Problem for the BBC is you'll never get a programme on great Labour leaders because there hasn't been one , the nearest labour got is despised by it as a war criminal, toady of Bush etc.
It's amazing the interpretation some people put on things. I saw the piece in question and it appeared to me to be a straightforward interview with an extremely well known senior politician who had lost his seat in the recent election. I didn't see anyone say 'how great he was' or 'how sad it was Labour didn't win the election'.
I wouldn't vote for Balls or his party in a million years but I actually like him as a person and would probably get on with him perfectly well if I met him. People have a life beyond party politics, and I thought the interview in question was the sort of thing viewers on all sides of the political spectrum would be interested to see, and therefore perfectly legitimate.
It wasn't news. It was a PR piece for the rehabilitation of Ed Balls. Where are the interviews with all the other well known senior politicians who lost their seats?
I don't think anyone can claim Churchill was a good man, he was a b.......
Exactly the sort of person this country needed during the war. he wasn't going to play by the rules, if things had gone wrong at the beginning and even towards the end of the war he would have been prepared to gas the enemy into obliteration if possible. logic was we wont win this war being gentleman. he can't be criticized for this considering just what was at stake,
Love watching all the documentary's on Sky tv on the war. impression you get from all the interviews was Churchill for all his old fashioned political beliefs knew we had to get rid of the old WW1 values and tactics, find new ways to fight the enemy, he allowed many people into a position of power to do this. maybe other PMs wouldn't have listened. to all those crazy ideas, who knows but we do know we won so am just glad he was in power during the war years.
Oh for goodness sake. This is just such a knee-jerk reaction - and totally meaningless!
Churchill was loathed by many people and in this day and age would have been sacked after Gallipoli let alone some of the other of his misjudgements.
He had a sense of entitlement and played on his connections and charm to get a lot of positive media attention. My own father, who knew him extremely well, had a love/hate relationship with him.
There is no denying that during the war he was really inspirational when it mattered - but do not forget that just after the war he was dumped as PM by the public. Trouble is, he has been built up for so long with hagiographic significance that an honest look at his life will come as a shock to many.
Without him, the war would have been lost. Putting great men down is a national obsession.
except for Churchill, we would all be speaking German now,.
anybody with a word to say against him should be horsewhipped.
Brilliant I mean well done,
there you are praising the man for his contribution to the defence of freedom and free speech, by wanting to horsewhip anyone who exercises their right to free speech,
He was without doubt an inspirational war leader and made a great contribution to the defeat of the Nazis,
but he was no God, and we should never forget he was a Tory to the core,
he most certainly had his faults like the time he sent in our own troops against striking miners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonypandy_Riots
Home Secretary Winston Churchill's decision to allow troops to be sent to the area to reinforce the police shortly after the 8 November riot caused ill feeling towards him in south Wales throughout his life. His responsibility remains a strongly disputed topic.
Churchill's personal message to strikers was, "We are holding back the soldiers for the present and sending only police." Despite this assurance, the local stipendiary magistrate telegrammed London later that day and requested military support, which the Home Office authorized. Troops were deployed after the skirmish at the Glamorgan Colliery on 7 November, but before rioting on the evening of 8 November.
In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission: "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
And Churchill's views on race were incomparable to Hitler's murderous interpretation of racial hierarchy, Toye says. "Although Churchill did think that white people were superior, that didn't mean he necessarily thought it was OK to treat non-white people in an inhumane way."
Poison gas
Churchill has been criticised for advocating the use of chemical weapons - primarily against Kurds and Afghans.
"I cannot understand this squeamishness about the use of gas," he wrote in a memo during his role as minister for war and air in 1919.
"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he continued.
Bengal famine
In 1943, India, then still a British possession, experienced a disastrous famine in the north-eastern region of Bengal - sparked by the Japanese occupation of Burma the year before.
Madhusree Mukerjee, author of Churchill's Secret War, has said that despite refusing to meet India's need for wheat, he continued to insist that it exported rice to fuel the war effort.
Churchill even appeared to blame the Indians for the famine, claiming they "breed like rabbits".
Statements about Gandhi
"Gandhi should not be released on the account of a mere threat of fasting," Churchill told the cabinet on another occasion. "We should be rid of a bad man and an enemy of the Empire if he died."
Treatment of strikers
Churchill's reputation as being anti-union primarily stems from an incident in 1910.
His handling of the Tonypandy Riots that year was the source of much controversy and invited ill-feeling towards him in south Wales for the rest of his life.
The riots had erupted in November 1910 in the south Wales town because of a dispute between workers and the mine owners, culminating in strikes that ultimately lasted almost a year.
When the strikers clashed with local police, Churchill - then home secretary - sent in soldiers.
But a year later soldiers were again called in, this time to strike-related riots in Liverpool. On this occasion the soldiers did fire their weapons and two people were killed
And in later years his contempt for unions became more pronounced, says Charmley.
In 1919, under Churchill, by now Secretary of State for Air and War, tanks and an estimated 10,000 troops were deployed to Glasgow during a period of widespread strikes and civil unrest amid fear of a Bolshevist revolt.
There is much more stuff about the man in the link and a few google searches will show that the man was FAR from a saint, and as I said, was a Tory through and through, which is why the British people rejected him after the war, they wanted a fresh start and had tired of the old ways, had we had Churchill as PM after the war then I very much doubt that any of the huge changes that gave us a fairer and more equal society would have happened as peacefully as they did.
He did a fantastic job as a war leader of that there is no doubt, but as a peacetime prime minister immediately after the war he would have been a disaster, possibly taking us straight back into war with Russia, in order to divert growing unrest at home,
and his term as prime minister from 1951 till 55 was hardly inspiring. https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/winston-churchill
By his re-election in 1951, Churchill was, in the words of Roy Jenkins, “gloriously unfit for office”. Ageing and increasingly unwell, he often conducted business from his bedside, and while his powerful personality and oratory ability endured, the Prime Minister’s leadership was less decisive than during the war. His second term was most notable for the Conservative Party’s acceptance of Labour’s newly created Welfare State, and Churchill’s effect on domestic policy was limited. His later attempts at decreasing the developing Cold War through personal diplomacy failed to produce significant results, and poor health forced him to resign in 1955, making way for his Foreign Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister,
I say most of the programme and it was on the whole quite negative about Churchill and a few on it even implied he was bordering on being a facist and while he was no certainly no saint and had many flaws that was ott. Trying to compare people from different times and relate them to present day attitudes and norms is a pointless historical exercise.
One of the main premises of the programme was he was out of touch with what the people wanted after the war ended which was no doubt true and after the 1945 election he admitted in was he was in his own words "given the boot" yet in 1951 he became PM when the Conservatives won the election. The programme never touched on that election victory but merely displayed a screen caption at the end of the programme.
I agree,I would like to know how/why he was re-elected in 1951.
Without him, the war would have been lost. Putting great men down is a national obsession.
and you know this because? admittedly he was an inspiring leader, but to place the defeat of Hitler into the hands of one man is at best very simplistic, and at worst extremely offensive to the British people and the armed forces of this country.
we KNOW that Churchill was our leader throughout the war, but we don't know and can't possibly know what the outcome would have been had he not been there.
No one is "putting him down" as far as I can see, it's just that some of us aren't trying to make him into some sort of a saint who could do no wrong, he most certainly had his flaws as do we all, and to deny that fact is equally as disrespectful to his memory.
Brilliant I mean well done,
there you are praising the man for his contribution to the defence of freedom and free speech, by wanting to horsewhip anyone who exercises their right to free speech,
He was without doubt an inspirational war leader and made a great contribution to the defeat of the Nazis,
but he was no God, and we should never forget he was a Tory to the core,
he most certainly had his faults like the time he sent in our own troops against striking miners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonypandy_Riots
Who could object to the use of poison gas against ISIS?
Bengal famine
There had been repeated famines throughout Indian history.
Statements about Gandhi
]
..who was an enemy, after all.
Treatment of strikers
...no more than trying to enforce the law. Why do Lefties think Trade Unions should have the same rights as rampaging vikings?
There is much more stuff about the man in the link and a few google searches will show that the man was FAR from a saint, and as I said, was a Tory through and through, which is why the British people rejected him after the war, they wanted a fresh start and had tired of the old ways, had we had Churchill as PM after the war then I very much doubt that any of the huge changes that gave us a fairer and more equal society would have happened as peacefully as they did.
Every western democracy now has welfare and universal healthcare. Other countries chose not to make their medical service a nationalized monopoly, and got far better results. Other countries made their welfare systems less vulnerable to fraud, and are not beseiged by thousands of asylum seekers trying to enter the country just to live on welfare. Overall, the Labour Government of 1945 must be regarded as a misguided failure.
He did a fantastic job as a war leader of that there is no doubt, but as a peacetime prime minister immediately after the war he would have been a disaster, possibly taking us straight back into war with Russia, in order to divert growing unrest at home,
and his term as prime minister from 1951 till 55 was hardly inspiring. https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/winston-churchill
He did not start a war when he was re-elected, so why suggest he would have done so in 1945? He knew as well as anyone that Britain was flat broke in 1945.
Ironically, I am more inclined to criticise his performance as war leader. His decision to divert forces to Greece just after Rommel landed in Africa was disastrous. His decision to send two battleships to face the Japanese air force in 1941 was disastrous. In fact, one historian described his strategy as waving a cigar over a map.
I can't watch vids on this laptop... what did they say about Churchill that wasn't true?
Nothing, it was a pretty fair and accurate portrayal of him. I think some people here have only ever heard hagiographies of Churchill which is why his real story is upsetting to them.
It was all rather one-sided. They didn't even say anything positive about Labour's programme.
Mind you, the mass, patriotic, cross-class Labour Party (with serious working class figures in high places) is far removed from today's metropolitan elite shambles.
Without him, the war would have been lost. Putting great men down is a national obsession.
I don't think that anybody has ever denied he was a great war leader - he was in the right place at the right time - but to deny his bad points is simply ludicrous.
No man is perfect - and Churchill was no different.
If you want saints, go to Church - otherwise, accept that some FACTS about Churchill do not show him in a very good light cf Hippy Old Guy above. Whitewashing him does history a disservice.
Watched it, seems fair and accurate, as you would know if you have read any history.
The fact is that Churchill was an inspirational leader in World War II. He had most of the nation with him. He didn't give up when France fell and Britain was left on its own. He was successful in getting the support of Roosevelt long before America entered the war. He was largely successful in his choice of military commanders.
You would have thought that was enough positives in any politician's career but the programme chose to concentrate on all the negatives they could find from Churchill's long political career.
There is nothing new in these 'revelations'. Nothing that alters Churchill's place in history.
Nothing, it was a pretty fair and accurate portrayal of him. I think some people here have only ever heard hagiographies of Churchill which is why his real story is upsetting to them.
But his flaws and errors are what makes him a fascinating study - and if the context was why he lost the election in 1945 then I can't see how they can be avoided.
Comments
Halifax. And what exactly where the British population going to do about it?
Well if that's all you want, then you're getting a lot more for your money.
And lets not conflate opinion with argument totally shall we?
We'll never know as the situation never occured
Clement Attlee.
It wasn't news. It was a PR piece for the rehabilitation of Ed Balls. Where are the interviews with all the other well known senior politicians who lost their seats?
Exactly the sort of person this country needed during the war. he wasn't going to play by the rules, if things had gone wrong at the beginning and even towards the end of the war he would have been prepared to gas the enemy into obliteration if possible. logic was we wont win this war being gentleman. he can't be criticized for this considering just what was at stake,
Love watching all the documentary's on Sky tv on the war. impression you get from all the interviews was Churchill for all his old fashioned political beliefs knew we had to get rid of the old WW1 values and tactics, find new ways to fight the enemy, he allowed many people into a position of power to do this. maybe other PMs wouldn't have listened. to all those crazy ideas, who knows but we do know we won so am just glad he was in power during the war years.
A comparable amount of people think the BBC is biased to the left or right which kinda suggests it may be biased to neither.
Without him, the war would have been lost. Putting great men down is a national obsession.
Brilliant I mean well done,
there you are praising the man for his contribution to the defence of freedom and free speech, by wanting to horsewhip anyone who exercises their right to free speech,
He was without doubt an inspirational war leader and made a great contribution to the defeat of the Nazis,
but he was no God, and we should never forget he was a Tory to the core,
he most certainly had his faults like the time he sent in our own troops against striking miners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonypandy_Riots
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767
Views on race
Poison gas
Bengal famine
Statements about Gandhi
Treatment of strikers
There is much more stuff about the man in the link and a few google searches will show that the man was FAR from a saint, and as I said, was a Tory through and through, which is why the British people rejected him after the war, they wanted a fresh start and had tired of the old ways, had we had Churchill as PM after the war then I very much doubt that any of the huge changes that gave us a fairer and more equal society would have happened as peacefully as they did.
He did a fantastic job as a war leader of that there is no doubt, but as a peacetime prime minister immediately after the war he would have been a disaster, possibly taking us straight back into war with Russia, in order to divert growing unrest at home,
and his term as prime minister from 1951 till 55 was hardly inspiring.
https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/winston-churchill
I agree,I would like to know how/why he was re-elected in 1951.
and you know this because? admittedly he was an inspiring leader, but to place the defeat of Hitler into the hands of one man is at best very simplistic, and at worst extremely offensive to the British people and the armed forces of this country.
we KNOW that Churchill was our leader throughout the war, but we don't know and can't possibly know what the outcome would have been had he not been there.
No one is "putting him down" as far as I can see, it's just that some of us aren't trying to make him into some sort of a saint who could do no wrong, he most certainly had his flaws as do we all, and to deny that fact is equally as disrespectful to his memory.
You could say the same thing about Turing or Yamamoto.
...no more than trying to enforce the law. Why do Lefties think Trade Unions should have the same rights as rampaging vikings? Every western democracy now has welfare and universal healthcare. Other countries chose not to make their medical service a nationalized monopoly, and got far better results. Other countries made their welfare systems less vulnerable to fraud, and are not beseiged by thousands of asylum seekers trying to enter the country just to live on welfare. Overall, the Labour Government of 1945 must be regarded as a misguided failure.
He did not start a war when he was re-elected, so why suggest he would have done so in 1945? He knew as well as anyone that Britain was flat broke in 1945.
Ironically, I am more inclined to criticise his performance as war leader. His decision to divert forces to Greece just after Rommel landed in Africa was disastrous. His decision to send two battleships to face the Japanese air force in 1941 was disastrous. In fact, one historian described his strategy as waving a cigar over a map.
It seems some people just want the sanitised and mythological version of Churchill.
You'd have to be Karl Marx to think the BBC was right wing.
I suppose Chris Patten was a closet leftie, was he?
Nick Robinson - former head of Young Conservatives, but now a leftie too?
Andrew Neil?
Nothing, it was a pretty fair and accurate portrayal of him. I think some people here have only ever heard hagiographies of Churchill which is why his real story is upsetting to them.
Mind you, the mass, patriotic, cross-class Labour Party (with serious working class figures in high places) is far removed from today's metropolitan elite shambles.
He always had detractors. Everyone at that level of fame and power does, I suppose.
No man is perfect - and Churchill was no different.
If you want saints, go to Church - otherwise, accept that some FACTS about Churchill do not show him in a very good light cf Hippy Old Guy above. Whitewashing him does history a disservice.
The fact is that Churchill was an inspirational leader in World War II. He had most of the nation with him. He didn't give up when France fell and Britain was left on its own. He was successful in getting the support of Roosevelt long before America entered the war. He was largely successful in his choice of military commanders.
You would have thought that was enough positives in any politician's career but the programme chose to concentrate on all the negatives they could find from Churchill's long political career.
There is nothing new in these 'revelations'. Nothing that alters Churchill's place in history.
The greatest Briton...fact.
But his flaws and errors are what makes him a fascinating study - and if the context was why he lost the election in 1945 then I can't see how they can be avoided.