" on one side, a gassed Iraqi child and on the other, a starved Indian child.

 

[Tambourine]

Well we also have to get rid of Darwin, Shakespeare, Locke and Hume for being "racists". Tbh there would be a whole load of Enlightenment thinkers getting cancelled on that point, and given it's contributions to the promotion of white supremacism, slavery and genocide we should probably be ashamed of it and stop celebrating racism by talking about it as a good thing.

The statues being dunked on were of people who were materially harming other people through imperialism and slavery.

This argument, on the other hand, seems to me more like the tired old strawman that leftists would violently attack everyone who is not absolutely 100% perfect about not being a terrible person.

EDIT: As far as I can tell, nobody here or in real life has called for "moral purity".

As for John Locke, he was a racist who oppressed and caused material harm to other people via his business ventures as a slave trader, on top of providing the intellectual framework for race-based slavery as a political and cultural institution, as well as philosophical justifications for colonial conquest, so he absolutely deserves to get dunked on.

 

[Augustus]

Honouring someone implies that their legacy is honourable. The statement implicit in most statues of a historical figure is that they did nothing so dishonourable as to make it inappropriate to honour them.

One option might be to add "supporters:" on one side, a gassed Iraqi child and on the other, a starved Indian child.

Your attempt to 'correct' history is not exactly nuanced. I think you even accused him of genocide earlier in the thread.

As to the 'supporters':

1. It was tear gas. Tear gas is used by basically all modern nations.
2. The fact that you are in the middle of the biggest war in history, Japan has just conquered most of the Asian parts of the Empire reducing food supply and has a navy in the Bay of Bengal making resupply difficult (they even have troops on Indian soil), Indian provincial governors are not willing to share much of their stocks, other local and colonial officials are incompetent or corrupt, merchants are price gouging, transportation infrastructure has been damaged by natural disasters, food is in shortage everywhere, and ships are in shortage as they keep getting sunk it does make it somewhat more difficult to do what you would do under ideal circumstances.

Hundreds of thousands of tons of food was sent, although less than was requested, as the Minister of War transportation noted it was "clearly quite impossible to provide shipping to meet the demand of 1½ million tons of grain made by the Government of India.”

It's quite obviously not the simple 'Winston very very bad evil man' you seem to think it is.

 

[Tambourine]

1. It was tear gas. Tear gas is used by basically all modern nations.

They actually had a varied stock of gas, including the highly poisonous mustard gas. As far as I've read, the generals on site did not deploy poison gas, even though Churchill had okayed its deployment.

The Guardian characterizes Churchill's stance on the use of poison gas in this way:

The cabinet was hostile to the use of such weapons, much to Churchill's irritation. He also wanted to use M Devices against the rebellious tribes of northern India. "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", declaring that "the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a more merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war."

He ended his memo on a note of ill-placed black humour: "Why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze?" he asked. "It is really too silly."

2. The fact that you are in the middle of the biggest war in history, Japan has just conquered most of the Asian parts of the Empire reducing food supply and has a navy in the Bay of Bengal making resupply difficult (they even have troops on Indian soil), Indian provincial governors are not willing to share much of their stocks, other local and colonial officials are incompetent or corrupt, merchants are price gouging, transportation infrastructure has been damaged by natural disasters, food is in shortage everywhere, and ships are in shortage as they keep getting sunk it does make it somewhat more difficult to do what you would do under ideal circumstances.

Hundreds of thousands of tons of food was sent, although less than was requested, as the Minister of War transportation noted it was "clearly quite impossible to provide shipping to meet the demand of 1½ million tons of grain made by the Government of India.”

It's quite obviously not the simple 'Winston very very bad evil man' you seem to think it is.

I find it a little suspicious how everything that went well in the war was apparently to Churchill's credit, while everything that went wrong could be conveniently blamed on subordinates or adverse circumstances.

 

[Augustus]

The statues being dunked on were of people who were materially harming other people through imperialism and slavery.

This argument, on the other hand, seems to me more like the tired old strawman that leftists would violently attack everyone who is not absolutely 100% perfect about not being a terrible person.

'Cancelling' people is not exactly a nuanced and fair minded process driven by dispassionate reason. When you have a culture where people gain social credit for identifying wrongthink, you have a process that keeps going.

Ideologues tend not to be placated by bowing to their initial demands and decide they are now content with the situation. They move on to the next lot.

People like Francis 'eugenics' Galton have also been targeted.

Anyone who today considers themselves a progressive-ish, secular rationalist would likely have supported eugenics and held to aspects of scientific racialism had they lived in the late 19th/early 20th C though.

Also Darwin said some things that sound horrifically racist to the modern ear and it would be very easy to spin this as an 'apologia for genocide'. Should Darwin be cancelled?

Criticising people for holding views that were normal in the past, but seem terrible today is tied to the conceit that we would somehow have been better had we been born back then.

In reality it's just congratulating yourself for being born later in history.

As for John Locke, he was a racist slaver who oppressed and caused material harm to other people with his business ventures as a slave trader, on top of providing the intellectual framework for race-based slavery as a political and cultural institution, so he absolutely deserves to get dunked on.

The intellectual framework for 'scientific' race based slavery is intertwined with 'Enlightenment values'.

And yes, there are those who see the Enlightenment as an evil 'white supremacist' stain on history.

 

[Augustus]

They actually had a varied stock of gas, including the highly poisonous mustard gas. As far as I've read, the generals on site did not deploy poison gas, even though Churchill had okayed its deployment.

A departmental minute Churchill wrote in the War Office on 12 May 1919 has been used by detractors to suggest that he did indeed think frightfulness was acceptable, once again through selective quotation. ‘I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas,’ he wrote about the British policy in Iraq. ‘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.’ Yet the rest of the minute, which often goes unquoted, makes it clear that Churchill was referring to tear gas, not to chlorine or lethal gases. ‘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 [tear-causing] gas,’ Churchill wrote. ‘I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized 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.”

Andrew Roberts - Churchill: Walking with Destiny

He did want to gas the Bolsheviks, although that, arguably, might have actually been a good thing for humanity.

I find it a little suspicious how everything that went well in the war was apparently to Churchill's credit, while everything that went wrong could be conveniently blamed on subordinates or adverse circumstances.

He can be criticised for many things during the war. The idea that any leader could come through that episode of history without so much as a blemish on their reputation is absurd.

Do you accept that massive, months long and very risky humanitarian aid missions that need to somehow bypass hostile navies and air forces while diverting significant resources (that you risk losing permanently) away from feeding other hungry people and fighting the Nazis and the Japanese may not be practical or even possible during the biggest war in history?

Could he have done better without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight? Maybe, maybe not, there is no real way to tell. Is it understandable that he couldn't solve the problem in real time? Of course.

 

[Tambourine]

He did want to gas the Bolsheviks, although that, arguably, might have actually been a good thing for humanity.

I know right, horrible mass murder by chemical weapons sure would have brought humanity together. It's a horrible crime that Churchill didn't get to order the deaths of thousands more civilians.

Do you actually read what you write?

He can be criticised for many things during the war. The idea that any leader could come through that episode of history without so much as a blemish on their reputation is absurd.

What things do you find worth criticizing about Churchill, apart from his reluctance to engage in chemical warfare against the civilian population of Russia?

 

[Augustus]

I know right, horrible mass murder by chemical weapons sure would have brought humanity together. It's a horrible crime that Churchill didn't get to order the deaths of thousands more civilians.

Do you actually read what you write?

Of course, do you actually think about what you write?

1. It was not against civilians, but an army that committed many atrocities. In case you are unaware of the situation Russian Civil War - Wikipedia. If you are aware, then why the continual need to misrepresent?
2. This army was also using chemical weapons (and chemical weapons were used widely in WW1 so there wasn't the same stigma that is attached to them today)
3. This army became one of history's most murderous regimes with tens of millions of casualties.
4. In many forms of ethics it is acceptable to commit a small harm in order to prevent a larger one. Do you agree that, in theory, this is potentially acceptable? For example, knowing what we know now, would you fire chemical shells into the Munich beerhall full of Nazis (Hitler, Hess, Goering, Rosenberg, etc.) carrying out the Beer Hall Putsch?

What things do you find worth criticizing about Churchill, apart from his reluctance to engage in chemical warfare against the civilian population of Russia?

Again, it's better to discuss things without resorting to blatant misrepresentation in order to make your points.

The 2 biggest ones:

The British and American bombing of Dresden in which the great harms outweighed the limited military benefit.

He should have been more open to advice from both military and civilian officials and more accountable for his bad decisions. He believed he was a much better military strategist than he actually was and made numerous poor decisions in this regard.

 

[Tambourine]

Of course, do you actually think about what you write?

1. It was not against civilians, but an army that committed many atrocities. In case you are unaware of the situation Russian Civil War - Wikipedia. If you are aware, then why the continual need to misrepresent?

I'm sorry, where did you get the idea from that Churchill wanted to restrict chemical weapon use only to frontline military personnel? Is there anything he said or put down in writing that indicates as such?

2. This army was also using chemical weapons (and chemical weapons were used widely in WW1 so there wasn't the same stigma that is attached to them today)

Are you familiar with the Hague Conventions that were in effect during WW1? The use of poison gas in warfare was explicitly called out as a war crime there. Now, you would be correct to suggest that atrocities and war crimes tend to be committed in all wars - but that does not mitigate the simple fact that usage of chemical weapons has constituted a war crime even before the start of WW1, let alone during the Russian Civil War.

I take it you also did not read about how the first use of chemical weapons during WW1 was received in the international press. There was a massive outcry in the Anglophone press over the German use of chlorine gas and, later, mustard gas, and the German military was (rightfully, IMO) condemned for its widespread use.

Now, you could call the Allies a bunch of hypocrites and you would be correct. But that doesn't change that the use of chemical weapon was considered a serious breach of international rules of engagement at the time.

3. This army became one of history's most murderous regimes with tens of millions of casualties.

You are conflating the result 50 years of Stalinist political oppression and economic mismanagement with the casualties of direct military action at the hand of the Red Army during the Russian Civil War.

As for the Russian Civil War, it cost almost three million casualties on all sides combined. Surely you are not suggesting that only the victims of the Reds constituted a murderous crime, while the Whites should stay blameless?

4. In many forms of ethics it is acceptable to commit a small harm in order to prevent a larger one. Do you agree that, in theory, this is potentially acceptable? For example, knowing what we know now, would you fire chemical shells into the Munich beerhall full of Nazis (Hitler, Hess, Goering, Rosenberg, etc.) carrying out the Beer Hall Putsch?

You have yet to make a case that killing thousands of Russians with poison gas would have prevented larger harm.

Again, it's better to discuss things without resorting to blatant misrepresentation in order to make your points.

Where have I misrepresented you? You were clearly displaying the same cavalier attitude towards war crimes as Churchill.

He should have been more open to advice from both military and civilian officials and more accountable for his bad decisions. He believed he was a much better military strategist than he actually was and made numerous poor decisions in this regard.

That's astonishingly vague and noncommittal. What "poor decisions" did he make, in your opinion?

 

[Notanumber]

Trust Google to virtue signal.

Common sense will prevail.

 

[Augustus]

I'm sorry, where did you get the idea from that Churchill wanted to restrict chemical weapon use only to frontline military personnel? Is there anything he said or put down in writing that indicates as such?

Where is your evidence he was targeting civilians?

Now, you could call the Allies a bunch of hypocrites and you would be correct. But that doesn't change that the use of chemical weapon was considered a serious breach of international rules of engagement at the time.

Given the treaty had been violated hundreds of times and multiple parties were no longer adhering to it, would you consider it still to have been in effect?

Better still, had you been in charge of the Allies, when the Germans used gas, do you believe would you have refused to use it in return as it was a 'war crime'?

You are conflating the result 50 years of Stalinist political oppression and economic mismanagement with the casualties of direct military action at the hand of the Red Army during the Russian Civil War.

Repression started from day 1, it wasn't just 'Stalinist'

If you try to stop a regime taking power because you believe they will be tyrannical, then they prove to be tyrannical and kill tens of millions of people, you can factor this into the equation when judging people's reputations with hindsight.

You have yet to make a case that killing thousands of Russians with poison gas would have prevented larger harm.

With hindsight, do you believe the world would likely have been better off without the Bolsheviks taking power? (and thus no Comintern so potentially no Communist Eastern Europe, China, Cambodia, etc.)

I say yes, of course it would. The odds of the replacement being anything other than the springboard for the most murderous ideology in history are pretty high.


Overall though, with the benefit of hindsight, do you believe the world would have been better off had Winston Churchill never been born?

For me, given the role he played during WW2, particularly making sure Britain didn't surrender in 40-41 thus ending the war with a Nazi victory, there is a chance that the world would have ended up significantly worse off. For that alone he deserves a respected place in history. He was also a popular figurehead at an exceptional time in history, and history affords status to those who lead in extraordinary times as representatives of the broader struggle.

Playing a significant role in the fight against Nazism/fascism buys you a whole lot of credit, and there is no certainty that without him, Britain would have fought on until the Nazis declared war on the Soviets

If you don't agree, what would you say the specific crimes he committed that overshadow his contributions?

 

[Tambourine]

Where is your evidence he was targeting civilians?

I would argue that when talking about modern warfare, collateral damage among the civilian population should be assumed prima facie.

Given the treaty had been violated hundreds of times and multiple parties were no longer adhering to it, would you consider it still to have been in effect?

I don't follow your reasoning here. These are not international treaties that can be voided by one party breaching them, but international conventions, whose agreements do not cease if one party does not follow their restrictions. The rules agreed upon at the Geneva Conventions (the legal successor of the Hague Conventions) have not ceased to exist simply because many states chose to violate them.

If you want to argue otherwise - would you say that he convention on Human Rights is not in effect because human rights have been violated by a wide variety of states for the past decades?

Better still, had you been in charge of the Allies, when the Germans used gas, do you believe would you have refused to use it in return as it was a 'war crime'?

I fail to see how that is relevant to the argument at hand. Could you elaborate on your reasoning, please?

Repression started from day 1, it wasn't just 'Stalinist'

Repression is intrinsic to government, but the specific repressions you are alluding to did not commence until the Bolsheviks had secured their hold on Russia. Also, you

If you try to stop a regime taking power because you believe they will be tyrannical, then they prove to be tyrannical and kill tens of millions of people, you can factor this into the equation when judging people's reputations with hindsight.

Which is exactly why I have argued against putting up monuments to Churchill, the figurehead of a tyrannical regime that had killed tens of millions of people before he even took charge.

Note however, that I still would not consider the usage of poison gas on British people to be morally justified, despite the numerous crimes against humanity committed by the British Empire throughout its history as an imperialist colonial regime.

With hindsight, do you believe the world would likely have been better off without the Bolsheviks taking power? (and thus no Comintern so potentially no Communist Eastern Europe, China, Cambodia, etc.)

Hard to say, but probably not. The most likely scenario without a Bolshevik takeover I could see would have been a warlord scenario like in 1920s China. The KMT wasn't exactly less genocidal than the CPC, either, as demonstrated by the political purges and massacres they orchestrated when they set up their exile in Taiwan after the civil war.

But most importantly, no USSR (or a similarly centralized, and therefore oppressive, regime in Russia) may lead to an easy German victory in the East. Are you sure that the world would have been better off if Nazi Germany had won the war in the East?

I say yes, of course it would. The odds of the replacement being anything other than the springboard for the most murderous ideology in history are pretty high.

So you would say murdering the servants of colonial regimes was justified.

Overall though, with the benefit of hindsight, do you believe the world would have been better off had Winston Churchill never been born?

I don't think it would have made much of a difference, to be honest. The geostrategic circumstances that determined the course of the war did not suddenly change upon Churchill taking office.

For me, given the role he played during WW2, particularly making sure Britain didn't surrender in 40-41 thus ending the war with a Nazi victory, there is a chance that the world would have ended up significantly worse off.

You assume that Churchill was the only thing standing between a British surrender and total Nazi dominance, which, knowing the level of competence on display by Nazi leadership throughout WW2, I personally find hard to believe.

For that alone he deserves a respected place in history. He was also a popular figurehead at an exceptional time in history, and history affords status to those who lead in extraordinary times as representatives of the broader struggle.

Playing a significant role in the fight against Nazism/fascism buys you a whole lot of credit, and there is no certainty that without him, Britain would have fought on until the Nazis declared war on the Soviets

Yet I don't see you signing praises for Stalin, even though the USSR played at least as much of a key role in the defeat of Nazi Germany as the British Empire, if not moreso as they bore the brunt of German military operations 1941-1944, and in fact, you went out of your way to argue that the world would have been better off if the USSR had never existed.

So would you actually argue that the world would be a better place if Stalin had never existed, knowing that the USSR resisted Nazi Germany and was instrumental in its defeat? It seems that you're measuring with two scales here: On one hand, British crimes against humanity, both factual and potential, are easily excused and mitigated by their role in the defeat of Nazi Germany; the USSR, meanwhile, enjoys no such mitigating circumstances, and bears the full brunt of moral judgement.

How can you reconcile this discrepancy in moral judgement on your part?