Churchill dropped from England's history syllabus

[Dr Strangelove]

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

[LordShiva]

They added MLK to one of the Indian history curricula a few years ago

[Sirotnikov]

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.

[Barnabas]

If I recall correctly, Lenin was very mixed, but had jewish ancestry, and also german, russian and mongol (kalmik or however it is written)

[VetLegion]

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.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
- and his post WW2 comment "We killed the wrong pig".

An entirely reasonable comment if you ask me.

[Dr Strangelove]

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

[Patroklos]

Aren't manditory lists like that meant to force study of people who would normally fall through the cracks?

Seems to me Churchill isn't one of those.

Though if they fall through the cracks it is probably where they belong. Why US schools think it is relevant to mention the inventor of peanut butter I will never know.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

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.

[DinoDoc]

Decided to bump this in light of this thread in the main forum.