Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?

[768]

Churchill had many blemishes and they cannot be washed away. But when this country had dire need of a hero, he was there. There was nobody else. And he was heroic, like no Briton before, or since.

[biggbn]

768 said:

Churchill had many blemishes and they cannot be washed away. But when this country had dire need of a hero, he was there. There was nobody else. And he was heroic, like no Briton before, or since.

This is an interesting point. Was he heroic? He took the right decisions, he inspired, but heroic? No, not for me. The real heroes were the men and women from all countries in the front line doing the job with stoic acceptance.

[Penelope Stopit]

F1GTRUeno said:

Oilchange said:

Just finished reading Boris Johnsons book ‘The Churchill Factor’. It gives a very balanced view of the man

Boris Johnson? balanced? fk off.

Oilchange said:

But for him we would have been overrun.

That's such a hyperbolic, nothing statement that those who champion him love to say. Completely disrespects the efforts of EVERYBODY else involved. Was all Churchill obviously. Must've missed where he was fighting in the trenches or doing bombing runs or any of the infinite other incredibly brave actions that were undertaken during the war by real fighters and all of military command. They might as well have written Captain Marvel about him instead.

Oilchange said:

Those that paint him as a villain can do so and he would be fine with that. Imagine speaking out against a fascist state (that the UK would be if Hiter had won).

Again, bks. Painting him as the sole reason why we're not Germans right now. Pure tripe.

Thank you for saving me much typing. The brainwashed think that Churchill was the only one for the job and he won the war
The brainwashed can't be cured

[mcdjl]

Penelope Stopit said:

F1GTRUeno said:

Oilchange said:

Just finished reading Boris Johnsons book ‘The Churchill Factor’. It gives a very balanced view of the man

Boris Johnson? balanced? fk off.

Oilchange said:

But for him we would have been overrun.

That's such a hyperbolic, nothing statement that those who champion him love to say. Completely disrespects the efforts of EVERYBODY else involved. Was all Churchill obviously. Must've missed where he was fighting in the trenches or doing bombing runs or any of the infinite other incredibly brave actions that were undertaken during the war by real fighters and all of military command. They might as well have written Captain Marvel about him instead.

Oilchange said:

Those that paint him as a villain can do so and he would be fine with that. Imagine speaking out against a fascist state (that the UK would be if Hiter had won).

Again, bks. Painting him as the sole reason why we're not Germans right now. Pure tripe.

Thank you for saving me much typing. The brainwashed think that Churchill was the only one for the job and he won the war
The brainwashed can't be cured

I haven't read the book but is the objection to the authour, or what the book says?
As for the sole reason? No not a chance. A significant one, yes more than likely. His choices/decision possibly had more impact than any other single persons, but then the same would be true of whoever held his position, the same is true in germany at the same time.
He can be painted as a good guy and a villain. The two aren't entirely exclusive, in the marvel films most villains have their redemption moment. An authour can be both an idiot and write a balanced book. There are always shades of grey and the truth is always there, rather than in the absolutes of black or white.

[Pan Pan Pan]

vonuber said:

JagLover said:

The German army fought hard in Normandy and then later in the fighting along the German frontier, whether that be the fighting along the Siegfried line, in Hurtgen forest, or the later Ardennes offensive. They collapsed later once they realised that the war had been lost.

So turning to Strategic bombing by what mechanism is breaking the enemies will to resist going to manifest itself in a one party state?, the only way it realistically can is by large scale surrenders of enemy soldiers. Which is what happened, the German army realised the war was over and, for the most part, after that realisation cared only about surrendering to the allies rather than the Russians.

It is convenient to believe that actions we believe to be morally reprehensible offered no contribution to victory. But in fact the strategic bombing campaign not only inflicted significant damage on the Nazi war economy it also, once it reached the required scale, was followed by a collapse in the German willingness to continue fighting.

This completely and utterly ignores the impact of the Easter front.
It is Hollywood history.

You appear to have completely and utterly ignored the impact of the arctic convoys of thousands upon thousands of tons of war materiel supplied to the Russian military by the US and UK, without which Western Russia would have been wiped out.
How could that have even happened had the UK not been the only European country not to fall to Nazi Germany in the early 1940`s? Do you seriously believe that the US would, or even could have launched a D-Day from the Eastern Seaboard of the US,
You it seems, have a twisted view of what `actually' happened in WW2.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Strange how McDonald forgot to mention `his' hero, Stalin who not only did a deal with Hitler and supplied Nazi Germany with thousands of tons of war materiel, but also had thousands of his own army officers executed, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers who were thrown into battle as no more than cannon fodder.

[NRS]

Derek Smith said:

It's a fascinating time. Don't look at it from an argumentative point of view. Accept that no one can prove they are right, there are too many unknowns that never will be known. What is clear though is that Japan were looking for ways to surrender.

So why hadn't they surrendered when asked?

stripy7 said:

Halmyre said:

Would they have been able to bomb them in any case? A lot of the camps were in eastern Europe IIRC

Yad Vaschem made the case, IIRC highlighting a bombing raid that occurred in proximity to a camp (although possibly in the later stages of the war)

This is the great vision of hindsight. Imagine if it had been done - we'd be sitting here with many complaining about bombing innocents in concentration camps instead. It's easy to criticise war decisions after we see the results of things.

Or, as some seem to be doing creating a "what about" version of history. Take the A-bomb discussion for example - if you were the type of leader to wait and see if Japan did actually surrender later, you'd also apply that earlier in the war - and that might have meant the "wait and see" thinking meant you got beaten in another strategic battle earlier. And everyone will make mistakes, it's impossible not to.

Take the food discussion - a leader that would not have done that might have tried to do everything right by everyone, and ended up spreading the forces too wide, and getting beaten in all of them, instead of focusing on the key strategic areas and losing in the ones that "didn't matter". Or the post from Derek from 2 years ago - more air cover for atlantic convoys - where were the planes for this - or the pilots? Presumably they'd be taken away from the defence of the UK instead, meaning the Luftwaffe could have wiped out more cities/ RAF airfields etc., leaving the UK even more open. It also ignores the lack of range of planes in quite a few areas - or the impact of the weather meaning a lot of the time aircraft could not fly/ not fly safely at low altitudes to provide cover for the ships etc.

We also probably have more knowledge than the decision makers at the time did too, remember this is a messy war, with more limited tech, huge logistics, not knowing what the enemy will do etc. Ignoring that and adding hindsight means it is easy to make better decisions.

[Oilchange]

Penelope Stopit said:

F1GTRUeno said:

Oilchange said:

Just finished reading Boris Johnsons book ‘The Churchill Factor’. It gives a very balanced view of the man

Boris Johnson? balanced? fk off.

Oilchange said:

But for him we would have been overrun.

That's such a hyperbolic, nothing statement that those who champion him love to say. Completely disrespects the efforts of EVERYBODY else involved. Was all Churchill obviously. Must've missed where he was fighting in the trenches or doing bombing runs or any of the infinite other incredibly brave actions that were undertaken during the war by real fighters and all of military command. They might as well have written Captain Marvel about him instead.

Oilchange said:

Those that paint him as a villain can do so and he would be fine with that. Imagine speaking out against a fascist state (that the UK would be if Hiter had won).

Again, bks. Painting him as the sole reason why we're not Germans right now. Pure tripe.

Thank you for saving me much typing. The brainwashed think that Churchill was the only one for the job and he won the war
The brainwashed can't be cured

I’m not brainwashed and I’ll thank you to mind mind your language F1GTRUeno!

I was expecting something biassed toward WC but having just finished it, it appeared to look balanced.
Have you read the book, either of you? I suspect not.

[Digga]

NRS said:

We also probably have more knowledge than the decision makers at the time did too, remember this is a messy war, with more limited tech, huge logistics, not knowing what the enemy will do etc. Ignoring that and adding hindsight means it is easy to make better decisions.

I think ti's vital to acknowledge this. We are looking at the situation in retrospect, with the incalculable benefit of living in a nation not at risk of being bombed nightly, or in the position where countless numbers of services were overseas and dying, each day.

The history we see is 'fixed' and, even if it is skewed toward the authors, it is nonetheless static. At the time, who knew what would and wouldn't work? Even retrospectively, who is to say what was the specific straw (or straws) that broke the camel's back in terms of the Nazi resolve?

There's no doubt mistakes were made. Humans or not perfect, especially when put under intense pressure.

[Derek Smith]

768 said:

Churchill had many blemishes and they cannot be washed away. But when this country had dire need of a hero, he was there. There was nobody else. And he was heroic, like no Briton before, or since.

When did he become a hero? My impression is that it wasn't during the war, but afterwards. The Crown was used as a sort of idealised hero group. When Buck House was damaged by bombs there was a considerable amount made of it, a sort of 'they know your suffering.'

Certainly, post war a was a lot made of Churchill's contribution, even I can remember that. There were other heroes, such as Monty. Mind you, generals generally were in place for such a short time that they made little impact on the public and, I suppose, the war. I seem to remember that Churchill sacked more generals than either Hitler or Stalin.

The idea that Churchill was a beloved hero during the war is counterbalanced by the fact that he lost his first election as PM. The public, it seems, had other heroes. He was also booed often but the film news never showed that.

He was certainly seen as valuable by the tory party in '51, too much so to dump, despite his failing health. It was a close run thing, with labour polling more than the tories, but still losing too many seats. They had a very small majority. Churchill was seen as too valuable an asset to remove from post when he became seriously ill.

The tory government of 1951 had many problems which were dealt with well. Churchill's input in this is unknown of course given his health. But there's little doubt that their performance was a factor in them gaining more seats in the next election. That and having pretty boy Eden as leader. He did well, didn't he.

As the quote says, Churchill had many blemishes; it does no one any favours to ignore them. He was the first MP to use the press as a way of furthering his career. Being a journo probably helped there, but he took to it all so well. Others took to it slowly. He was a master of spin, at least for the time. His quotes were well publicised. He was a public figure before the war although not everyone agreed with him.

To answer the question posed by the OP, I think the answer is an unequivocal 'Yes.'

[Derek Smith]

Digga said:

The history we see is 'fixed' and, even if it is skewed toward the authors, it is nonetheless static.

I apologise if I'm being a bit slow here, but could you explain that sentence for me.

[Digga]

Derek Smith said:

Digga said:

The history we see is 'fixed' and, even if it is skewed toward the authors, it is nonetheless static.

I apologise if I'm being a bit slow here, but could you explain that sentence for me.

No problem. Merely that history, for Hitler, Churchill, Stalin and all of the other agents of the time, was in flux. For them and all of their contemporaries, the absolute facts about what happened last week, let alone yesterday, throughout all areas of the conflict, were not fully resolved, let alone where they actually were at that precise point, never mind which direction events were going.

We have the enormous luxury of being able to pick through well-documented histories of the events today, in order to inform our opinions. They did not. The events were happening around them, the situation was dynamic.

ETA the deficiency of the knowledge we hold today is, undoubtedly, that the narrative of certain events flatters the victors.

[Halb]

NRS said:

Derek Smith said:

It's a fascinating time. Don't look at it from an argumentative point of view. Accept that no one can prove they are right, there are too many unknowns that never will be known. What is clear though is that Japan were looking for ways to surrender.

So why hadn't they surrendered when asked?

Power struggles among the different groups, eventually the tide turned towards the ones who wanted to stop.

[Halb]

Digga said:

No problem. Merely that history, for Hitler, Churchill, Stalin and all of the other agents of the time, was in flux. For them and all of their contemporaries, the absolute facts about what happened last week, let alone yesterday, throughout all areas of the conflict, were not fully resolved, let alone where they actually were at that precise point, never mind which direction events were going.

We have the enormous luxury of being able to pick through well-documented histories of the events today, in order to inform our opinions. They did not. The events were happening around them, the situation was dynamic.

ETA the deficiency of the knowledge we hold today is, undoubtedly, that the narrative of certain events flatters the victors.

THat's a great point. And how I see it. Some of thebest stuff we know about that time comes from the interviews held with people in thr4 60's-80s when they felt OK to chat about such things. I've mentioned the secret history that Pete Ustonov talked about a few times. THis weekend Talking Pictures: David Niven was on, and he talked about the times he met Churchill, and his impression of him, hidden histories! Brilliant. Churchill became PM because Hailfax let him, the BEF escaped Guedarian because Hitler let them, huge pivotal points that relied on whims. At many points it was always in flux, and like good make-believe political dramas (like GoT) people (from the top to the bottom) are constantly seeing how to keep to the best tack for them/what they look after.

[768]

Derek Smith said:

The idea that Churchill was a beloved hero during the war is counterbalanced by the fact that he lost his first election as PM. The public, it seems, had other heroes.

I don't know that he wasn't seen as a hero then, I'm sure I've heard quotes about people at the time of the 1945 election referring to him as a hero in spite of voting for Atlee.

Besides, Labour were promising free stuff to a nation who'd been at war and not able to vote their government out. I wouldn't pin too much on Churchill for losing that one.

[Halb]

Churchill had as much to do with it as anything, he represented the old world, and the people of Britain deserved better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_United_Kingdom_...
"The greatest factor in Labour's dramatic win appeared to be the policy of social reform."

[768]

768 said:

free stuff

Halb said:

social reform

You say tomato...

[mcdjl]

Halb said:

Churchill had as much to do with it as anything, he represented the old world, and the people of Britain deserved better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_United_Kingdom_...
"The greatest factor in Labour's dramatic win appeared to be the policy of social reform."

The war is over, lets celebrate and move, on time for a change. Not necessarily a reflection of how Churchill was viewed personally, as much as all that by then he stood for.

[Kermit power]

Penelope Stopit said:

This is for all of you that obviously dont know what you are talking about and are blindly led to believe that Churchill was a good man. Here I post a very good example of the horrors that Churchill created and also include a link that is all fact about this mass murderer that was on a par with the Nazis

1943........Bengal......Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused
Do you want more, that on its own is knocking on to the same figures as the Nazis withn the Jews

3 Million People........BAD BAD BAD

I know this post is from ages ago, but I still feel it needs some response!

I'd never heard of the Bengal Famine, so I've just been off taking a look at it. As I can see it, we can make some comparisons...

The Bengal Famine killed 2-3 million out of a population of around 60m. The provincial (not UK) government denied there was a famine at all, and
pursued some pretty disastrous policies which resulted in many of the deaths. Aid didn't really start flowing at all until the Indian Army took over.

A large part of the reason for the famine, at least in the earliest stages, was the implementation of a policy to remove food from a buffer zone between Japanese-occupied Burma and the heart of India to reduce any risk of invasion. There was also priority distribution of food, but this wasn't, as I believe you suggested in an earlier post, to take food from starving Bengalis and give it to non-starving people in Europe. It was an Indian government policy to redistribute food to specific groups in India. I'm not sure that Churchill had anything to do with this?

Was Churchill to blame? Possibly in part. I certainly don't believe for one second that he suddenly sat down in the middle of WW2 to decide how best to go about murdering a few million Indians, but if he was having to give consideration to where to send shipping in particular, then his dislike of Indians may well have influenced him to keep using that shipping to send supplies to Russia and elsewhere, rather than using it to take grain to Bengal.


The Holocaust, on the other hand, was the deliberate and senseless murder of 6 million Jews - well over 50% of the Jewish population of Europe at the time - and at least as many more disabled, homosexuals, Slavs, Roma and other groups. It was driven purely by the lunatic desires of Hitler and his closest allies, with absolutely no regard for any sort of logical thinking.

There were no considerations given in the committal of the Holocaust to ring-fencing resources for the war effort. Quite the opposite, in fact. Troops were diverted from combat to man the concentration camps, as were the resources used to build the camps, the trains that transported prisoners to them and so forth.

Beyond the fact that millions died in both events, I cannot see a single further valid point of comparison. That you would try to give equivalence to both is frankly absurd, and a complete insult to those who died in both events. Trying to use those deaths to score a political point is pretty shameful.

[Mrr T]

Pan Pan Pan said:

You appear to have completely and utterly ignored the impact of the arctic convoys of thousands upon thousands of tons of war materiel supplied to the Russian military by the US and UK, without which Western Russia would have been wiped out.

While we must all respect the bravery of those who sailed on the artic convoys they were more symbolic that a real influence. They ran for 4 years and with about 1,400 ship arriving. To put that in perspective that’s about 1 ship a day.