Winston Churchill, saint, sinner hero or war criminal?

Rakaia

Rakaia

Senior Member
Location
Joondalup
Firstly Winston was the master of one liners and witty retorts.
He was many other things too, praise him, vilify, share his wit or any combination of the above.
This is the Winston Churchill thread.
 

Michael Z said:
I say HERO. 1940 and 41 was a dark time in world history, darker than any other, and only for the bravery of the British, the leadership of Churchill, and many prayers, did we all survive it long enough for the tide to turn.
Click to expand...
At that time he was undoubtedly a hero, there's little room for debate. At other times there's plenty of room for debate
 
I think he saw Hitler for what he really was. I'll give him that. And I just learned that post-WWII he tried to focus domestically on getting homes built even though he was a "conservative", so I'll give him points for that too.
 
I remember the moment I heard he had died, just I others, JFK, John Lennon, Princess Diana and Michael Hutchence.
 
young_winston_churchill.jpg
 
A better perspective on one of history's greatest monsters may be through Eisenhower's eyes.

Churchill and the Presidents: Dwight Eisenhower, Sentiment and Politics

Historian Stephen Ambrose praised Eisenhower’s “adroitness in handling Churchill.” But short of rudeness or stupidity—and Ike was guilty of neither—“handling” Churchill was not difficult. Given the PM’s predilection for argument and for close relations with the United States, “handling” required two things—patience, and being an American.

In war, Churchill and Eisenhower spent much time arguing over military strategy and even tactics. Nowhere were there signs of affection or warmth—just business. When Eisenhower refused, in 1945, to take Berlin before the Russians, the PM groused: “The only times I even quarrel with the Americans are when they fail to give us a fair share of opportunity to win glory…. It has always been my wish to keep equal…. How can you do that against so mighty a nation and a population nearly three times your own?”
Click to expand...

Churchill thought that he had been treated with the respect and deference due his experience and age. Eisenhower was motivated more by sentiment than by agreement with Churchill’s views. Not only was Churchill too old, but Ike disliked the effect of British “paternalism” toward “infant nations.” Some British historians referred to American anti-colonialism as “sanctimonious,” but Eisenhower was genuinely, and accurately, fearful that, in Egypt, the British would find themselves faced “with the very strong nationalist sentiments of the Egyptian government and people.”
Click to expand...

When you think "duck and cover" think "Churchill":
Churchill may have aged, but his grasp of the essential persisted. Early on he had early on recognized the appearance on stage of what became called MAD—mutual assured destruction. On 1 March 1955, his final speech to Parliament, he offered an unsettling yet prescient quip about nuclear deterrence. “The worse things get, the better.” In a last plea he called for “a top level conference where these matters could be put plainly and bluntly.” It may well be, he added, “that we shall by a process of sublime irony have reached a stage in this story where safety will be the study child of terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation.”
Click to expand...

So much of the mess we find ourselves in post-WW II can be laid at Churchill's door. The Middle East, Africa, the Indian subcontinent, Indochina.

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
 
Depends on the timeframe. In the forties, probably a hero. Do the same things today and he would be considered worse than a war criminal.

I would say something about how the heroes of today would be considered war criminals in another 70 years. However, it usually takes about one news cycle in this day and age.
 
Churchill, like many men with great power, can be viewed through differing lenses - as heroes who achieved pivotal goals, as sinners who committed atrocities, and potential war criminals for sanctioning violence against civilians. Their complex legacies continue to spark debate.
 
The man was definitely a HERO in the WWII days. He was a leader and an inspiration to all the allied nations, and especially the UK. Of course he was human, and had his shares of flaws and difficulties, and so much of that surfaced later on. I guess that happened to most of our heroes in history, and here I would put out President Kennedy and "Mayor" Guiliani as examples.

But here is what needs to be remembered, when England was at its lowest, he provided hope and guidance and led the country (and the Allies) to Victory!

Like him or not, that accomplishment cannot be taken away from him!
 
I hope this question was not posted to make people think the UK and Allies should have lost WWII? That is current thinking in some circles. Let the Nazis and Japan win. Just don't have wars. That worked out really well for the Jews, right, when so many European nations capitulated to the Nazis because they didn't have the armed forces to fight?
 
VintageBetter said:
I hope this question was not posted to make people think the UK and Allies should have lost WWII? That is current thinking in some circles.
Click to expand...
No freaking way was that my motivation, WTAF.

All 3 of my parents served with the Allies in WW2, mother, father and stepfather.
I chose not to reveal my feelings about Churchill to soon so the thread could 'flow' along its own course.
 
Scholars and authors still disagree about these things.

Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World Hardcover – May 27, 2008
Were World Wars I and II—which can now be seen as a thirty-year paroxysm of slaughter and destruction—inevitable? Were they necessary wars? Were the bloodiest and most devastating conflicts ever suffered by mankind fated by forces beyond men’s control? Or were they products of calamitous failures of judgment? In this monumental and provocative history, Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen—Winston Churchill first among them—the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided and the British Empire might never have collapsed into ruins. Half a century of murderous oppression of scores of millions under the iron boot of Communist tyranny might never have happened, and Europe’s central role in world affairs might have been sustained for many generations.
Click to expand...

Things aren't as cut and dried as many would have you believe. There were many powerful factors in play, agendas being pushed forward (just as today), and plenty of gored oxen around. Great swathes of first-hand impressions of those who were in a position to know are still suppressed to this day.

By not learning those lessons we currently risk WW III. This is not hyperbole.

Poland just SHOCKED the world, and NATO and EU globalists are furious
 
dilettante said:
Scholars and authors still disagree about these things.

Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World Hardcover – May 27, 2008


Things aren't as cut and dried as many would have you believe. There were many powerful factors in play, agendas being pushed forward (just as today), and plenty of gored oxen around. Great swathes of first-hand impressions of those who were in a position to know are still suppressed to this day.

By not learning those lessons we currently risk WW III. This is not hyperbole.

Poland just SHOCKED the world, and NATO and EU globalists are furious
Click to expand...

I have heard this BS, my whole life and I am now 74... No WWIII or nukes, other than the two we dropped on Japan. I'll take it and thank the leaders of the free world, at that time, for no WWIII!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top