Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
Poll: Winston Churchill - good guy or bad guy?
Total Members Polled: 386
Discussion
Who would have performed better - given circmstances?
Perhaps not a 'role model' for that all that we have today - but then again - there is no such thing as a 'role model' given the imperfections of all that is now, and that which has always has been.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man/woman etc.
Perhaps not a 'role model' for that all that we have today - but then again - there is no such thing as a 'role model' given the imperfections of all that is now, and that which has always has been.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man/woman etc.
No one has mentioned Galipolli yet!?
He was who he was and he paid for it later in life, being born and raised part of the Victorian Aristocracy was a mixed blessing, he chose to be an Army man, he could have done anything with his life, he paid for that decision - he wasn't particularly wise or brave but what he was was incredibly enduring and carried out the duties he took on in an almost pathalogically stuborn manner, he was often wrong and didn't admit as much when he probably should have but he never shrunk or shirked the job he was born and privilegded enough to have bestowed on him even when openly derided and abmonished (like after Gallipoli). He gave service to his nation, whether that's as desirable as it sounds I don't know but I doubt we'll get another like him, the Eton and Harrow boys of the privilegded upper middle classes these days seem sadly lacking in any kind of commitment to the ideals that enabled Churchill to bind a nation in it's darkest hour.
He was who he was and he paid for it later in life, being born and raised part of the Victorian Aristocracy was a mixed blessing, he chose to be an Army man, he could have done anything with his life, he paid for that decision - he wasn't particularly wise or brave but what he was was incredibly enduring and carried out the duties he took on in an almost pathalogically stuborn manner, he was often wrong and didn't admit as much when he probably should have but he never shrunk or shirked the job he was born and privilegded enough to have bestowed on him even when openly derided and abmonished (like after Gallipoli). He gave service to his nation, whether that's as desirable as it sounds I don't know but I doubt we'll get another like him, the Eton and Harrow boys of the privilegded upper middle classes these days seem sadly lacking in any kind of commitment to the ideals that enabled Churchill to bind a nation in it's darkest hour.
FredClogs said:
No one has mentioned Galipolli yet!?
He was who he was and he paid for it later in life, being born and raised part of the Victorian Aristocracy was a mixed blessing, he chose to be an Army man, he could have done anything with his life, he paid for that decision - he wasn't particularly wise or brave but what he was was incredibly enduring and carried out the duties he took on in an almost pathalogically stuborn manner, he was often wrong and didn't admit as much when he probably should have but he never shrunk or shirked the job he was born and privilegded enough to have bestowed on him even when openly derided and abmonished (like after Gallipoli). He gave service to his nation, whether that's as desirable as it sounds I don't know but I doubt we'll get another like him, the Eton and Harrow boys of the privilegded upper middle classes these days seem sadly lacking in any kind of commitment to the ideals that enabled Churchill to bind a nation in it's darkest hour.
We have mentioned Gallipoli - it was the Dadanelles campaign! He was who he was and he paid for it later in life, being born and raised part of the Victorian Aristocracy was a mixed blessing, he chose to be an Army man, he could have done anything with his life, he paid for that decision - he wasn't particularly wise or brave but what he was was incredibly enduring and carried out the duties he took on in an almost pathalogically stuborn manner, he was often wrong and didn't admit as much when he probably should have but he never shrunk or shirked the job he was born and privilegded enough to have bestowed on him even when openly derided and abmonished (like after Gallipoli). He gave service to his nation, whether that's as desirable as it sounds I don't know but I doubt we'll get another like him, the Eton and Harrow boys of the privilegded upper middle classes these days seem sadly lacking in any kind of commitment to the ideals that enabled Churchill to bind a nation in it's darkest hour.
You make some good points, Now whether his first stint as PM was driven by a sense of duty or his own desire to be THE guy who saved Britain (probably a combination of the two) is another question.
Though he was an old Harrovian if we are talking Eton and Harrow bred politicians... He remains the son and brother of successive dukes of Malborough!
ash73 said:
irocfan said:
Blimey, Penelope Pitstop was right.E24man said:
ash73 said:
irocfan said:
Blimey, Penelope Pitstop was right.Short Grain said:
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 s
t!! 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!! 
Otherwise I'll tell the Missus!)
Funny that, my Gran also from Hull, was sad at the decision to vote out Churchill. In her view everyone just wanted a change, a break from the war and reminders of the war. She voted against him, and regretted it very soon afterwards. She had a nuanced view of him, but that he was very much what the country needed.t!! 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!! Otherwise I'll tell the Missus!) jmorgan said:
E24man said:
ash73 said:
irocfan said:
Blimey, Penelope Pitstop was right.The UK left don't mind the odd attempt at rewriting history and writing Churchill out of it for future generations.
Back in the mid-noughties with New Labour still in full screw-up mode, around 2006/7iirc, gov't guidance to schools on history in the national curriculum removed Churchill by name. The individuals remaining in guidance issued alongside the curriculum were anti-slavery campaigners Olaudah Equiano and William Wilberforce.
Halb said:
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.
From my memory of dockers in those days, they'd ask for double time to go to their mother's funeral. But I too heard that it was all staged. That said, it was impressive.t-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 said:
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!! Otherwise I'll tell the Missus!)
As a Londoner might I point out that Hull had three nights of bombing, London had more than 70. Get some in, as they used to say when I was a kid.t!! 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!! Otherwise I'll tell the Missus!) His PR was good. He put spin on everything. The Battle of Britain was, some historians have suggested, largely a construct meant to boost morale. Not that that makes it reprehensible or to be condemned. The first casualty of war and all that. But if so, it is a pleasant myth, one we enjoy to this day. I used to go to talks in my lunchtime when I worked just outside the City and there was one on the conflict inside the cabinet during the war. I'm blowed if I can remember anything specific but the speaker, who seemed no big fan of Churchill, said his biggest achievement was to get them all working together.
He had a way with words. The 'Never in the field of human conflict . . .' was one of the great political speeches but all it heralded was the start of the Blitz. Then there was 'The end of the beginning . . .' The repetition is wonderful.
My family was left wing, with an out and out communist uncle who was highly intelligent - his eldest boy was a child prodigy and, so the rumour goes, took after his dad - and was great fun. He was a war hero, and this acknowledged by everyone in the family despite most of them being on convoys, another repairing damaged ships so that they could get into Liverpool. He was shelled, had a torpedo fired at him, or rather his boat but he took it personally. As you would.
My uncle said that people of his generation remembered the mismanagement of the economy after the previous war. They didn't want 20 years of no improvement in their standard of living. And that was what was on the cards many felt he reckoned, and many of those who had a long memory voted him out.
When I was reading about the Great Depression I talked to my uncle about it and he said that for most of 'us', ie the working class, it made no difference. I then got one of his speeches, which were always fascinating, and I remember him mentioning Churchill, for whom he had a degree of respect as a war leader, and moving onto his loss of the election during the war and him rubbing his hands together saying: 'He didn't see that one coming.' with a rather disturbing smile on his face.
So even in my family there was this double view of the chap. My uncle would have been able to list a few dozen errors, mistakes and poor policy decisions, and then he'd list what he did well. But he lost friends following these errors and he didn't forgive easily, or at all.
Don't forget though that Churchill reported on himself.
So I suppose the answer to the OP's question is 'Yes'. Unhelpful I know, but probably about as accurate as it can get.
turbobloke said:
That was Thatcher on holiday.
The UK left don't mind the odd attempt at rewriting history and writing Churchill out of it for future generations.
Back in the mid-noughties with New Labour still in full screw-up mode, around 2006/7iirc, gov't guidance to schools on history in the national curriculum removed Churchill by name. The individuals remaining in guidance issued alongside the curriculum were anti-slavery campaigners Olaudah Equiano and William Wilberforce.
I think there is still a certain aspect that some need to take this path. It is more akin to "what have the romans ever done for us". Education or not as to his achievements and failings and cockups would not dispel the need to take this track for many I think.The UK left don't mind the odd attempt at rewriting history and writing Churchill out of it for future generations.
Back in the mid-noughties with New Labour still in full screw-up mode, around 2006/7iirc, gov't guidance to schools on history in the national curriculum removed Churchill by name. The individuals remaining in guidance issued alongside the curriculum were anti-slavery campaigners Olaudah Equiano and William Wilberforce.
This polarised view stinks of sites such as rense. Bit like arguing that gravity is a right bstard for not stopping you killing yourself from a great height.
turbobloke said:
The UK left don't mind the odd attempt at rewriting history and writing Churchill out of it for future generations.
There is a very solid argument that the gravity of Churchill's footprint on history is that he wrote himself in to a great extent (quite literally with his books).The fact of the matter is he was a cog in the machine - an important cog granted, though arguably not the key cog - because there were a number of key cogs.
You could argue that if the Hugh Dowding cog or the Montgomery cog away, the machine would have ceased to work just as much as it would have if the Churchill cog was taken out.
I am not saying he wasn't very important, he was, but I am saying his absolute domineering importance in the British psyche is as much a product of his abilities as a self publicist as his war time achievements.
Another example is that he galvanised the allies together at the start. And that is true to a certain extent. But Roosevelt was keen anyway - but knew he couldn't possibly get the backing of Congress or the people of the USA. The USSR only came in when Germany attacked them. The USA only came in at Pearl Harbour when Germany declared war on the USA in the hope Japan would reciprocate and declare war on the USSR (they did not - obviously)
Even at Yalta and Tehran I believe the general consensus amongst historians is that Stalin and Roosevelt were the main movers, with Britain a slightly junior partner.
Vocal Minority said:
turbobloke said:
The UK left don't mind the odd attempt at rewriting history and writing Churchill out of it for future generations.
There is a very solid argument that the gravity of Churchill's footprint on history is that he wrote himself in to a great extent (quite literally with his books).The fact of the matter is he was a cog in the machine - an important cog granted, though arguably not the key cog - because there were a number of key cogs.
You could argue that if the Hugh Dowding cog or the Montgomery cog away, the machine would have ceased to work just as much as it would have if the Churchill cog was taken out.
I am not saying he wasn't very important, he was, but I am saying his absolute domineering importance in the British psyche is as much a product of his abilities as a self publicist as his war time achievements.
Another example is that he galvanised the allies together at the start. And that is true to a certain extent. But Roosevelt was keen anyway - but knew he couldn't possibly get the backing of Congress or the people of the USA. The USSR only came in when Germany attacked them. The USA only came in at Pearl Harbour when Germany declared war on the USA in the hope Japan would reciprocate and declare war on the USSR (they did not - obviously)
Even at Yalta and Tehran I believe the general consensus amongst historians is that Stalin and Roosevelt were the main movers, with Britain a slightly junior partner.
The history rewriters have a monumantal task on their hands, with Churchill voted the greatest-ever Briton in a 2002 BBC poll. I bet the beeb loved that. Later, a 2013 poll put Thatcher in top spot while MPs voted Thatcher as the greatest modern PM and leader around the same time.
It's clear enough why certain ideologues want to get busy with the airbrush when even Bliar's reptilian DNA isn't up to it...not that reptiles are coated with teflon but close enough.
irocfan said:
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 
someone else isn't a big fan
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya230109.htm
turbobloke said:
None of which, even if accurate, warrants omitting mention of Churchill's name alongside his role in guidance on how history is taught in UK schools.
The history rewriters have a monumantal task on their hands, with Churchill voted the greatest-ever Briton in a 2002 BBC poll. I bet the beeb loved that. Later, a 2013 poll put Thatcher in top spot while MPs voted Thatcher as the greatest modern PM and leader around the same time.
It's perfectly accurate, thank you. The history rewriters have a monumantal task on their hands, with Churchill voted the greatest-ever Briton in a 2002 BBC poll. I bet the beeb loved that. Later, a 2013 poll put Thatcher in top spot while MPs voted Thatcher as the greatest modern PM and leader around the same time.
I agree it doesn't warrant omitting his name from the curriculum. However, I wouldn't encourage the tub thumping, Winston saved is all line, not on any political basis, but because it is folklore and simply not true. He was an important part, but didn't do it single handed.
(Also, by the by, you need to take off the tin foil hat about the BBC, you really do. They have done several documentaries and dramas around the man. Predominantly complimentary and some of them even peddling the myth.
Short Grain said:
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!! Otherwise I'll tell the Missus!)
I make no judgements on it, my opinion on WInston has been posted, I merely relate a story from a documentary...which I now check was not the doc I thought at all!! t!! 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!! Otherwise I'll tell the Missus!) 
Derek Smith said:
Halb said:
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.
From my memory of dockers in those days, they'd ask for double time to go to their mother's funeral. But I too heard that it was all staged. That said, it was impressive.t-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.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv...
it was good, warts and all, as a good doc should be, not like what some of the macaroons seem to think it should be.
I think the interesting question is, what's more important - the details of what happened, or the subsequent generations perception.
That article contains an interesting line
'But after last night’s BBC1 documentary, Churchill: The Nation’s Farewell, there was apparent anger from viewers when it was revealed by a former dock worker that they were paid to lower the cranes.'
It can also be seen on this thread - people have a very solid idea of what happened, and it ruffles feathers when you question this version of events.
People loved the idea of one man who could transcend class divisions - so even a small puncture in the idea that the crane drivers were paid (an irrefutable fact, sorry, it just is) caused quite a lot of harrumphing and displeasure.
That article contains an interesting line
'But after last night’s BBC1 documentary, Churchill: The Nation’s Farewell, there was apparent anger from viewers when it was revealed by a former dock worker that they were paid to lower the cranes.'
It can also be seen on this thread - people have a very solid idea of what happened, and it ruffles feathers when you question this version of events.
People loved the idea of one man who could transcend class divisions - so even a small puncture in the idea that the crane drivers were paid (an irrefutable fact, sorry, it just is) caused quite a lot of harrumphing and displeasure.
Revisionist analysis of historical events precludes one important thing, perspective.
Churchill was a Victorian. That he managed to evolve, embrace and roll with the monumental changes from the 19th to the 20th Century is quite one thing, that he managed to galvanise a splintered world against one of Mans greatest despots and villains is another.
He wasn't perfect, he made mistakes, he said things that in this day and age not only seem but actually are incredulous and shocking, but none of us were there between 1874 and 1960 when he had to make the decisions that have protected our democracy and freedoms which in this day and age are far too flippantly taken for granted.
His severe critics through and of his time were largely driven by envy and jealousy of his abilities which is part of the reason their accounts are not largely referenced today.
He was perhaps the only member of the political sphere to see the danger of Hitler and proved himself to be the one man of his time who would stand against him.
His mistakes were numerous and despite the protestations that he wrote his own history and publicity he freely admitted when mistakes were made, but crucially he put them in context, which is a point embarrassingly omitted by revisionists. But the pretext of this thread, a good guy or a bad guy is easily answered by the fact the issue can be discussed at all.
Would a Stalin or a Hitler stand for such questioning?
He said things through his life which taken out of context are horrendous. He made decisions which taken in isolation are shocking, but so has everyone else through history for perspective, context and narrative are necessary to accurately judge a man or woman of their time and circumstance.
The freedoms and the democracy that he galvanised people to fight for live on today and the balance of Churchill's credit cannot be judged without taking that into account.
It is telling that when the Churchill haters on this thread are questioned who is responsible for protecting the freedom of expression they use to criticise Churchill they have no answer whatsoever.
Churchill was a Victorian. That he managed to evolve, embrace and roll with the monumental changes from the 19th to the 20th Century is quite one thing, that he managed to galvanise a splintered world against one of Mans greatest despots and villains is another.
He wasn't perfect, he made mistakes, he said things that in this day and age not only seem but actually are incredulous and shocking, but none of us were there between 1874 and 1960 when he had to make the decisions that have protected our democracy and freedoms which in this day and age are far too flippantly taken for granted.
His severe critics through and of his time were largely driven by envy and jealousy of his abilities which is part of the reason their accounts are not largely referenced today.
He was perhaps the only member of the political sphere to see the danger of Hitler and proved himself to be the one man of his time who would stand against him.
His mistakes were numerous and despite the protestations that he wrote his own history and publicity he freely admitted when mistakes were made, but crucially he put them in context, which is a point embarrassingly omitted by revisionists. But the pretext of this thread, a good guy or a bad guy is easily answered by the fact the issue can be discussed at all.
Would a Stalin or a Hitler stand for such questioning?
He said things through his life which taken out of context are horrendous. He made decisions which taken in isolation are shocking, but so has everyone else through history for perspective, context and narrative are necessary to accurately judge a man or woman of their time and circumstance.
The freedoms and the democracy that he galvanised people to fight for live on today and the balance of Churchill's credit cannot be judged without taking that into account.
It is telling that when the Churchill haters on this thread are questioned who is responsible for protecting the freedom of expression they use to criticise Churchill they have no answer whatsoever.
Vocal Minority said:
I think the interesting question is, what's more important - the details of what happened, or the subsequent generations perception.
That article contains an interesting line
'But after last night’s BBC1 documentary, Churchill: The Nation’s Farewell, there was apparent anger from viewers when it was revealed by a former dock worker that they were paid to lower the cranes.'
It can also be seen on this thread - people have a very solid idea of what happened, and it ruffles feathers when you question this version of events.
People loved the idea of one man who could transcend class divisions - so even a small puncture in the idea that the crane drivers were paid (an irrefutable fact, sorry, it just is) caused quite a lot of harrumphing and displeasure.
Cometh the hour, cometh the myth. We love stories and we love heroes and villains, that's the way we are.That article contains an interesting line
'But after last night’s BBC1 documentary, Churchill: The Nation’s Farewell, there was apparent anger from viewers when it was revealed by a former dock worker that they were paid to lower the cranes.'
It can also be seen on this thread - people have a very solid idea of what happened, and it ruffles feathers when you question this version of events.
People loved the idea of one man who could transcend class divisions - so even a small puncture in the idea that the crane drivers were paid (an irrefutable fact, sorry, it just is) caused quite a lot of harrumphing and displeasure.
For most Churchill was a hero who saved us from the villain over the channel and woe betide anyone who shatters that image, especially as time dulls the past and the story becomes ever more simplified, at least to those who only know the basic facts.
I'd say Derek probably hit the nail on the head about his war years, he was a good manager who picked the right team and got them playing a winning game. Could anyone else have done so at the time? Arguably, but who?
Others who describe him as a Victorian hangover and a man out of his time are also pretty close to the truth as I see it. There's no doubt he did see the Empire and Anglo-American values as a strong civilising force, which undoubtedly affected many of his decisions but it could be argued that only someone with such strongly held beliefs could have led the country when that way of life was threatened.
Complicated and nuanced and both out of and right for certain times and situations. Good or bad is far too simplistic.
Interesting thread and topic. My observations on Churchill and the results of his actions are as follows:
- In both World Wars he was pivotal in taking Britain to war (as a hawkish member of Asquith's cabinet and as the PM after Chamberlain), although in WW2 it was more sustaining and leading the continuation of the war after it was declared.
- Britain emerged considerably weaker after both wars, millions were killed in each and the outcome was not necessarily 'good' (i.e. WW1 lead to WW2, Russia basically won the war in ww2 against Germany and was it better as a victor than Germany), although in fairness WW2 at least resulted in a free western Europe.
- We ended-up losing the empire more decisively and quickly than had we not paradoxically fought WW2 to keep it
- We emerged from WW2 to lose our place as a first world power, the £ was replaced by the $ as the world currency
- WW2 was won thanks for the US and Russia with us after 1942 being the junior partner to both
So Churchill was a hero in some ways and caused ruin and destruction to get what he thought was right,,,
- In both World Wars he was pivotal in taking Britain to war (as a hawkish member of Asquith's cabinet and as the PM after Chamberlain), although in WW2 it was more sustaining and leading the continuation of the war after it was declared.
- Britain emerged considerably weaker after both wars, millions were killed in each and the outcome was not necessarily 'good' (i.e. WW1 lead to WW2, Russia basically won the war in ww2 against Germany and was it better as a victor than Germany), although in fairness WW2 at least resulted in a free western Europe.
- We ended-up losing the empire more decisively and quickly than had we not paradoxically fought WW2 to keep it
- We emerged from WW2 to lose our place as a first world power, the £ was replaced by the $ as the world currency
- WW2 was won thanks for the US and Russia with us after 1942 being the junior partner to both
So Churchill was a hero in some ways and caused ruin and destruction to get what he thought was right,,,
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff