50th anniversary of Churchill's death
Discussion
I
I was 14 at the time and remember it vividly on TV.False memory syndrome. I've been convinced for years we had a day off.
Interesting to see some clips on the One Show in colour, my memories are in black and white
dandarez said:
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.
Interesting to see some clips on the One Show in colour, my memories are in black and white
Dr Jekyll said:
My point is that having fought in a war, 2 wars in his case, would tend to cure anyone of warmongering even if they were warmongers to start with.
He didn't fight in WW1 or WWII. But he took part in a cavalry charge in the battle of Omduran and was a war correspondent in the Boer War, taken prisoner, and escaped.So quite a lot more combat experience than the current Front Bench
audidoody said:
Dr Jekyll said:
My point is that having fought in a war, 2 wars in his case, would tend to cure anyone of warmongering even if they were warmongers to start with.
He didn't fight in WW1 or WWII. But he took part in a cavalry charge in the battle of Omduran and was a war correspondent in the Boer War, taken prisoner, and escaped.So quite a lot more combat experience than the current Front Bench
Lieutenant-Colonel, commanding the 6th Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers (part of the 9th (Scottish) Division), appointed on 1 January 1916.
Granted he was based at Ploegsteert which was allegedly a quiet sector.
colonel c said:
I watched that when I was 8. I remember thinking I was going to die as I choked on a boiled sweet.
Great war leader. Not so great peace time leader.
By 1951 he was probably starting to suffer dementia of some kind, certainly he wasn't the sharp minded war leader of 1940; given his lifestyle and the strain of leading the UK through 5 years of war it's wonder he survived as long as he did.Great war leader. Not so great peace time leader.
Why would anyone blame him for the f
k-up at the Dardanelles? The failures there were tactical and technical, the basic idea was reasonable; seize control of the sea access to the Black Sea. He wasn't a theatre commander, nor any kind of commander; he was 1st lord of the Admiralty, the equivalent now would be Secretary of State for Defence, or possibly Armed Forces Minister. It's a racing certainty Michael Fallon wouldn't have any idea how to direct a beach assault at San Carlos or the aerial bombardment of Bagdad.hidetheelephants said:
Why would anyone blame him for the fk-up at the Dardanelles? The failures there were tactical and technical, the basic idea was reasonable; seize control of the sea access to the Black Sea. He wasn't a theatre commander, nor any kind of commander; he was 1st lord of the Admiralty, the equivalent now would be Secretary of State for Defence, or possibly Armed Forces Minister. It's a racing certainty Michael Fallon wouldn't have any idea how to direct a beach assault at San Carlos or the aerial bombardment of Bagdad.
So if he's not blamed for the things that went wrong, why should be praised for the things that went right?k-up at the Dardanelles? The failures there were tactical and technical, the basic idea was reasonable; seize control of the sea access to the Black Sea. He wasn't a theatre commander, nor any kind of commander; he was 1st lord of the Admiralty, the equivalent now would be Secretary of State for Defence, or possibly Armed Forces Minister. It's a racing certainty Michael Fallon wouldn't have any idea how to direct a beach assault at San Carlos or the aerial bombardment of Bagdad.regardless of the mans failings or mistakes he was a focal point for people and he was seen as a good leader by ordinary people. They didn't have the access to information we had so when we needed a leader to stand up to Hitler he was the man to do it.
not sure what is to be gained by pulling his life apart now.
not sure what is to be gained by pulling his life apart now.
johnxjsc1985 said:
regardless of the mans failings or mistakes he was a focal point for people and he was seen as a good leader by ordinary people. They didn't have the access to information we had so when we needed a leader to stand up to Hitler he was the man to do it.
not sure what is to be gained by pulling his life apart now.
Sadly it tends to be the norm now, suppose it makes people feel better about themselves.not sure what is to be gained by pulling his life apart now.
Seems to be the way with Britain now, take something to be celebrated/remembered and tear it apart.
I think that we can all acknowledge that he was a great man whilst accepting that it would be unwise to cast him as a perfect man.
As Ginetta Girl has said, his treatment of bomber command was as sorry an example of unprincipled politicking as anything we see today and his repatriation of anti-communist Russians after the Second World War remains simply unforgivable.
I feel that his return to office in 1951 also did his legacy no credit. By then an old man, physically and mentally degraded by the pressures of his war-time leadership he pursued a series of policies, particularly in foreign affairs, that ran contrary to our long term interests as a nation.
That in no way diminishes our debt of gratitude to him as a war leader nor demeans his status as one of the greatest Englishmen ever; it just means that he was human.
As Ginetta Girl has said, his treatment of bomber command was as sorry an example of unprincipled politicking as anything we see today and his repatriation of anti-communist Russians after the Second World War remains simply unforgivable.
I feel that his return to office in 1951 also did his legacy no credit. By then an old man, physically and mentally degraded by the pressures of his war-time leadership he pursued a series of policies, particularly in foreign affairs, that ran contrary to our long term interests as a nation.
That in no way diminishes our debt of gratitude to him as a war leader nor demeans his status as one of the greatest Englishmen ever; it just means that he was human.
Churchill is being remembered and celebrated. A lot. All the time. And especially today and in the days leading up to this anniversary. I'd wager most people in the UK have an extremely narrow understanding of who Churchill was and the very broad and full life he lived. I see absolutely no problem whatsoever in a small effort made to expand peoples' understandings of aspects of his life they no little or nothing about.
I actually like the wide lens view being taken of Winnie at the moment. It is showing his wider life, not just this national mental picture of a bloke over 5 yrs. We are seeing him as human and also the vast range of life he lead. Not just that but also how it formed the man he was when the nation needed him to be that guy.
Winnie never made life easy for himself, never took the easy road. But he had a manifest sense of his own destiny always - he was always looking for the BIG thing in life for which he was uniquely qualified to undertake. Right from the start of his public life, joining the army before the ten of the century, then moving to a war reporting role because he felt the army role didn't give him enough of a public platform. Winnie was always to an extent on the make/looking for the angle. Now on one side that reflects badly on the man, on the other he had absolute supreme faith in his abilities to deploy them for the good of the nation. Those combination of factors pretty much reflect the scion of the Churchil family...John Churchill. Better known as the Duke of Marlborough, who arguably has cause to be regarded as the greatest British General/leader of them all. The Churchill family have always balanced pompous self interest, overblown estimations of themselves with outstanding abilities. The balance doesn't always come down on the right side...
We benefit much more from knowing rounded humans not shallow and thin depictions of icons. Nobody is perfect, but the greatness of men is reflected in knowing their weaknesses that their strengths have overcome when they needed to overcome them.
Winnie never made life easy for himself, never took the easy road. But he had a manifest sense of his own destiny always - he was always looking for the BIG thing in life for which he was uniquely qualified to undertake. Right from the start of his public life, joining the army before the ten of the century, then moving to a war reporting role because he felt the army role didn't give him enough of a public platform. Winnie was always to an extent on the make/looking for the angle. Now on one side that reflects badly on the man, on the other he had absolute supreme faith in his abilities to deploy them for the good of the nation. Those combination of factors pretty much reflect the scion of the Churchil family...John Churchill. Better known as the Duke of Marlborough, who arguably has cause to be regarded as the greatest British General/leader of them all. The Churchill family have always balanced pompous self interest, overblown estimations of themselves with outstanding abilities. The balance doesn't always come down on the right side...
We benefit much more from knowing rounded humans not shallow and thin depictions of icons. Nobody is perfect, but the greatness of men is reflected in knowing their weaknesses that their strengths have overcome when they needed to overcome them.
TokyoSexwhale said:
Sadly it tends to be the norm now, suppose it makes people feel better about themselves.
Seems to be the way with Britain now, take something to be celebrated/remembered and tear it apart.
I was young when he died but my mum and Dad always talked about him with great respect even though they did not share his political views.Seems to be the way with Britain now, take something to be celebrated/remembered and tear it apart.
The Country needed someone to get behind and believe in he fitted the bill the rest is history.
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.
Come again?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.
Rude-boy said:
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 st hand.
Indeed.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.Although, it didn't help WC's case in that one of the prime movers in this plan was the Germans. As soon as Hilter was dead Admiral Donitz made the offer/suggestion that what was left of the German armed forces should stand with the Allies against the Red Army and save what they could of Eastern Europe.
The yanks wanted to finish the Germans, but there was indeed a British plan drawn up that would have had British, American and German forces to attack the Soviet forces. Google Operation Unthinkable.
I enjoyed the BBC television programme marking the anniversary fronted by Paxman last night. As expected it wasn't a hatchet job on Churchill at all The section commenting on the cranes lowering as Churchill's barge passed was a revelation. I'd expected the PH collective to have turned their ire on the dockers in the thread in the TV and Film forum but it went unnoticed.
I noticed the OP was posting earlier. I wonder if his opinions have changed at all after starting this thread.
I noticed the OP was posting earlier. I wonder if his opinions have changed at all after starting this thread.
Vocal Minority said:
ChemicalChaos - if I could please interrupt the hero worship for a moment.
Anyone who has done any reading - at all - about Churchill outside of the second world war knows what a controversial character he was. Even his big supporters amongst Historians know this.
History is about balance, not just mindless tub thumping and shouting down anyone who disagrees with you as a stupid lefty with a liberalist agenda. Though I would argue that his role in the Tonypandy striking is definitely over-egged and the Sydney Street Seige is nothing more than putting himself pointlessly in harms way - the rest of the article is pretty fair.
In fact I am not sure you have read it, as it is pretty balanced and works hard to defend him in a lot of parts. But I expect you were so busy expecting to read what you would probably call a lefty diatribe you glossed over that bit.
No one is disputing that between 1940 and 1945 he was the right man, at the right time - there are VERY few times in history where a single person has made a tangible difference - and this was one.
However trying to stifle the debate - whilst holding him as a contrast to modern politicians is daft - as it demonstrates that you are trying to criticise them whilst blatantly glossing over your yard sticks faults.
As it happens, I am a big fan of Winston Churchill, as a historical figure and politician - but I'm not blind to his faults.
Bravo!Anyone who has done any reading - at all - about Churchill outside of the second world war knows what a controversial character he was. Even his big supporters amongst Historians know this.
History is about balance, not just mindless tub thumping and shouting down anyone who disagrees with you as a stupid lefty with a liberalist agenda. Though I would argue that his role in the Tonypandy striking is definitely over-egged and the Sydney Street Seige is nothing more than putting himself pointlessly in harms way - the rest of the article is pretty fair.
In fact I am not sure you have read it, as it is pretty balanced and works hard to defend him in a lot of parts. But I expect you were so busy expecting to read what you would probably call a lefty diatribe you glossed over that bit.
No one is disputing that between 1940 and 1945 he was the right man, at the right time - there are VERY few times in history where a single person has made a tangible difference - and this was one.
However trying to stifle the debate - whilst holding him as a contrast to modern politicians is daft - as it demonstrates that you are trying to criticise them whilst blatantly glossing over your yard sticks faults.
As it happens, I am a big fan of Winston Churchill, as a historical figure and politician - but I'm not blind to his faults.
A little like Ariel Sharon, did some brilliant things that really benefitted some people, did some very questionable things. Quite divisive but most extraordinary and must be celebrated for the good but questioned about the bad.
The Poles don't like Churchill for example, but the Brits arguably owe our freedom to him in part.
aeropilot said:
Rude-boy said:
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 st hand.
Indeed.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.Although, it didn't help WC's case in that one of the prime movers in this plan was the Germans. As soon as Hilter was dead Admiral Donitz made the offer/suggestion that what was left of the German armed forces should stand with the Allies against the Red Army and save what they could of Eastern Europe.
The yanks wanted to finish the Germans, but there was indeed a British plan drawn up that would have had British, American and German forces to attack the Soviet forces. Google Operation Unthinkable.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff