50th anniversary of Churchill's death
Discussion
Has anyone read "The Churchill Factor"?
Was contemplating it.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchill-Factor-How-Made-...
Was contemplating it.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchill-Factor-How-Made-...
Interesting perspective on Churchill from Peter Carington:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/...
The comments on "compassionate Conservatism" and the "Right-wing baboon" noteworthy also.
eharding said:
Interesting perspective on Churchill from Peter Carington:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/...
The comments on "compassionate Conservatism" and the "Right-wing baboon" noteworthy also.
There are some crackign quotes in that article, including:-http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/...
The comments on "compassionate Conservatism" and the "Right-wing baboon" noteworthy also.
He is amusing on the subject of the plethora of foreign leaders he has met over the years. Ronald Reagan was ''the most delightful man — funny, not clever but full of common sense’’. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing was ''clever, but rather grand. He tried to patronise Margaret, which didn’t go down well.’’ Mitterand? ''Not a very upright man’’; Jimmy Carter “left an awful mess behind’’. As for Barack Obama, ''I think he’s doing rather badly. I said to Henry Kissinger – an old mate of mine – what he thought of him, and he replied: 'He makes the most wonderful speeches, very thoughtful. The trouble is: he thinks having made the speech, he has solved the problem.’ And I agree.’’
Vocal Minority said:
No one is disputing that between 1940 and 1945 he was the right man, at the right time -
Or as my history teacher suggested, 'the wrong man, in the wrong job, but at the right time."His judgement on military matters certainly left much to be desired. But his recognition of the dangers of appeasement would be sufficient in itself to make him worth remembering. His sheer obstinacy in standing up to Hitler when practically the entire world felt the only option was to hand over Western Europe to the Nazis more than makes up for all his failings.
He was willing to fight for his country in both the Boer war and WW1, which makes allegations of war mongering absurd.
And anyone who was an MP in the reign of Queen Victoria and still an MP when the Beatles were in the charts must have been pretty special.
I agree about the military side of it, you only need to look at The Dardanelles to see he wasn't the next great Warrior king - maybe the greatest motivational coach in history...
Somewhere he did do very well was as an 'early adopter' of ideas. For example - the Government Code and Cypher School had tremendous problems getting the military to adopt their thinking on enigma - especially the Navy (Naval intelligence having a rich code breaking tradition of its own of course). It sounds absurd, but it was true. Churchill of course adopted it enthusiastically, and madly it needed that to gain wider traction amongst Military top brass.
Somewhere he did do very well was as an 'early adopter' of ideas. For example - the Government Code and Cypher School had tremendous problems getting the military to adopt their thinking on enigma - especially the Navy (Naval intelligence having a rich code breaking tradition of its own of course). It sounds absurd, but it was true. Churchill of course adopted it enthusiastically, and madly it needed that to gain wider traction amongst Military top brass.
Edited by Vocal Minority on Friday 23 January 14:43
Claudia Skies said:
Surely this can only be of any possible interest to people of about 70 years old or more?
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.
I'm 57 and still remember watching his funeral on tv.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.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
.... 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.
I agree with most on this thread in that he was as much sinner as saint, it's just one of the things he got right rather overshadows the rest in most eyes.One bit I spotted though is quoted above. I think (from memory so apologies if research proves me incorrect) that Churchill was actually the one person who stood up and said that this was was going to be the start of the next big problem.
As the war got to the point of only a matter of time and post war plans were drawn up WC was dead against giving an inch to the Russia. He foresaw the Cold War and tried to do what he could to avert it. Fact was though that the only way to prevent the events of the next 50 odd years would have been to have continued the war, but change enemy to the Russians once the Nazi's had been defeated. The US was very much against this and was of the opinion that it would be able to control Uncle Joe with the help of the Europeans - we all saw how well that turned out...
Bluntly CW saw what was about to happen, warned everyone, but was dismissed as there was no stomach for a further, new, fight against the Russians. If he was complicit it was only in so far as he could not get people to see what was about to happen so tried to make the best of a s
t hand.In addition to the above - and something the British always (understandably) lose sight of - Britain was VERY much the junior partner in the allied effort. There is complicit, and there is genuinely unable to influence.
(I am not saying he doesn't hold responsibility - I don't know the historiography well enough - but just making a suggestion)
(I am not saying he doesn't hold responsibility - I don't know the historiography well enough - but just making a suggestion)
Edited by Vocal Minority on Friday 23 January 14:41
Just reading Boris Johnson's book on him at the moment. A good read. Quite balanced and revealing.
He was quite self centred and moved to the Liberals to further his own career and again back to the Conservatives.
He was in the trenches in WW1 and had a big role in creating the first tanks.
Was also a keen avaitor.
A fascinating, flawed chap.
He was quite self centred and moved to the Liberals to further his own career and again back to the Conservatives.
He was in the trenches in WW1 and had a big role in creating the first tanks.
Was also a keen avaitor.
A fascinating, flawed chap.
Paul Dishman said:
I'm 60 and so was at primary school when Churchill died. I'm sure that we had a day off school and that I remember watching the funeral live on the TV
Unless you went to school on a Saturday, I don't think you had a day off.I was 14 at the time and remember it vividly on TV. It seemed to be on all day, and we didn't watch a lot of telly then, but we did that, as did millions in Europe and here - I think it was over 300 million watched it 'live' in continental europe (as we used to call it then) and 25 million here at home - that was HUGE considering tv was not in every home by a long way. All in black and white of course!
It was only Ireland who did not broadcast it live, can't remember why?
The whole day was Churchill. Patriotism meant something then. The English Electric Lightnings doing a flypast, seemed to be a dozen or more of them. When I think of the Diana funeral and all the weeping and flowers, Churchill's was one of patriotism. I've never seen anything like it since. Whats sad about today is we were taught about history then. There are some 'young people' today who couldn't even tell you who Churchill was. Does it matter? I've no idea. But he's probably turning in his grave just down the road from me.
In fact on that Saturday so long ago, we got in dad's new Chamois Imp and he drove us the 7 miles to Long Hanborough, where the coffin came in by train, to go on to Churchill's resting place up the road in Bladon. Police and people were everywhere.
Hmm. Different era. Different times. Have we made any progress since then? You can argue one way or the other, but I'm glad I was around then.
Liszt said:
Just reading Boris Johnson's book on him at the moment. A good read. Quite balanced and revealing.
He was quite self centred and moved to the Liberals to further his own career and again back to the Conservatives.
He was in the trenches in WW1 and had a big role in creating the first tanks.
Was also a keen avaitor.
A fascinating, flawed chap.
If the Admiralty had not lost its backbone and stopped the naval assault on the Dardanelles, just as the enemy had run out of mines, he would also have saved many thousands of ANZACs lives as well.He was quite self centred and moved to the Liberals to further his own career and again back to the Conservatives.
He was in the trenches in WW1 and had a big role in creating the first tanks.
Was also a keen avaitor.
A fascinating, flawed chap.
Of his political leanings I have always loved this quote:-
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
Rude-boy said:
If the Admiralty had not lost its backbone and stopped the naval assault on the Dardanelles, just as the enemy had run out of mines, he would also have saved many thousands of ANZACs lives as well.
Of his political leanings I have always loved this quote:-
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
Off topic Of his political leanings I have always loved this quote:-
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
But the Dardanelles(Gallopili) was a slight allied defeat rather than a catastrophe. The Turks lost slightly more men killed than the allies and over double the number captured.
It was however rather typical of Churchill in that he had the intelligence to realise the importance of something but not the patience to properly plan to achieve it. The Dardanelles were a vital life line to Russia and if they had been taken may have kept Russia in the war for longer. He was also correct that the other Axis powers were far less formidable than Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empire in particular could have been made to collapse far earlier if more pressure had been put on it.
He sure had a sense of humour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEenHXmmy4
I can remember the funeral,I think most of the UK stopped work and watched it on TV or had a radio on.Did we all have the day off?? Any way one thing that got me was how the dockers stopped work and the huge crane jibs were lowered in salute as his barge sailed down the Thames.
I have no comment on his politics,flaws or what ever.To me he was the ultimate war leader,he rallied the nation.Yes it was a long time ago,different way of life,the world was a different place.
Just think though?? what would have happened if we never had Winston Churchill?? Lord Halifax or others would have done a peace deal with Hitler?? The UK was under NAZI control.Then what????????? The UK would have ceased to exist.It could have happened,thanks to Churchill and the British people getting the "Churchill Message" (including my mum and dad)it did not.
I have no comment on his politics,flaws or what ever.To me he was the ultimate war leader,he rallied the nation.Yes it was a long time ago,different way of life,the world was a different place.
Just think though?? what would have happened if we never had Winston Churchill?? Lord Halifax or others would have done a peace deal with Hitler?? The UK was under NAZI control.Then what????????? The UK would have ceased to exist.It could have happened,thanks to Churchill and the British people getting the "Churchill Message" (including my mum and dad)it did not.
Dr Jekyll said:
But his recognition of the dangers of appeasement would be sufficient in itself to make him worth remembering. His sheer obstinacy in standing up to Hitler when practically the entire world felt the only option was to hand over Western Europe to the Nazis more than makes up for all his failings.
He was willing to fight for his country in both the Boer war and WW1, which makes allegations of war mongering absurd.
I'm not sure that even Chamberlain believed there would be peace in his time. The interpretation as the years have gone by and more and more government papers have been revealed is that the hope was for time to build a military response to Germany being the main motivation. Not necessarily war, but arming up to put off any plans for invasion. Rearmament was going on before Munich and actually increased immediately afterwards. In other words, the PiOT was nothing more than spin, something which, given that Chamberlain was a politician, is much more believable. He was willing to fight for his country in both the Boer war and WW1, which makes allegations of war mongering absurd.
My family were aware that a second war was coming. My father and one of his brothers joined the forces in Autumn '38 because they 'knew' the war was coming. So I doubt there were many MPs who expected peace.
Another fact that has come to light is the strength of the support for a fascist government amongst the sitting MPs. A declaration of war might not have been fully supported by the houses. 1938 was a complex time politically. Whilst it is depicted that the general public fully supported declaring war on Germany, there's much evidence to suggest this isn't true. With the slaughter of WWI still fresh in memory - less than 20 years before they were still dying on the battlefields - the taste for war was not overwhelming and there were at the time riots in the streets. There was little trust of the military, that's for certain.
On the last sentence I quoted, I'm not sure wanting to fight in a war necessarily negates the charge of war mongering.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff