What do we think of Churchill?

[SteveH]

I'm currently reading his 'The Second World War', and am about two-thirds of the way through the first volume(of six). It's very readable, though it isn't an objective, general history of the war; rather it's his personal memoirs.
I know he was an old-fashioned imperialist, and could be a ruthless bastard, and I also know that as a peacetime prime minister in the early 50s he was something of a failure (he was increasingly senile, and day-to-day government was increasingly in the hands of the rest of the cabinet, but no-one had the courage to tell him it was time to go, because - well, he was Churchill), and of course he was a Tory (though a very liberal one on domestic social issues), but in the end, despite all that - what a bloke! He was the person we needed, with all his many flaws, in 1940.
My favourite anecdote about him: his grandson, also called Winston (and later a Tory MP with all his grandfather's flaws but none of his virtues), and aged about four at the time, wandered into the grest man's study while he was working, and said "Grandpa, is it true that you're the greatest man in the world?". "Yes, it is", replied Sir Winston. "Now bugger off."

[Shaker]

an old-fashioned imperialist

a ruthless bastard

as a peacetime prime minister in the early 50s he was something of a failure (he was increasingly senile

of course he was a Tory

Pretty much sums him up. The would-be cutesy anecdote from his grandson just makes him sound like an egotistical arse ... which is no coincidence as he was.

[ekim]

If he was so egotistical it probably gave him an insight into the minds of Hitler and Stalin and had the strength of character to enable him to foster resistance without the  benefits of dictatorship.

[Robbie]

The thread title intrigued me: What do we think of Churchill?

'We' all have different opinions.

'I' don't think of Churchill at all except as a historical character - mixture of good and bad like everyone else.

[Nearly Sane]

Dangerous, anti worker, racist shite. Maybe what was needed in WW2 but not convinced.

[Shaker]

Dangerous, anti worker, racist shite. Maybe what was needed in WW2 but not convinced.

Try mentioning his name in South Wales today, especially in and around Tonypandy.

I'll be sure to bring grapes and Lucozade.

[Anchorman]

Dangerous, anti worker, racist shite. Maybe what was needed in WW2 but not convinced.

As a WWI and aftermath cabinet home secretary, racist, xenophobic, heavy handed. As a constituencty MP between the wars?
The only MP in history who made way for a member of the Temperance party to take his seat....no mean feet in Dundee!
As a PM on matters other than war?
a hypocrite in his manifesto of 1945, none of which he delivered in his second administration.
Good points and bad points.
And a Tory.
So more bad points.

[SteveH]

Racist and xenophobic by today's standards; perhaps less so by the standards of his day. Also homophobic by today's standards - earlier in the book, he said that Ernst Rohm, head of the SA murdered in the night of the long knives, was a "sexual pervert". Rohm was undoubtedly an evil bastard, but the fact that he was homosexual doesn't count against him. However, once again, he must be judged by the standards of his day. He wasn't necessarily seriously homophobic by that standard.

[Robbie]

Yes indeed, he was typical.

I don't know why this thread was moved as you started it to discuss the book you're reading, 'The Second World War', written by Churchill, which is literature. I've known people who had to read Churchill as part of A level Eng Lit.

[SteveH]

Yes indeed, he was typical.

I don't know why this thread was moved as you started it to discuss the book you're reading, 'The Second World War', written by Churchill, which is literature. I've known people who had to read Churchill as part of A level Eng Lit.

That indeed is why I started it there, but it is about Churchill generally, so I understand why it's been moved.

[Robbie]

Alright, forget the book and the fact he was a writer then.

[Roses]

Churchill was the person required to lead this country during WW2. He wasn't a good peacetime PM by all accounts. I gather he wasn't a particularly pleasant man.

[Shaker]

Churchill was the person required to lead this country during WW2.

There weren't very many other serious options, Chamberlain having had the temerity, nay, the audacity to have been dying of bowel cancer when war broke out.

[Anchorman]

Try mentioning his name in South Wales today, especially in and around Tonypandy.

I'll be sure to bring grapes and Lucozade.

 


The "Sunday Post" - not my favourite Sunday rag,apart from the Broons and Oor Wullie (It's a Scottish thing....) is published by D.C. Thompson in Dundee.
Thompson despised the treatment Churchill gave his Dundonian constituants so much that he refused to have the man's name mentioned in the paper....awkward when Churchill was put into Number 10 in 1940.
For the duration, though, the paper simply mentioned "the prime minister" without once printing the name 'Churchill"!

[Roses]

There weren't very many other serious options, Chamberlain having had the temerity, nay, the audacity to have been dying of bowel cancer when war broke out.

Love him or hate him, Churchill did the business during the war.

[Anchorman]

Love him or hate him, Churchill did the business during the war.

Tell that to the soldiers  killed in Norway, or Crete...and the 51st Highlanders left behind at Dunkirk.

And don't forget his disasterous Dardanelles campaign in WW1, by the way.
Many of his commanders in WWII dreaded his intervention..interferance...and tried to circumvent his actions at every opportunity.
He was a great orator and morale booster, though.

[Shaker]

Love him or hate him, Churchill did the business during the war.

Which war are we talking about? Because the Gallipoli campaign over which he had enormous influence was a butcher's shop clusterfuck of epic proportions.

ETA: Anchorman beat me to it. He's right; Churchill's legacy was as a rhetorician and morale-booster rather than a truly genius-stricken military strategist in the way that, for example (in WWII alone) Alanbrooke and Rommel were. The gambler's delusion applies particularly strongly here; all the miscalculations and misjudgements and frank cock-ups are conveniently overlooked because they don't fit the national narrative of Saint Winston.

[Nearly Sane]

Which war are we talking about? Because the Gallipoli campaign over which he had enormous influence was a butcher's shop clusterfuck of epic proportions.

ETA: Anchorman beat me to it. He's right; Churchill's legacy was as a rhetorician and morale-booster rather than a truly genius-stricken military strategist in the way that, for example (in WWII alone) Alanbrooke and Rommel were. The gambler's delusion applies particularly strongly here; all the miscalculations and misjudgements and frank cock-ups are conveniently overlooked because they don't fit the national narrative of Saint Winston.

I think this is the crucial point. He venerated because we 'won'. It's impossible to say if the contribution was actually significant.

[Rhiannon]

He was an orator, and he stood firm and made people think that the war could be won. I don't know enough to say whether or not we would have caved without his presence. I think he made a difference, but how much is debatable and whether it was worth his cock-ups is another question. Were there others who could carry the public spirit as well as him? Given that the Germans had Hitler we needed a similarly charismatic figure, I think.

[jeremyp]

Pretty much sums him up. The would-be cutesy anecdote from his grandson just makes him sound like an egotistical arse ... which is no coincidence as he was.

And he knew it.

[jeremyp]

And don't forget his disasterous Dardanelles campaign in WW1, by the way.

That it was such a tragic failure wasn't entirely his fault. He conceived it as a simple naval operation. The Galipoli part of the operation was never part of his plan.

Many of his commanders in WWII dreaded his intervention..interferance...and tried to circumvent his actions at every opportunity.

Who's to say they were right and he was wrong? Frequently military commanders fail to see the "bigger picture".

[jeremyp]

And a Tory.
So more bad points.

It's kind of sad that politics has descended to the point t that somebody is automatically labelled as bad just because of the political party they were in.

[wigginhall]

Interesting to see negative comments, on the left there are notorious reports of him, e.g. threatening to gas Iraquis, but I thought this had got smoothed away by MSM.  Obviously not.  Some reports of chemical weapons used  in Russia, unconfirmed.

[SteveH]

It's kind of sad that politics has descended to the point t that somebody is automatically labelled as bad just because of the political party they were in.

Being a Tory is pretty inexcusable. It's not like having a go at someone because of their skin colour or nationality - toryism is a choice. I admire Churchill, in so far as I do, despite his toryism. Generally speaking, tories are bastards.

[Rhiannon]

Being a Tory is pretty inexcusable. It's not like having a go at someone because of their skin colour or nationality - toryism is a choice. I admire Churchill, in so far as I do, despite his toryism. Generally speaking, tories are bastards.

Dehumanising bollocks.