Nobody is questioning his achievements during ww2. it was good for once to see a doc that tried to get behind the mythology that has been allowed to develop about him. There are plenty biographies giving you the gushing version you seem to want.
Thats a ridiculous assumption. Can you point to the mythology? Everything I've read about Churchill records his unpopularity during the first world war and during the 20s/ 30s.
There was nothing new in this programme. It was simply one-sided, and not especially well done in its dramatisations.
There, said it. Any lefties have a problem with that then tough titty.
We are not blinkered. Atlee had a lot of shortcomings as a politician but delivered some brilliant programmes that for the first time in British history actually made a difference to the quality of lives of millions of people. There said it not precious.
Does that go for Nelson Mandela as well? Anyone who indicates his support for violence, torture, terrorism and punishment of suspects is subject to opprobrium. Most history for the younger generation ignore this aspect.
If great men are to have their shortcomings and moral compass examined best to deal with all great men.
Of course all of a political leader's life must be studied and put in context!
The latter being something you have obviously failed to do vis a vis Mandela judging by the above, the context being the apartheid terrorist state that was S. Africa in the first place.
Did you regard acts of violence against the Nazi government of Germany in the 1930s by Communists and the like as being "terrorist acts" Blair?
Thats a ridiculous assumption. Can you point to the mythology? Everything I've read about Churchill records his unpopularity during the first world war and during the 20s/ 30s.
There was nothing new in this programme. It was simply one-sided, and not especially well done in its dramatisations.
Given the remit of the programme was the 1945 election and looking at the reasons why he was soundly defeated at that election the focus it took was entirely correct. It wasn't meant to be an eulogy. The mythology is his widespread popularity and reverence.
Thats a ridiculous assumption. Can you point to the mythology? Everything I've read about Churchill records his unpopularity during the first world war and during the 20s/ 30s.
There was nothing new in this programme. It was simply one-sided, and not especially well done in its dramatisations.
Britain wouldn't have stood chance had the USA not become involved in the war either with Churchill or any other UK Leader. Churchill was not any better than any other leader. Germany would have eventually eaten the UK into submission if it hadn't been for the USA.
Ian.
We simply don't know whether any other leader would have done better than Churchill. Whether they would have caved in when France fell; whether they would have encouraged American participation.
We can only go on the facts, and those facts tell us that Churchill successfully led Britain during the Second World War, and that Britain did not submit to Germany when the country stood alone.
Even the most grudging on here seem to acknowledge that, albeit with faint praise.
I agree,I would like to know how/why he was re-elected in 1951.
I think it was that the Labour Government had run out of money & people getting fed up of having to make do plus Labour put to much red tape into the system.
I think anyone who was leader during the war would have come out of it looking good after we won.
That is the comment of the week!
Without a good leader we would never have won the war. Chamberlain's appeasement policy would have had us all speaking German to this day. Some of the posters here are utterly clueless about the sheer scale of what it took both by leaders and the people to fight for our freedom, now given away to the EU and the politically correct Left.
There, said it. Any lefties have a problem with that then tough titty.
Just Crass, he agreed with America to loan us money in 1947 because the country had no money after the war with Churchill's blessing & what was that for??? to set up the NHS & other things what an offensive thing to say.
It concentrated on Churchill's personality and record as if that was the reason for the Conservatives defeat in the 1945 election.
A truly balanced programme would have looked into the reasons for that defeat a little more objectively and perhaps introduced alternative historians to provide that balance.
I don't think the Conservative defeat had much to do with Churchill himself.
We simply don't know whether any other leader would have done better than Churchill. Whether they would have caved in when France fell; whether they would have encouraged American participation.
We can only go on the facts, and those facts tell us that Churchill successfully led Britain during the Second World War, and that Britain did not submit to Germany when the country stood alone.
Even the most grudging on here seem to acknowledge that, albeit with faint praise.
Churchill didn't lead Britain, he didn't fight like millions of other Britons fought during the war years and died.. Churchill stayed down in his bunker while London was being bomber, while millions of other UK citizens where fighting and dying for there country.
Ian.
Of course all of a political leader's life must be studied and put in context!
The latter being something you have obviously failed to do vis a vis Mandela judging by the above, the context being the apartheid terrorist state that was S. Africa in the first place.
Did you regard acts of violence against the Nazi government of Germany in the 1930s by Communists and the like as being "terrorist acts" Blair?
If they killed Nazis then there would be a justification, although in terms of the early 30s the Nazis were the elected Government, however if they killed other Communists and innocent Germans then that places a different emphasis on it, don't you think?
I agree context is everything and many are not placing Churchill in the context of his time when many views that we now disagree with were the norm.
Britain wouldn't have stood chance had the USA not become involved in the war either with Churchill or any other UK Leader. Churchill was not any better than any other leader. Germany would have eventually eaten the UK into submission if it hadn't been for the USA.
Ian.
True the only thing is America never let's us forget that, My Uncle was in the Marines 1943/5 he told me as soon as Japan surrenderd the American's left our fleet high & dry to get back to the UK on our own & ditch the American planes over the side & before anyone doubts it my Uncle told it as it was.
Without a good leader we would never have won the war. Chamberlain's appeasement policy would have had us all speaking German to this day. Some of the posters here are utterly clueless about the sheer scale of what it took both by leaders and the people to fight for our freedom, now given away to the EU and the politically correct Left.
Chamberlain's appeasement policy was abandoned in September 1939 when Chamberlain declared war on Germany. Britain would have been at war no matter who took over from Chamberlain.
Churchill didn't lead Britain, he didn't fight like millions of other Britons fought during the war years and died.. Churchill stayed down in his bunker while London was being bomber, while millions of other UK citizens where fighting and dying for there country.
Ian.
Oh come on get real, you can't expect a leader of that age to fight, In time of crisis you needed someone like him then, who else was there???
Chamberlain's appeasement policy was abandoned in September 1939 when Chamberlain declared war on Germany. Britain would have been at war no matter who took over from Chamberlain.
Oh come on get real, you can't expect a leader of that age to fight, In time of crisis you needed someone like him then, who else was there???
It's always the same whoever the leader is they would never fight in a war. But anyone else would have gone to war. We only had an advantage of being an island. If we had been on mainland Europe the UK would have been overrun by Germany like other country's. Churchill wasn't anyone special or a great leader.
Ian.
It's always the same whoever the leader is they would never fight in a war. But anyone else would have gone to war. We only had an advantage of being an island. If we had been on mainland Europe the UK would have been overrun by Germany like other country's. Churchill wasn't anyone special or a great leader.
Ian.
Quite right we would have been overrun the one thing is Hitler didn't control the skies here, "Churchill wasn't special or a great leader" well history doesn't agree with you on that one does it.
It's always the same whoever the leader is they would never fight in a war. But anyone else would have gone to war. We only had an advantage of being an island. If we had been on mainland Europe the UK would have been overrun by Germany like other country's. Churchill wasn't anyone special or a great leader.
Ian.
Churchill fought in the Sudan, he was a war correspondent during the Boer war and he spent six months as a Colonel in the trenches at the Ypres salient and he went inspected the positions for himself during the siege of Sidney street. I think he spent quite a bit of time in war at the sharp end.
Quite right we would have been overrun the one thing is Hitler didn't control the skies here, "Churchill wasn't special or a great leader" well history doesn't agree with you on that one does it.
Any other leader would have done just as well. History is quite a lot of myths and not always true. But believe what you want, but I have family who lived and fought during the second war, but are sadly dead now and not one of them liked Churchill.
Ian.
Comments
There, said it. Any lefties have a problem with that then tough titty.
Thats a ridiculous assumption. Can you point to the mythology? Everything I've read about Churchill records his unpopularity during the first world war and during the 20s/ 30s.
There was nothing new in this programme. It was simply one-sided, and not especially well done in its dramatisations.
We are not blinkered. Atlee had a lot of shortcomings as a politician but delivered some brilliant programmes that for the first time in British history actually made a difference to the quality of lives of millions of people. There said it not precious.
Of course all of a political leader's life must be studied and put in context!
The latter being something you have obviously failed to do vis a vis Mandela judging by the above, the context being the apartheid terrorist state that was S. Africa in the first place.
Did you regard acts of violence against the Nazi government of Germany in the 1930s by Communists and the like as being "terrorist acts" Blair?
Given the remit of the programme was the 1945 election and looking at the reasons why he was soundly defeated at that election the focus it took was entirely correct. It wasn't meant to be an eulogy. The mythology is his widespread popularity and reverence.
What was the other side then?
We simply don't know whether any other leader would have done better than Churchill. Whether they would have caved in when France fell; whether they would have encouraged American participation.
We can only go on the facts, and those facts tell us that Churchill successfully led Britain during the Second World War, and that Britain did not submit to Germany when the country stood alone.
Even the most grudging on here seem to acknowledge that, albeit with faint praise.
I think it was that the Labour Government had run out of money & people getting fed up of having to make do plus Labour put to much red tape into the system.
That is the comment of the week!
Without a good leader we would never have won the war. Chamberlain's appeasement policy would have had us all speaking German to this day. Some of the posters here are utterly clueless about the sheer scale of what it took both by leaders and the people to fight for our freedom, now given away to the EU and the politically correct Left.
Just Crass, he agreed with America to loan us money in 1947 because the country had no money after the war with Churchill's blessing & what was that for??? to set up the NHS & other things what an offensive thing to say.
It concentrated on Churchill's personality and record as if that was the reason for the Conservatives defeat in the 1945 election.
A truly balanced programme would have looked into the reasons for that defeat a little more objectively and perhaps introduced alternative historians to provide that balance.
I don't think the Conservative defeat had much to do with Churchill himself.
Churchill didn't lead Britain, he didn't fight like millions of other Britons fought during the war years and died.. Churchill stayed down in his bunker while London was being bomber, while millions of other UK citizens where fighting and dying for there country.
Ian.
If they killed Nazis then there would be a justification, although in terms of the early 30s the Nazis were the elected Government, however if they killed other Communists and innocent Germans then that places a different emphasis on it, don't you think?
I agree context is everything and many are not placing Churchill in the context of his time when many views that we now disagree with were the norm.
True the only thing is America never let's us forget that, My Uncle was in the Marines 1943/5 he told me as soon as Japan surrenderd the American's left our fleet high & dry to get back to the UK on our own & ditch the American planes over the side & before anyone doubts it my Uncle told it as it was.
Chamberlain's appeasement policy was abandoned in September 1939 when Chamberlain declared war on Germany. Britain would have been at war no matter who took over from Chamberlain.
Oh come on get real, you can't expect a leader of that age to fight, In time of crisis you needed someone like him then, who else was there???
Very true.
It's always the same whoever the leader is they would never fight in a war. But anyone else would have gone to war. We only had an advantage of being an island. If we had been on mainland Europe the UK would have been overrun by Germany like other country's. Churchill wasn't anyone special or a great leader.
Ian.
Quite right we would have been overrun the one thing is Hitler didn't control the skies here, "Churchill wasn't special or a great leader" well history doesn't agree with you on that one does it.
Churchill fought in the Sudan, he was a war correspondent during the Boer war and he spent six months as a Colonel in the trenches at the Ypres salient and he went inspected the positions for himself during the siege of Sidney street. I think he spent quite a bit of time in war at the sharp end.
Ian.
Deep, man. Very deep. Penetrating insight.
ETA: That is in fairness one of the most quintessential Righty/Lefty tit for tat posts I've seen on this sub forum.
Ian.