Who are the Most Overrated Historical Figures?

[gnvqsos]

Your knowledge of history is at about the same level as my knowledge of nuclear physics.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

Alumni, Cuckoo Park Institute for the mentally deranged and criminally insane

 

Cateye Mity 8 Wired Computer

 

And, by the way there was no such things as International Courts in the days that these events took place

What were the Nurenberg Trials,a series of horse jumps?I should stick with the nuclear stuff mush!

[callippo]

But Winston Churchill, as the Tories were all hellbent on the subject, returned as Prime Minister in 1950. He did several things and one was him overthrowing the first democratically elected leader of Iran alongside Eisenhower, just because the new Iranian leader was nationalizing the oil in the country. That threatened British interests in Iran because the Anglo-Iranian Oil company (now we know them as BP) held the assets. He and Eisenhower instated the Shah in Iran, who became one of the worst US-UK backed dictators of the region.

 

There was also the violent crackdown on the Malaysian independence movement and the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya. Tens and thousands of people died under Churchill's desperate struggle to keep the Empire alive.

 

spot the Commie. See how they twist history. The Malaysian Federation had been established with a view to total independence since 1946, though the country didn't become fully independent until 1957. When this guy says 'crackdown on the Malaysian independence movement', he means in actuality, the 'crackdown on the Malayan communist insurrection', as if the two things are one and the same, when the insurrection wasn't just not supported by the vast majority of what would become, in 1963, when the communist insurrection was totally defeated, Malaysians, but virulently opposed by them. The vast majority of the inhabitants of the Malay pensinular and Borneo opposed communism.

 

the total defeat of the communist insurrection by what would become Malaysians, with British support and who could clearly see what a terrible thing communism would be for their country was the best thing that could have possibly have happened to the nascent Malaysian state. Nobody mourns the defeat of the communists in Malaysia today, or indeed anywhere else in south east Asia where their attempts to gain power failed.

[Harleyman]

Cateye Mity 8 Wired Computer

 

And, by the way there was no such things as International Courts in the days that these events took place

What were the Nurenberg Trials,a series of horse jumps?I should stick with the nuclear stuff mush!

 

The Nuremburg trials were especially set up to try Nazi leaders on charges of genocide and other war crimes that were commited in violation of the Geneva Convention... Mush ! It existed for that purpose and that purpose only.

Some other poster was spaced out enough to suggest that Winston Churchill should have been tried in an International Court.

[Harleyman]

Saint Patrick?

 

Americans especially (in my experience) celebrate him furiously, on the one day of the year they try desperately to link themselves to Irish roots of any kind. Most don't even realise he WASN'T Irish!

 

(P.S. I have nothing against the Irish or St.Paddy, just pointing out he is overrated)

 

St Patrick was a Briton but also a Celt as were the Irish. He was of a different Celtic tribe though but they spoke the same language.

 

What about St George. I'm English and dont even know anything about him. As for killing a dragon, well!

[Harleyman]

No. After Churchill in 1945, Clement Attlee came to power started what Gorbachev did in the late 80's: he dismantled the British Empire to save Britain, both financially and diplomatically. The biggest foreign policy decision made by Attlee was, of course, the independence of the British Raj. India experienced the worst eras in their history under British rule, with three of their worst famines ever. They faced further problems after the independence, but at least the tyrannical free market exploitation of the British were ending.

 

But Winston Churchill, as the Tories were all hellbent on the subject, returned as Prime Minister in 1950. He did several things and one was him overthrowing the first democratically elected leader of Iran alongside Eisenhower, just because the new Iranian leader was nationalizing the oil in the country. That threatened British interests in Iran because the Anglo-Iranian Oil company (now we know them as BP) held the assets. He and Eisenhower instated the Shah in Iran, who became one of the worst US-UK backed dictators of the region.

 

There was also the violent crackdown on the Malaysian independence movement and the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya. Tens and thousands of people died under Churchill's desperate struggle to keep the Empire alive.

 

The crackdown was on the Communists who were trying to overthrow the British administration by violence instead of through a peaceful and orderly

process to transition towards independence.

 

There was quite a nasty little jungle war against the CTs at they were called (Communist Terrorists) of which I had some experience towards the very end of it being a national serviceman in the British army. It lasted from 1945 thru 1959.

Most of the CTs were originally geurilla fighters against the Japs in WW2 and were armed through air drops by the British and the Americans. Instead of giving up their weapons and returning to civilian life when the Japs surrendered these Malay-Chinese chose to take up a new fight against the British instead.

[LordChaverly]

Most of the CTs were originally geurilla fighters against the Japs in WW2 and were armed through air drops by the British and the Americans. Instead of giving up their weapons and returning to civilian life when the Japs surrendered these Malay-Chinese chose to take up a new fight against the British instead.

 

Was it really against 'the British', or was it really a struggle for independence from Malaya by the Malay-Chinese? The Malay-Chinese lost and now their descendants are second class citizens in what is now Malaysia.

[Harleyman]

Was it really against 'the British', or was it really a struggle for independence from Malaya by the Malay-Chinese? The Malay-Chinese lost and now their descendants are second class citizens in what is now Malaysia.

 

If the Malay-Chinese Communists (And they were certainly not representative of the Chinese community by any means) envisaged independence from Malaya it's hard to imagine how this would have worked.

Our understanding at the time I was in that country was that the intention was to establish a Communist state along the lines of North Vietnam and North Korea. The Chinese and the Malays of Indian descent at that time owned the majority of large or small businesses and the ethnic Malays predominated in government and the military or lived as farmers in the rural areas.

The three ethnic races existed together very peacefully also as I recall There was no evidence back then that the Chinese were second class citizens either. Many of them seemed well off in fact. Things must have changed since then or my recollection faded somewhat after almost 50 years

[Longcol]

On the contrary, it is those who are ignorant about Churchill's entire life who would not include him on the list. Only WW2 redeemed his earlier reputation as a vainglorious warmonger (of whom Lloyd George said that he was always wanting to bomb or invade somewhere) and as an arch reactionary, who favoured putting down strikes by impoverished workers by force and who opposed even minimal concessions to self-government in India and elsewhere.

 

As for his reputation deriving from WW2, even this requires further serious examination (as some modern 'revisionist historians have done, to some extent). It is still not widely known, for example, that Churchill favoured the use of mass poison gas attacks on German cities prior to the end of the war. Thank goodness for German civilians and for his later reputation that his generals managed to talk him out of it. Moreover, even the wisdom of his anti-appeasement policy ought also questioned (as again, some revisionist historians have). What it amounted to was a clamour for war with Germany, at a time when Britain was woefully unprepared for war, as subsequent events would prove. Had not Hitler been so stupid as to invade Russia (and Japan so stupid as to attack the US), Churchill's war policy would have been a complete disaster for Britain. Churchill, of course, would have been off to Canada had the Germans occupied Britain.

 

Excellent post LordC - and that isn't even mentioning his disaster as Chancellor.

[johncocker]

Does anyone else find it amusing, yet at the same time depressing how proudly certain people flaunt their ignorance?

 

 

 

 

does anyone else find it amusing and at the same time depressing your ignorance of is obvious leftist agender ?.

[Mecky]

I'm puzzled why you include Winston Churchill on that list. I assume it is because you are totally ignorant about his entire life.

 

Churchill did a lot of wrong stuff. OK, he did ok for us in the second world war, namely persauding the yanks to join our side, but that's about it.