Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
Poll: Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
Total Members Polled: 386
Discussion
I'll readily admit that history is not my favourite subject but even I'll admit to knowing who Winston Churchill was. I mean the wartime PM, not the MP.
My schooling and upbringing had portrayed him as a hero who had got us through the war but a recent facebook post (source of all truths
) begged to differ and called him all manner of unsavoury things including white supremacist and responsible for Asian famines.
I could, of course, do my homework and decide for myself but seeing as I never did this for history at school, I'm not about to start now. A PH poll shall be my education.
So Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
My schooling and upbringing had portrayed him as a hero who had got us through the war but a recent facebook post (source of all truths
) begged to differ and called him all manner of unsavoury things including white supremacist and responsible for Asian famines. I could, of course, do my homework and decide for myself but seeing as I never did this for history at school, I'm not about to start now. A PH poll shall be my education.
So Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
Mothersruin said:
Both.
Complex chap.
Very much this.Complex chap.
The truth is that there are very few 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in the world. Most people are basically alright, and have done some great things but also stuff they probably aren't proud of.
Winston Churchill was an excellent and pragmatic war time leader. The epitome of the right man at the right time. But it was still 5 years of 90 he stalked the world. So is that enough to call it one way or the other?
He was obviously urbane and witty man, and a tremendous motivator and speaker. Confident enough to make the difficult decision and just 'get it done' which is what you needed in war time. A very valuable asset.
Outside of the war years, his record was as good as it was bad. He was prone to a slightly startling over-reaction for things, and the Dardanelles was certainly a blot on the military copy book.
His early career trajectory was positive, but he was often seen as self serving in politics. He spent a long time on the India hobby horse in the early 30s, which everyone even back then thought a dead end cause.
He called German re-armament of course, but it's not as simple a situation as mainstream history likes to paint that one (in my opinion anyway).
He once said 'history will be kind to me, as I intend to write it' - and broadly speaking that is just what he did. His volume on the run up to the war 'the gathering storm' gave its name to modern parlance for the period - and was part of the genesis of his reputation on the re-armament front.
A strange and complex man - very much a Victorian in a modern world. For every good character trait there was a bad one. For every political blunder, there was a great move.
I think the dichotomy of good guy/bad guy is a bit of a story book construct. Rarely are humans one or the other.
If anyone fancies a single volume on the man I can recommend this
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Footsteps-Churchill-Richa...
Not fawning, but it doesn't stick the knife in - it is pragmatic and balanced - and broadly positive, which is after all the British default for WSC.
Edited by Vocal Minority on Monday 26th September 16:39
He's like anybody really.
His greatest achievement was in choosing and running an effective and efficient war cabinet. Next was the ability to convince other leaders the UK was important to them.
He didn't win the war of course, but given his authority, he could have lost it.
He made some iffy decisions, both WWI and II.
His history before WWII could best be described as chequered. Both my grandmothers disliked him intensely, believing him to be a war monger.
He has been eulogised, at least post war, and that means it is difficult to sort the myth from reality, but then that goes for all history I suppose. He was a great writer, particularly of history.
I lived near a Thames lighterman and he took part in the salute to his funeral barge after he died. Yet he too disliked the chap yet he felt he needed to show respect for him being the leader during the war. He viewed it as a celebration of victory rather than of the man.
Some of his earlier pronouncements would have, at the very least, lost him his seat nowadays, and possibly even got him a conviction. He was probably just what was needed during the war, but he was helped by those who were just what we needed. That they didn't get their recognition until fairly recently is a shame.
His greatest achievement was in choosing and running an effective and efficient war cabinet. Next was the ability to convince other leaders the UK was important to them.
He didn't win the war of course, but given his authority, he could have lost it.
He made some iffy decisions, both WWI and II.
His history before WWII could best be described as chequered. Both my grandmothers disliked him intensely, believing him to be a war monger.
He has been eulogised, at least post war, and that means it is difficult to sort the myth from reality, but then that goes for all history I suppose. He was a great writer, particularly of history.
I lived near a Thames lighterman and he took part in the salute to his funeral barge after he died. Yet he too disliked the chap yet he felt he needed to show respect for him being the leader during the war. He viewed it as a celebration of victory rather than of the man.
Some of his earlier pronouncements would have, at the very least, lost him his seat nowadays, and possibly even got him a conviction. He was probably just what was needed during the war, but he was helped by those who were just what we needed. That they didn't get their recognition until fairly recently is a shame.
To judge some of Churchill's earlier, dubious, perhaps less PC episodes, one really has to view them in the context of the day and read into the background - T S Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom for one - to get an idea of the prevailing attitudes and situations.
As for his leadership during the war, I think it was possibly the best example of British leadership we may ever see. Cometh the hour, cometh the man.
As for his leadership during the war, I think it was possibly the best example of British leadership we may ever see. Cometh the hour, cometh the man.
He was a bad man, many people suffered due to him attempting to protect an already crumbling British Empire
Of course he did his bit for the war effort but there were other Brits that wanted help for the people of the British Empire that were suffering and he did not give a toss about them
Churchill behaved like the Nazis that he was fighting against and caused far too much grief/suffering for far too many people
BAD BAD BAD.
The man should have been kicked out
Of course he did his bit for the war effort but there were other Brits that wanted help for the people of the British Empire that were suffering and he did not give a toss about them
Churchill behaved like the Nazis that he was fighting against and caused far too much grief/suffering for far too many people
BAD BAD BAD.
The man should have been kicked out
55palfers said:
Wonder how many have moved on. I have considering what he brought to the table at the start of WWII. I suspect that without him we would have signed the peace treaty after Dunkirk.don'tbesilly said:
Anyone who can come up with quotes like the one below, gets my vote:
"I may be drunk Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly".
The quotes"I may be drunk Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly".
"Sir you're drunk"
Retort
"Madam you're ugly, but in the morning I'll be sober"
And to Lady Astor
"Sir, if you were my Husband I'd poison your tea"
Retort
"Madam, if you were my wife I'd drink it"
Are both attributed to WC, unfortunately just folk law. They were quite old gags, predating these events considerably.
Penelope Stopit said:
He was a bad man, many people suffered due to him attempting to protect an already crumbling British Empire
Of course he did his bit for the war effort but there were other Brits that wanted help for the people of the British Empire that were suffering and he did not give a toss about them
Churchill behaved like the Nazis that he was fighting against and caused far too much grief/suffering for far too many people
BAD BAD BAD.
The man should have been kicked out
That is too simplistic. In many ways he was misguided, and misjudged much and made serious, life consuming mistakes. His redeeming feature, he was an inspirational leader during WW2, particularly the early part.Of course he did his bit for the war effort but there were other Brits that wanted help for the people of the British Empire that were suffering and he did not give a toss about them
Churchill behaved like the Nazis that he was fighting against and caused far too much grief/suffering for far too many people
BAD BAD BAD.
The man should have been kicked out
So bad, and good. Not 100% either.
eldar said:
Penelope Stopit said:
He was a bad man, many people suffered due to him attempting to protect an already crumbling British Empire
Of course he did his bit for the war effort but there were other Brits that wanted help for the people of the British Empire that were suffering and he did not give a toss about them
Churchill behaved like the Nazis that he was fighting against and caused far too much grief/suffering for far too many people
BAD BAD BAD.
The man should have been kicked out
That is too simplistic. In many ways he was misguided, and misjudged much and made serious, life consuming mistakes. His redeeming feature, he was an inspirational leader during WW2, particularly the early part.Of course he did his bit for the war effort but there were other Brits that wanted help for the people of the British Empire that were suffering and he did not give a toss about them
Churchill behaved like the Nazis that he was fighting against and caused far too much grief/suffering for far too many people
BAD BAD BAD.
The man should have been kicked out
So bad, and good. Not 100% either.
Churchill behaved in the same way as the Nazis that he was fighting
Remarkable hey, a Brit leader acting like a Nazi
I would have gone for the middle option had there been one. Unfortunately viewed through a modern lens with modern sensibilities he was a total arse and wouldn't have lasted long in today's society (for better or worse!). Viewed PURELY in WWII terms one would make a compelling case for him being very good, unfortunately you can't take that in isolation
Penelope Stopit said:
He was a bad man, many people suffered due to him attempting to protect an already crumbling British Empire
Of course he did his bit for the war effort but there were other Brits that wanted help for the people of the British Empire that were suffering and he did not give a toss about them
Churchill behaved like the Nazis that he was fighting against and caused far too much grief/suffering for far too many people
BAD BAD BAD.
The man should have been kicked out
Yes remind me again which Jewish Concentration Camps Churchill ran or organised? Of course he did his bit for the war effort but there were other Brits that wanted help for the people of the British Empire that were suffering and he did not give a toss about them
Churchill behaved like the Nazis that he was fighting against and caused far too much grief/suffering for far too many people
BAD BAD BAD.
The man should have been kicked out
He wasn't even PM when the war started... but he WAS PM when Great Britain stood ALONE against the Nazis.
I think his personal courage in the Boer War is often overlooked, at least he had served in the Miltary so knew the cost of the decisions he took. Lets face it, that was a incredibly difficult period of time in which to lead, knowing whatever your choices men (and women) would likely die.
That he worked so tirelessly to bring the about the Allied Forces and the success (in miltary terms) of D Day is not to be under estimated.
He was a very useful wartime PM, right place at the right time. During peacetime, quite rightly not required.
He was on the team for dividing up the Middle East from the original Ottoman Empire, with little regard to local, tribal, boundaries, politics & customs. Creating much unrest to this day.
He was on the team for dividing up the Middle East from the original Ottoman Empire, with little regard to local, tribal, boundaries, politics & customs. Creating much unrest to this day.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff