Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "A television documentary tonight hints that Churchill approved of racial segregation in Britain" video.

@Seminal_Ideas The complete headline also suggested that the bus was Imperialist, if I recall correctly.
3
@Rose-zw2oe You clearly didn't watch the 'documentary' did you?
3
@nihilistlivesmatter Perhaps you never heard his comment about the British alliance with the Soviet Union after Barbarossa? - If hitler invaded hell, I would make at least one favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.'
3
@Set-ri6rs I knew about the 'Battle of Bamber Bridge' many years ago, but there again I come from Bamber Bridge, and my mother knew of the events, as a young girl, immediately after they happened. Acrually, I felt rather sorry for the presenter. She was lumbered with the asinine title. but was left floundering around tryiing, and failing, to justify it. She did, however, manage to compare the segregation in the US Army to German treatment of the Jews, and refer to the cruel treatment of the 'economic migrants' of the Windrush Generation, who apparently came to help rebuild Britain. Oger than that, and the occasional throw away reference to the 'White Supremacist' attitude of the British Empire, she had nothing. Churchill was obliged to accept the American military system, of course. He also accepted an alliance with Uncle Joe and his Gallant Lads. Both out of necessity in order to defeat a greater evil. All the programme managed, however, was to demonstrate that neither Churchill, nor the British people, in any way sought to endorse the US system.
2
@Set-ri6rs 'its just a shame you had to flush how ever long of you life down the toilet, just to find out what most of us already knew.' What exactly does that bizarre comment even mean?
2
@gijgij4541 Indeed. But the title is unjustifiable Channel 4 propaganda. The presenter could find no evidence for any British 'Apartheid' however hard sh looked.
2
@gijgij4541 But the sources do not justify the title, which is typical Channel 4 propaganda. Did the presenter find any evidence to support it? Actually, No, quite the contrary. Her disappointment was obvious.
2
@on2wheelz28 The nickname was first used during WW1, when the new army resulting from the imposition of conscription was referred to as 'Kitchener's Mob.' The nickname for the Royal Navy is, to the best of my knowledge, the 'Andrew' the origins of which are uncertain.
2
DIFESA_RAZZA_BIANCA On a simple matter of fact, something which I suspect you rarely encounter, Churchill held no government post between 1929 and September.1939, when he was appointed, by Neville Chamberlain to the Cabinet of a nation already at war.
2
@gijgij4541 Of course I watched the programme. The title, utterly misleading, was 'Churchill's Secret Apartheid'. The programme then rather unwilling had to admit that Churchill, and the British people in general, wanted nothing to do with the segregation policy of the US Army., Do you ackually know who Churchill was, or what was his role in WW2?
1
@gijgij4541 Good, but how is that relevant to the misleading title of the 'documentary?'
1
@gijgij4541 Please don't accuse anyone of being patronising after you comment, to which I merely replied. In case you need reminding : ' Or did you just not comprehend its import with regard to Jim Crow / apartheid?'
1
@gijgij4541 Well, if you prefer to categorise your earlier comment as 'snide' then that is entirely your own choice. Don't let me stop you.
1
@gijgij4541 Again, if you wish to describe your earlier post as condescending or puerile, then go ahead. At least you aren't denying that you posted it. Isn't it sad that people like are happy to post such comments, but cannot cope when those insulted actually reply? Instead of going on in this tedious manner, why not simply try to explain why you thought the title of the programme was appropriate? Any other response will simply be ignored.
1