50th anniversary of Churchill's death
Discussion
This Saturday apparently marks 50 years since the passing of Churchill. I shall be choosing to remember the great man as an example of everything our current crop of plastic politicians are not.
Unfortunately, some people are using the opportunity to put the boot in:
http://bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767
Unfortunately, some people are using the opportunity to put the boot in:
http://bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767
ChemicalChaos said:
This Saturday apparently marks 50 years since the passing of Churchill. I shall be choosing to remember the great man as an example of everything our current crop of plastic politicians are not.
Unfortunately, some people are using the opportunity to put the boot in:
http://bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767
Surely this can only be of any possible interest to people of about 70 years old or more?Unfortunately, some people are using the opportunity to put the boot in:
http://bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767
Personally I'm thoroughly fed up with constant harking back to the two world wars as if it makes the nonsense of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan somehow more acceptable.
ChemicalChaos said:
Unfortunately, some people are using the opportunity to put the boot in:
http://bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767
Should those issues be overlooked? http://bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767
ChemicalChaos - if I could please interrupt the hero worship for a moment.
Anyone who has done any reading - at all - about Churchill outside of the second world war knows what a controversial character he was. Even his big supporters amongst Historians know this.
History is about balance, not just mindless tub thumping and shouting down anyone who disagrees with you as a stupid lefty with a liberalist agenda. Though I would argue that his role in the Tonypandy striking is definitely over-egged and the Sydney Street Seige is nothing more than putting himself pointlessly in harms way - the rest of the article is pretty fair.
In fact I am not sure you have read it, as it is pretty balanced and works hard to defend him in a lot of parts. But I expect you were so busy expecting to read what you would probably call a lefty diatribe you glossed over that bit.
No one is disputing that between 1940 and 1945 he was the right man, at the right time - there are VERY few times in history where a single person has made a tangible difference - and this was one.
However trying to stifle the debate - whilst holding him as a contrast to modern politicians is daft - as it demonstrates that you are trying to criticise them whilst blatantly glossing over your yard sticks faults.
As it happens, I am a big fan of Winston Churchill, as a historical figure and politician - but I'm not blind to his faults.
Anyone who has done any reading - at all - about Churchill outside of the second world war knows what a controversial character he was. Even his big supporters amongst Historians know this.
History is about balance, not just mindless tub thumping and shouting down anyone who disagrees with you as a stupid lefty with a liberalist agenda. Though I would argue that his role in the Tonypandy striking is definitely over-egged and the Sydney Street Seige is nothing more than putting himself pointlessly in harms way - the rest of the article is pretty fair.
In fact I am not sure you have read it, as it is pretty balanced and works hard to defend him in a lot of parts. But I expect you were so busy expecting to read what you would probably call a lefty diatribe you glossed over that bit.
No one is disputing that between 1940 and 1945 he was the right man, at the right time - there are VERY few times in history where a single person has made a tangible difference - and this was one.
However trying to stifle the debate - whilst holding him as a contrast to modern politicians is daft - as it demonstrates that you are trying to criticise them whilst blatantly glossing over your yard sticks faults.
As it happens, I am a big fan of Winston Churchill, as a historical figure and politician - but I'm not blind to his faults.
Fittster said:
Should those issues be overlooked?
No, but it's the fact that the BBC (it was always going to be them or the Guardian) have to come out with a wholly negative article painting him as a far right nutcase. They just simply cannot join everyone in celebrating the considerable life and achievements of the man, without having to piss on the parade and denigrate figures from our history that don't fit with their ultra-pc mantra. Its just like the BBC coverage of Thatcher's death - negative after negative after negative about what she did in power
I'm sure I don't need to point out this one article within the magazine section of the BBC's website does not constitute the totality of the BBC's marking of this anniversary. The BBC are covering Churchill and the anniversary of his death across multiple programmes and multiple platforms.
To ignore the controversies within Churchill's life would be remarkable.
To ignore the controversies within Churchill's life would be remarkable.
ChemicalChaos - It is clear you haven't read the whole thing properly, it is perfectly balanced.
As scenario8 says - the BBC will be doing plenty of tributes to Churchill and plenty of it will be positive. Everyone knows about that stuff.
Why are you so angry about balance? - and don't say that nonsense about commemorating him. People do that every day, and there has been 50 years of it, and will be 50 years more of it (including on the BBC and the Guardian).
History is all about balance.
I watched the Thatcher stuff on BBC - because despite being older than you and interested in history and politics, I am man enough to admit I didn't know much. I felt it was balanced, there was negative stuff, and a lot of positive too.
However, you seem to think any criticism of your idols amounts to lefties being bitter...which is absurd IMHO
Edited to take out the more unnecessary criticism as per the suggestion below
As scenario8 says - the BBC will be doing plenty of tributes to Churchill and plenty of it will be positive. Everyone knows about that stuff.
Why are you so angry about balance? - and don't say that nonsense about commemorating him. People do that every day, and there has been 50 years of it, and will be 50 years more of it (including on the BBC and the Guardian).
History is all about balance.
I watched the Thatcher stuff on BBC - because despite being older than you and interested in history and politics, I am man enough to admit I didn't know much. I felt it was balanced, there was negative stuff, and a lot of positive too.
However, you seem to think any criticism of your idols amounts to lefties being bitter...which is absurd IMHO
Edited to take out the more unnecessary criticism as per the suggestion below
Edited by Vocal Minority on Thursday 22 January 15:53
Edited by Vocal Minority on Thursday 22 January 15:53
Oh I wouldn't be quite so hard on him as a great many reading that article will have known nothing or next to nothing about those controversies or even of Churchill's life beyond the War years. Which I might suggest is all the more reason for the BBC, especially the BBC, to produce such articles. Churchill was a fantastically controversial politician - and a Great War leader. I would fully recommend everyone not well versed in his life and achievements to delve as deep as they can.
There is no doubt that Churchill was a great politician, and indeed the right man at the right time in WW2.
However, he was a politician and not so different from other politicians as you might think.
If you'd ever bothered to read his voluminous 'The Second World War' you would know that it is full of obfuscations, half-truths, missing information, bigging himself up, and downright lies.
The way he treated Air Marshall Harris and the men of Bomber Command at the end of the War was nothing short of disgusting. The way he treated the Polish troops at the VE Parade was scandalous; and don't forget he was complicit in allowing Europe to be carved up by the 4 Powers with the inevitible result being the Cold War.
WRT the BBC report posted, while one should not take his attitudes out of context - ha was a man of his era after all - one should not see him through rose tinted spectacles.
Golden b
ks he certainly was not!
Oh and before you get on your high horse, I happen to think Churchill was reasonably good all things considered.
However, he was a politician and not so different from other politicians as you might think.
If you'd ever bothered to read his voluminous 'The Second World War' you would know that it is full of obfuscations, half-truths, missing information, bigging himself up, and downright lies.
The way he treated Air Marshall Harris and the men of Bomber Command at the end of the War was nothing short of disgusting. The way he treated the Polish troops at the VE Parade was scandalous; and don't forget he was complicit in allowing Europe to be carved up by the 4 Powers with the inevitible result being the Cold War.
WRT the BBC report posted, while one should not take his attitudes out of context - ha was a man of his era after all - one should not see him through rose tinted spectacles.
Golden b
ks he certainly was not!Oh and before you get on your high horse, I happen to think Churchill was reasonably good all things considered.
Vocal Minority said:
As it happens, I am a big fan of Winston Churchill, as a historical figure and politician - but I'm not blind to his faults.
Agreed. A brilliant and inspirational war time leader, but entirely stuck in the 18th century and the politics of empire. His judgement on India for example was terrible.He was however, a man of great conviction. We could use a bit more of that.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
There is no doubt that Churchill was a great politician, and indeed the right man at the right time in WW2.
However, he was a politician and not so different from other politicians as you might think.
If you'd ever bothered to read his voluminous 'The Second World War' you would know that it is full of obfuscations, half-truths, missing information, bigging himself up, and downright lies.
The way he treated Air Marshall Harris and the men of Bomber Command at the end of the War was nothing short of disgusting. The way he treated the Polish troops at the VE Parade was scandalous; and don't forget he was complicit in allowing Europe to be carved up by the 4 Powers with the inevitible result being the Cold War.
Some criticisms of him are justified, though criticising him for his racial attitudes is like ignoring anything the founding fathers had to say because they were slave owners. People can only ever be the products of their time.However, he was a politician and not so different from other politicians as you might think.
If you'd ever bothered to read his voluminous 'The Second World War' you would know that it is full of obfuscations, half-truths, missing information, bigging himself up, and downright lies.
The way he treated Air Marshall Harris and the men of Bomber Command at the end of the War was nothing short of disgusting. The way he treated the Polish troops at the VE Parade was scandalous; and don't forget he was complicit in allowing Europe to be carved up by the 4 Powers with the inevitible result being the Cold War.
Europe was carved up on the basis of where the Red army reached on their march through Europe, whether Churchill accepted or argued against this the effect would have been the same. Where the British could reach a country ahead of them, as with Denmark and Greece, they did so.
Of those 10 criticisms the only two that have any validity, IMO, are the Bengal famine and the cash for questions.
Even the Indians weren't all that enamoured of saint Gandhi and modern day India is far more influenced by Nehru than Gandhi.
One could add actually far more serious criticisms like a fundamental lack of judgement at times that was very inappropriate for a modern statesmen. Consider if you will his Antwerp adventure in WW1 and wild declarations he would give up his political office for an army command.
But overall he was right throughout the 30s, and the right man to lead us through WW2.
I was brought up in a family which had varying opinions of Churchill. The suggestion that he was far right was not one supported by either 'side' of my family. One of the criticisms that was shared by all was that he had few principles. He 'bent with the wind'.
Many in my family thought his self-serving. He wanted to be top man and didn't care how he went about it.
His time as leader of a coalition of committed left and right politicians during the war showed his strengths I think, but he made a number of mistakes, some that were very costly. It was a repetition of how he had been in the first. My maternal grandmother was particularly fond of remembering the farce of the Dardanelles, and this at a time of many deaths in the army through a casual approach to deaths of soldiers.
Churchill was an odd bloke. He was a great writer, an opinion shared by many. He was, everyone says, a great orator. But he was, in essence, some bloke. He did good stuff, he made mistakes. He did not sacrifice his life for the good of the country. He also was very clever at collecting accolades, which upset some of the others in the various cabinets during the war.
He was a drunkard, using alcohol to subdue his demons.
We should not eulogise him, suggesting everything he did was great. The BBC are right to highlight the good and the bad.
Many in my family thought his self-serving. He wanted to be top man and didn't care how he went about it.
His time as leader of a coalition of committed left and right politicians during the war showed his strengths I think, but he made a number of mistakes, some that were very costly. It was a repetition of how he had been in the first. My maternal grandmother was particularly fond of remembering the farce of the Dardanelles, and this at a time of many deaths in the army through a casual approach to deaths of soldiers.
Churchill was an odd bloke. He was a great writer, an opinion shared by many. He was, everyone says, a great orator. But he was, in essence, some bloke. He did good stuff, he made mistakes. He did not sacrifice his life for the good of the country. He also was very clever at collecting accolades, which upset some of the others in the various cabinets during the war.
He was a drunkard, using alcohol to subdue his demons.
We should not eulogise him, suggesting everything he did was great. The BBC are right to highlight the good and the bad.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff