[Politics] On this day 58 years ago.

[jakarta]

As a history graduate, undoubtedly Churchill is one of the most fascinating men of the last couple of centuries.

Unquestionably the right man for the right moment in the Second World War, and a true guiding figure at the nation's hour of need. Often overlooked too was his contribution to the Great War (with the notable and tragic exception of Gallipoli) at the Admiralty. The most fasctinating conversation never to have been recorded in modern history was his with Lord Halifax in the Downing Street rose garden in May 1940 after the resignation of Chamberlain as they decided who would take over from him. Had Halifax done so, the outcome of the entire war could have changed as Halifax was keener on a peace settlement with Hitler along the lines of "Europe's your domain, leave us alone with the Empire". Whatever was said, the correct decision was ultimately made.

Outside the wars, a rather mediocre politician who had a tendency to be on the wrong side of history (dismissed Ghandi, pushed for the Gold Standard, planned on sending the army in to shoot strikers in 1926, tried to shut down the NHS in the early 1950s).

Unfortunately also a figure about whom it is almost impossible to have a proper serious, grown up conversation about. A man who polarises opinion into "evil racist who personally killed millions of Indians during the Bengal Famine" or "unquestioned saint among men who personally beat the Germans with his own bare hands and embodiment of the nation", with hardly any middle ground available for an in-depth analysis of him and his actions.

Personally, I'm of the "good outweighs the bad" side, albeit I have many issues with what he did and what he believed, and certainly don't think he should be seen as beyond criticism for either by dint of what he did achieve. Sadly, I doubt we ever will be in a position to have that proper discussion as both sides are too entrenched and never the twain shall meet.

All the above is correct, but what is also correct is that he identified Hitler and the Nazis as a fundamental threat to us and repeatedly put it to the House of Commons in the 1930's. He had quite a lot of information coming in from unofficial sources and was horrified by the attitude of Halifax and his like.

Clearly an Imperialist, but also a patriot who had served in the British Army and was almost certainly the last PM who had killed someone in hand-to-hand combat?

 

[Eeyore]

Ah, the cult of Churchill... and the Anti-cult of Churchill...

For me it's fairly straighforward

Was he a great wartime leader ?

Depends on who you read. He certainly knew how to make great speeches, was uncompromising and appealed to folk in dark times. Some historians think Anthony Eden was the brains behind the political side of things. And let's not forget that he was dumped in the General Election, folk wanting social reform. This suggesting that his wartime persona was not enough for people to stick with him

Was he a bad person ?

Well he was a racist and all those other phobes and ists. How do we know ? He wrote about it.

But he was also a product of his time. And a person can only be assessed by the values of the time. And by that logic he was pretty ordinary.

Should he be revered and celebrated ?

The Churchill statues are less about Churchill and more about the symbolisms of Britain's war time struggle. And he was its summary. The image of it. Of course they should remain. And to say on the basis of his character they shouldn't remain is self-righteous and condemning a whole generation of folk. Tiresome.

The Greatest Ever Englishman ?

Silly to even consider. On what basis ? He was an important figure at an important time. But so were many others unsung. But none of us truly knew him so we are in no position to judge.

 

[Baldseagull]

It seems fashionable now for people to sully his memory and destroy his character, especially amongst a number of the millenials.

The same youngsters who would be living in a occupied one party state, with no freedom of speech or basic democracy, had it not been for Churchill's stance in WW2.

But he did have character flaws, I think recognising that is fair.
I can't help thinking that if he had known our going to war with Germany would ultimately put the nail in the coffin of the British Empire, he probably would have done a deal with Hitler.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

"A good day is 500 words in the morning and 500 bricks in the afternoon"

Well Winston I've but read any of your books but I have visited Chatsworth house and while I don't know if it's you it did look to the trained eye like every now and then some piss artist really f***ed up a couple of courses

He didn't live at Chatsworth. That's the Duke of Devonshire's pile.

 

[jackanada]

He didn't live at Chatsworth. That's the Duke of Devonshire's pile.

Sorry. Chartwell.

 

[jackanada]

I think the thing that is most overlooked about Churchill is that when Germany invaded Poland he was a busted flush. An old pisspot that no one of influence in the Conservative party wanted anywhere near the front benches. However once you eliminated overt nazi supporters, lesser sympathisers, and the many appeasers from the running he was the most senior Tory left standing. This seems more reflective of the nature and values of the Conservative party than having a great war leader (of a unity government, another fact that often gets lost).

 

[Lenny Rider]

But he did have character flaws, I think recognising that is fair.
I can't help thinking that if he had known our going to war with Germany would ultimately put the nail in the coffin of the British Empire, he probably would have done a deal with Hitler.

Don’t you think the Empire was destined to break up regardless of WW2?

As our colonies developed their own societies and with that ambition and aspirations they were always going to give us the elbow?

 

[maltaseagull]

One of the greatest war time leaders ever but a horrible, horrible bastard of a man.

I never met him so cannot agree or disagree.
When did you meet him?

 

[Swansman]

Don’t you think the Empire was destined to break up regardless of WW2?

As our colonies developed their own societies and with that ambition and aspirations they were always going to give us the elbow?

WW2 might have changed a lot in that regard. More emphasis on human rights and stuff. Without it, there's a fair chance the British Empire would have just crushed those "ambitions and aspirations" with violence... something which became far less tolerated after the WW2.

 

[Lenny Rider]

WW2 might have changed a lot in that regard. More emphasis on human rights and stuff. Without it, there's a fair chance the British Empire would have just crushed those "ambitions and aspirations" with violence... something which became far less tolerated after the WW2.

I think our crushing days were over, take WW2 out of the equation, how many violent uprisings around the Empire could we have we have coped with/afforded in the 40/50/60s?

 

[Wardy's twin]

Did he win the war or did Hitler lose it , aided and abetted by a stupid Japanese decision to attack America before war in Europe was done.

 

[Lenny Rider]

Did he win the war or did Hitler lose it , aided and abetted by a stupid Japanese decision to attack America before war in Europe was done.

I think the ignorance concerning the Russian winter and the invasion, making the same mistake as Napoleon was a huge factor, that said and back to the OP, this country 58 years on is all the better for having Sir Winston Churchill as a part of it.

 

[Baldseagull]

Don’t you think the Empire was destined to break up regardless of WW2?

As our colonies developed their own societies and with that ambition and aspirations they were always going to give us the elbow?

Doesn't really matter what I think, what do you reckon Churchill thought about Empire? He was PM at the start of the Mau Mau rebellion, he didn't seem keen to negotiate an end to colonial rule.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I think the ignorance concerning the Russian winter and the invasion, making the same mistake as Napoleon was a huge factor, that said and back to the OP, this country 58 years on is all the better for having Sir Winston Churchill as a part of it.

Another one of Hitlers mistakes along with letting the British Army escape at Dunkirk. Irrespective of that he clearly played a major part in uniting the allies by declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbour and by supplying Russia..

 

[Wardy's twin]

I remember going to the cinema and them showing the footage of the funeral.

 

[shingle]

I remember going to the cinema and them showing the footage of the funeral.

 

[shingle]

It was only 20 years ago in a nationwide tv poll asking who the greatest Briton of all time was, Churchill who was championed by Mo Mowlem came out on top with nearly half the vote. Summarising her argument, Mo said: "If Britain - its eccentricity, its big heartedness, its strength of character - has to be summed up in one person, it has to be Winston Churchill."

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

It was only 20 years ago in a nationwide tv poll asking who the greatest Briton of all time was, Churchill who was championed by Mo Mowlem came out on top with nearly half the vote. Summarising her argument, Mo said: "If Britain - its eccentricity, its big heartedness, its strength of character - has to be summed up in one person, it has to be Winston Churchill."

Brunel should clearly have won that.

 

[Icy Gull]

Whatever you think of him, they don’t make politicians like him any more. Apparently he feared war and worked to avoid both the world wars.

Struggling to think of any recent politician who could inspire like him after his worst fears were realised.


"We must not regard war with the modern power as a kind of game in which we may take a hand, and with good luck, and good management, play adroitly for an evening and come home safe. A European war can not be anything but a cruel, heartrending struggle, which if we ever are to enjoy the bitter fruits of victory, must demand perhaps for several years, the whole manhood of the nation, the entire suspension of peaceful industries, and the concentrating to one end of every vital energy in the country."

“I have frequently been astonished since I have been in this House to hear with what composure and how glibly Members, and even Ministers, talk of a European war. I will not expatiate on the horrors of war, but there has been a great change which the House should not omit to notice. In former days, when wars arose from individual causes, from the policy of a Minister or the passion of a King, when they were fought by small regular armies of professional soldiers, and when their course was retarded by the difficulties of communication and supply, and often suspended by the winter season, it was possible to limit the liabilities of the combatants. But now, when mighty populations are impelled on each other, each individual severally embittered and inflamed—when the resources of science and civilization sweep away everything that might mitigate their fury—a European war can only end in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and exhaustion of the conquerors.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Just think he’s probably up there as the greatest Briton of all time.

His cannot be under-estimated. Think a few others have nailed it.

As for flaws, for goodness sake, everyone has them, just seems popular now to jump on them and highlight, which frankly when celebrating someone’s memory is quite tiresome and poor IMO.