[doolarsva]

No great loss. WW2 will still feature in the syllabus, and Churchill's action's in WW2 will be featured as part of it. Outside of WW2, he didn't really do enough to qualify- as a peacetime leader he was fairly useless.

[ringsarcle]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
No great loss. WW2 will still feature in the syllabus, and Churchill's action's in WW2 will be featured as part of it. Outside of WW2, he didn't really do enough to qualify- as a peacetime leader he was fairly useless. Exactly. Churchill is going to be mentioned. Just because a person isn't listed doesn't mean that they won't teach about him/her. I'm thinking (since the one they did name was Wilberforce) this is more like a "don't forget about X" list.

[Stivenslivakovishhhs]

He should even get mentioned (if only in a bit role) in WWI... didn't he come up with Galipoli?

-Arrian

[HonjUopu]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


You have probably about 100 or so hours of studytime available for this history syllabus. Already fewer than 1% of English schoolchildren can tell you how, when or why England actually came to exist.

It's a Briitish history syllabus. Stalin and Hitler will appear as part of the WW2 studies. MLK won't, and really doesn't need to. He really didn't mean much in Britain. Agreed, 100 hours isn't really enough. I reckon the history syllabus could do with some expansion within the curriculum.

[duawLauff]

Even when they did use to teach Churchill, his more imperialist, racist and anti-working class tendencies didn't get much coverage. His phuckup at Gallipoli did though, in my day.

[Japakefrope]

That's actually a mis-quote. If you read the full speech, he's clearly talking about using non-lethal conentrations of mustard gas in a way similar to modern-day riot control methods- in preference to bombing or shooting them.

[Greapyjeory]

- and his post WW2 comment "We killed the wrong pig".

[glamourcitys]

Was Martin Luther King ever part of the British history curriculum? He's not very British.

[CGH1KZzy]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
There's also his take on 'Jewish Bolshevism'

"There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews."

Illustrated Sunday Herald on February 8 1920.
he is sort of correct though.

a huge group of those was indeed jewish.

though doubtfully it says something about the jews as a whole.

[Vigeommighica]

Lenin had a Jewish wife I think, but wasn't Jewish himself.

As Churchill said, Jewish influence was indeed great in Russian communism. But **** really hit the fan when Stalin took power, and he was Georgian.

[meencegic]

I thought that Trotski was the only Bolshevik leader at the time of the revolution who was Jewish.

[cristmiff]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Winston preferred his mustard gas Lite ?


I think that's a bit disingenuous.
This is the full quote-


I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. 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. 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 gas.

I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised 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.



I'm no apologist for Churchill, but I think that when his memo is viewed in full it's totally unambiguous that he was looking for a non-lethal solution.