Literally Hitler

at

Clean up this morning in Parliament Square, Westminster, London, England

On Saturday, the precise anniversary of D-Day, the statue of Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square was defaced with graffiti.

It had also been defaced a few days earlier, and it was defaced again on Sunday when the word “racist” was sprayed across it. On the same day, someone climbed the Cenotaph around the corner in Whitehall and attempted to burn the Union Flag decorating it.

So what extraordinary powerful force was it that was able to cut through Britain’s defences to perpetrate these extraordinary and repeated insults to the greatest generation of Britons, the ones who stood alone against Nazi Germany and then played a leading role in its defeat

Cowed and cowardly ministers must stop appeasing far-Left extremists (The Telegraph)

He was a racist, but also anti-fascist; he was fiercely anti-communist, yet carved Europe up and gifted much of it to Joseph Stalin.

Many historians have tried to make sense of the man and his times. “Churchill was a racist” is part of the truth about the man, but only a part of it.

His plinth is best left with just his name, which speaks for itself. Maybe we can all agree on that

Churchill was a politically complex man – but he was certainly a racist (Sean O’GradyIndependent.co.uk)

Getty

Earlier: Moving Statues

36 thoughts on “Literally Hitler

  1. Micko

    Yeah, so what if he was a racist. Loads of people were racist back then.

    We need to stop judging people by todays standards, they were people of their times.

    If you were born then – you’d be the same. It was the culture of the time.

    1. scottser

      i’m quite looking forward to them dragging prince philip out of the palace, putting him in the stocks and pelting him with rotten vegetables.

    2. Dr.Fart

      “ugh, god! come ON! everyone starved millions of indians back in the day, wiped out entire tribes. it was the norm back then, relax!”

    3. dylad

      Yeah, stop blaming the British aristocracy and their grim feudal system for the famine too.

  2. goldenbrown

    for me anyway political and military statues like this Churchill one are nothing more than devices of reverence p0rn, they’re bs street furniture installed by whichever state mechanism is in control and maintained by those self same people

    in and of themselves they’re not history themselves though they can certainly be involved in historical happenings of note such as the blowing up of Nelson’s column or the destruction of yer man Colston in Bristol yesterday

    certainly they can have some value – the reaction to yesterday’s events was like watching a big red flashing dashboard light….the list of the people it managed to trigger :)

    personally I’d prefer to see a nice tree or a piece of artwork than a statue like that on the street

      1. goldenbrown

        sorry Clampers I thought I’d closed that one off when I wrote “political and military statues….”

        so yeah sure enough if we’re talking some piece like a Dali sculpture etc. I’d say fair enough…but military and political are a different ballgame to me anyway

    1. class wario

      The funny thing about Brits handwringing about ‘history’ is that they’re never taught about the atrocities committed by the British empire the world over in school

        1. millie von strumpet

          Was it? My LC history course involved a detailed study of the Irish Civil War. A very interesting (though very ugly) piece of our history.

      1. italia'90

        Wario, I respectfully have to disagree with you on this one.
        It’s a trope I fear.
        Otherwise, I will have to write a strongly worded letter to my English educated niece, who is reading History in Jesus College Cambridge, about all the atrocities she doesn’t know about that we discussed in Cork last summer.

          1. italia'90

            Ah she had just sat her A levels last June and had yet to start Uni when we had these conversations in Cork.

            To my eternal shame, she schooled me on the history of the burning of Cork as we walked from Shandon to Barrack Street :)

          2. Clampers Outside

            Shame or not, I’d bet you felt good she knew her stuff at the same time :) I would.

      2. Shitferbrains

        Prove that. Should be easy enough. Just post their syllabus for 18th -20th Cent history.

      3. Captain Pants

        Yes, cause its still 1955. Of course they’re taught about it in 2020.

        Are they all constantly horse whipping themselves about how terrible their ancestors were? No, but that’s because they recognise that history was complicated.

  3. Rob_G

    While I would not desire to have a statue of either Winston Churchill or that Bristol slave owner around the place, the notion of people taking it upon to themselves to smash up things that they disagree with is a worrying one.

    What if myself and a bunch of the YFG lads decided we didn’t like the James Larkin statue, and pulled that down? It’s rule of the mob.

Comments are closed.