Am I missing something? 'The Winston Churchill's Britain at War Experience' (whatever that is - never heard of it). puts up a photoshopped picture of Winston Churchill not smoking a cigar, that more likely than not they downloaded from the internet. Almost 3 months ago (15th June) the Daily Mail and the Telegraph report this. Nothing much happens since - until it is reported on the Ubi forum. Suddenly it becomes an issue. Why? Anyone familiar with the history of the time knows that Churchill (a) smoked, (b) drunk to excess, and (c) wouldn't have stood an icecream's chance in hell of remaining PM had he been subject to the idiotic X-factor 'political analysis' we put up with today. Given his bouts of depression, he'd probably never have been selected as a parliamentary candidate in the first place. But somehow, the missing cigar becomes more important than the man. Jeez.
I happen to think that the real Churchill was neither a saint, nor the devil incarnate. I don't think you will ever understand history if you think either. I'm absolutely certain you'll never understand history if you try to base your analysis on Churchill's vanishing cigar...
LOL .. you forgot disagreeable, flamboyantly outspoken, unrepentant misogynist suffering from bouts of depression who had a childhood stammer and lisp :POriginally posted by AndyJWest:
Am I missing something? 'The Winston Churchill's Britain at War Experience' (whatever that is - never heard of it). puts up a photoshopped picture of Winston Churchill not smoking a cigar, that more likely than not they downloaded from the internet. Almost 3 months ago (15th June) the Daily Mail and the Telegraph report this. Nothing much happens since - until it is reported on the Ubi forum. Suddenly it becomes an issue. Why? Anyone familiar with the history of the time knows that Churchill (a) smoked, (b) drunk to excess, and (c) wouldn't have stood an icecream's chance in hell of remaining PM had he been subject to the idiotic X-factor 'political analysis' we put up with today.
Hitler on the other hand was a vegetarian animal loving artist who was great with children.
Why do you think it was removed Andy? If a photo shows something that "certain people" think is inappropriate then why are they allowed to censer the past?Originally posted by AndyJWest:
But somehow, the missing cigar becomes more important than the man. Jeez.
I'm absolutely certain you'll never understand history if you try to base your analysis on Churchill's vanishing cigar...
Why do you think it was removed Andy? If a photo shows something that "certain people" think is inappropriate then why are they allowed to censer the past? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by DD_crash:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
But somehow, the missing cigar becomes more important than the man. Jeez.
I'm absolutely certain you'll never understand history if you try to base your analysis on Churchill's vanishing cigar...
Do we know who the "certain people" were, or even if they exist? Censorship implies official actions. 'The Winston Churchill's Britain at War Experience' is a charitable trust, not a government body. They claim to be unsure how the image got doctored in the first place. It looks to me to be more likely c**k-up than conspiracy...
Has anyone bothered to check whether they are still using the image, or have since corrected it?
Originally posted by KRISTORF:
Should have used this one...
![]()
Would really of got the 'nannies' chattering![]()
What next? Is the PC world going to start photoshopping the pictures of soldiers who are carrying any sort of weapon?
"Mummy, did the soldiers in the photo display all carry flowers, pushbrooms, and lunch pails in their hands instead of guns back then?"![]()
Nobody here is trying to understand history based on the analysis of Churchill's cigarOriginally posted by AndyJWest:
Am I missing something? 'The Winston Churchill's Britain at War Experience' (whatever that is - never heard of it). puts up a photoshopped picture of Winston Churchill not smoking a cigar, that more likely than not they downloaded from the internet. Almost 3 months ago (15th June) the Daily Mail and the Telegraph report this. Nothing much happens since - until it is reported on the Ubi forum. Suddenly it becomes an issue. Why? Anyone familiar with the history of the time knows that Churchill (a) smoked, (b) drunk to excess, and (c) wouldn't have stood an icecream's chance in hell of remaining PM had he been subject to the idiotic X-factor 'political analysis' we put up with today. Given his bouts of depression, he'd probably never have been selected as a parliamentary candidate in the first place. But somehow, the missing cigar becomes more important than the man. Jeez.
I happen to think that the real Churchill was neither a saint, nor the devil incarnate. I don't think you will ever understand history if you think either. I'm absolutely certain you'll never understand history if you try to base your analysis on Churchill's vanishing cigar...
The concern here is that someone has airbrushed his cigar out. It's a fact of history that he smoked cigars.
Stalin and his regime were famous for airbrushing out history to suit their politics.
Best Regards,
MB_Avro.