Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?

Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?

Poll: Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?

Total Members Polled: 386

Good guy: 88%
Bad guy: 12%
Author
Discussion

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
Penelope Stopit said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I
Penelope Stopit said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Penelope Stopit said:
Read this and then post about backward looking

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-...
Top tip; if you're trying to give your argument credibility, don't support it by an article written by Johann Hari....
Bengal happened, it is much easier for me to post a link than type for an hour

Are you denying what Churchill got up to?

Educate yourself

Do bear in mind that what happened in Bengal is only one example of Churchill being the bad man
If you came down off your high horse and read my posts, you would see that I am hardly a Churchill fan-boy but you really need to see that you are not doing much to advance your argument in the company of quite a lot of people here who actually do know what they are talking about
You dont understand. I dont have an argument. This is clean cut. Churchill was a bad man. I have only posted facts.
I even doubt Britain would have suffered more without him but cant prove what may have been can I, hence I have only posted the facts
If a bad man achieves many good things for his country it does not make him a good man
I hope this helps
You'd have been posting this in German had it not been for him.

FN2TypeR

7,091 posts

92 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
Mothersruin said:
Both.

Complex chap.
Agreed, some good, some bad. Of course he grew up in a different time to the one we live in so some of his views and comments that seem out of place may not have been all that untoward back then.

A political maverick who made his fair share of mistakes, a good speaker and leader when required though.

I voted good.

Gargamel

14,957 posts

260 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
Penelope Stopit said:
Gargamel 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
Yes remind me again which Jewish Concentration Camps Churchill ran or organised?

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.
You are joking arent you, the Nazis committed atrocities in every country they occupied, what they did to the jews was only part of the st they carried out
Britain was fighting to stop Nazi domination throughout Europe while itself was dominating other countries
Accept it, Churchill was acting like a Nazi
Read up on it if you dont know anything about it and then come back and comment
Firstly perhaps you should read and try to understand what I wrote.

Secondly you know nothing about what I do or don't know about this topic, so wind your neck in. This is an interesting thread and perhaps we could all learn something, But your dogmatic approach and combative posting style is irritating. So try to play the ball not the man eh ?

I said, Churchill was Not like the Nazi's because he didn't organise concentration camps, so again, just read first before getting on the keypad.

Churchill had decisions to make, you can Monday morning quarterback it all you like, what I admire is that he took decisive action, and stuck to it. Or at least kept buggering on.....

768

13,599 posts

95 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
Good guy, but nobody's perfect.

Except Corbyn of course, he's absolutely ideal.

Gargamel

14,957 posts

260 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
Good article here on the Bengal Famine, whilst Churchill is mentioned and his quote is in no way flattering, it is clear that the single biggest reason was the Japanese occupation of Burma.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1...

W124

1,495 posts

137 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
It's actually a very, very interesting question isn't it? I know a fair bit about the subject but I can't actually answer it. Might actually have to THINK about this one!

davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
He was the right guy. Let's leave it at that.


dandarez

13,244 posts

282 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
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
He was! Weren't you there?

Churchill spoke to the massed crowds in Whitehall on VE Day: 'This is your Victory.'
The crowds hollered back: 'No, it is yours!'
Churchill carried on conducting the crowds with a joyous singing of Land of Hope and Glory.

Not long after came the General Election.
He lost and was kicked out!
He even had a much reduced majority in his own constituency, against only a independent candidate.

Don't you just love the British people!
Always the unexpected.
Fast forward to the recent Referendum. hehe

As for good or bad?
Most people thought mostly the former, and still do.


Short Grain

2,743 posts

219 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
Read quite a bit about Churchill, He was The Best Man For The Job!! Not Nice, Not Nasty! Necessary!

Let's face it, He did ensure GB Survived. I couldn't have taken the decisions He did! Could You?


Short Grain

2,743 posts

219 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
Google Churchill's Funeral, see what the people thought at time!

Ridgemont

6,486 posts

130 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
Churchill was a British imperialist and fairly advanced on the Rhodesian scale, and it's what made him great. In his view there were traits inherent in the British constitution and culture that made it a beacon of light. Read 'a history of the English speaking people' for a clear view of his thoughts on the matter.

When he described the Nazi threat being one that could usher in a new dark age, it was of values that he felt were under threat. Values he saw evidenced not just in the UK but the US and all those that shared it's systems and corpus of law. His perspective on india was based on a genuinely held view that 1) Gandhi and the others in the INC were charlatans who would drag India back medievalism 2) it would sound the death knell of empire. He wasn't wrong.

Once you establish that in his view the Empire was the epitome of civilisation much of his actions are explained if not excused in our 21st century eyes. To sit and type 'he was a BAD man' is the shallowest form of analysis. To judge any figure in history bar Christ and Buddha on our modern scales of justice is utterly pointless and profoundly ahistoric.

The reality was that he was, through his countless warnings in HoC and in public speeches during the 30s, significant in establishing a backbone of resistance once war arrived in '39, so ensuring that the likes of Halifax could not negotiate a mealy surrender to Hitler after Dunkirk. For that alone we owe him a debt of thanks.

SPS

1,306 posts

259 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
Ridgemont said:
Churchill was a British imperialist and fairly advanced on the Rhodesian scale, and it's what made him great. In his view there were traits inherent in the British constitution and culture that made it a beacon of light. Read 'a history of the English speaking people' for a clear view of his thoughts on the matter.

When he described the Nazi threat being one that could usher in a new dark age, it was of values that he felt were under threat. Values he saw evidenced not just in the UK but the US and all those that shared it's systems and corpus of law. His perspective on india was based on a genuinely held view that 1) Gandhi and the others in the INC were charlatans who would drag India back medievalism 2) it would sound the death knell of empire. He wasn't wrong.

Once you establish that in his view the Empire was the epitome of civilisation much of his actions are explained if not excused in our 21st century eyes. To sit and type 'he was a BAD man' is the shallowest form of analysis. To judge any figure in history bar Christ and Buddha on our modern scales of justice is utterly pointless and profoundly ahistoric.

The reality was that he was, through his countless warnings in HoC and in public speeches during the 30s, significant in establishing a backbone of resistance once war arrived in '39, so ensuring that the likes of Halifax could not negotiate a mealy surrender to Hitler after Dunkirk. For that alone we owe him a debt of thanks.
More or less on the nail there.

Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
Short Grain said:
Google Churchill's Funeral, see what the people thought at time!
According to some that were there on the day, before the internet put its slant on the day, they were celebrating the war victory, not the man. The 'people' round my way thought something different to the current myth.

The reasons they turned out are complex. But another way is to look at the turnout for Dianna's funeral. What did that say of the woman's qualities? Did they know her, could they name something extraordinary that she had done? Did they get all their information filtered through the news media? Did they believe a myth?

Churchill reported on himself by and large. It is a great advantage. One of the reasons my family disliked him so much was the way he got into power after the war. The labour party was trying to build up financial resources of the country, keeping rationing going even after Germany had it lifted. Churchill bought his victory by promising profligacy.

As I said, I got propaganda from both 'sides', the good and bad guy stuff. The odd thing is, both were right.

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
Nice posts, Derek.



Funny that Churchill's funeral is mentioned, I thought of that above, in relation to something posted. IN one of the history docs....maybe Marr's one (possibly Schama's), the raising of the river cranes in salute is talked about. On the surface the propaganda was seen as saluting a hero, but in the chat with a driver's son (or something) the truth was that the drivers hand to be hard-talked into it with a st-tonne of cash, because they all hated WInston for the stuff he did at home.
Recalling most of that, but I think it's an accurate recollection.

Short Grain

2,743 posts

219 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
Halb said:
Nice posts, Derek.



Funny that Churchill's funeral is mentioned, I thought of that above, in relation to something posted. IN one of the history docs....maybe Marr's one (possibly Schama's), the raising of the river cranes in salute is talked about. On the surface the propaganda was seen as saluting a hero, but in the chat with a driver's son (or something) the truth was that the drivers hand to be hard-talked into it with a st-tonne of cash, because they all hated WInston for the stuff he did at home.
Recalling most of that, but I think it's an accurate recollection.
My Parents, Aunts and Uncles, their Cousins, and their friends, Grandparents on both sides, (One Granddad lost a lung in the Merchant Navy, half his chest shot away, still smoked Navy Issue or something 'till he died aged 80+. Hard as *Kin Nails), almost Worshipped Churchill! Can't all be wrong! And we come from Hull. Bombed to st!! F*CK, Hull had its very own Blitz!! (some might say it still has in certain bits, but you can only say that if you come from Hull!! wink Otherwise I'll tell the Missus!)

aeropilot

34,288 posts

226 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
E24man said:
Penelope Stopit said:
Lots of opinion
Just think who you have to thank for living in a World where you can freely express your opinion.
Exactly.


PH Troll of the Year award could be in this thread smile


Wills2

22,659 posts

174 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
ClaphamGT3 said:
If you wanted to criticise him, the sinking of the French Mediterranean fleet at Mers El Kabir would be far more legitimate criticisms..
From what I've read he didn't really have a choice, the request to send the ships to UK ports or to the west indies was reasonable given the circumstances the refusal to do either left him no choice as we couldn't let them fall in to the German's hands.

I simply can't understand why they didn't join the rest of the free French in the UK we could have done with those ships, why they wanted to honour the agreement with the Nazis that the Vichy government had agreed is beyond me.

We also had to send a signal that we were a ruthless enemy prepared to dish it out, we'd been routed everywhere by the Germans and had to make a stand.

These were dark days in an utterly different era we cannot judge these decisions with the eyes we have now.





FN2TypeR

7,091 posts

92 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
With the German knee against the British throat in terms of the U Boat menacing the shipping lanes adding the threat of captured French capital ships to the list of threats was not something that could be tolerated in my opinion.

A tough decision, but the right one, though the French commanders refusal to hand the ships over to Britain or a neutral territory/port in the French territories baffles me tbh.

irocfan

40,152 posts

189 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
ClaphamGT3 said:
If you wanted to criticise him, the Cossack repatriations and the sinking of the French Mediterranean fleet at Mers El Kabir would be far more legitimate criticisms..
his decision to sink the French fleet was the correct one no question - the repatriation of the Cossacks was a disgrace and a stain against the UK that can never be erased frown


someone else isn't a big fan

http://www.countercurrents.org/polya230109.htm

rb5er

11,657 posts

171 months

Monday 26th September 2016
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
E24man said:
Penelope Stopit said:
Lots of opinion
Just think who you have to thank for living in a World where you can freely express your opinion.
Exactly.

PH Troll of the Year award could be in this thread smile
So true. Penelope could do with some realisation of what is and what could have been. To view circumstances in isolation is short sighted and shows poor judgement.