Topic: Churchill

[Xabi Gerrard]

As indictments of Churchill go that OP is about as weak and unreasonable as any I've read.

I'm certainly no Churchill fan, and still break into a smile whenever I think of the British people voting him out in 1945, but it's ridiculously easy for semi-educated people to talk absolute nonsense about the man.

Let me give you a hand. The only country in the world to offer condolences to the German embassy on the day Hitler died. Churchill's policy and the Royal Navy kept Ireland free from invasion from the Nazis and allowed the Irish government the luxury of being 'neutral'.

Happy to admit I'm "semi-educated" on the subject of Churchill so would very much like to be educated. Are the following statements (in relation to Ireland's neutrality) fair enough?

1) When allied nations declared war on Germany it was because of Germany horrific land grabbing (I.e. not because of other Nazi crimes, such as the Holocaust)

2) Germany's horrific land grabbing was no worse than the UKs horrific land grabbing around the world

3) Therefore, for a country like Ireland, who had been "on the receiving end" of the UKs horrific land grabbing, they're both as bad as each other so morally they weren't doing a 'bad thing' being neutral.


Obviously the condolences to Hitler were a bit much (given the holocaust would have been known about by then) but isn't their neutrality 'fair enough'?

(Genuinely curious - I'm not Irish defending them, I've got no dog in the fight here)

[TravisBickle]

Another stupid and self-serving comment form a tin-pot fascist desperate to appear 'Churchillian'. Why didn't Churchill join Oswald Mosley and the BUF?

 I said "pretty closely aligned," Yorkie. In terms of positions on race, I think that's a pretty fair statement in all honesty. But to answer your question (though you already know the answer), he didn't join Mosley and the BUF for a whole host of reasons, not least because he was a staunch believer in parliamentary democracy. Mosley's fascism was totally alien to British traditions and it morphed into something openly anti-Semitic despite initially resembling Mussolini's fascism at first. For all Churchill's racism, he was never a Jew baiter. Mosley's views on economics were also vastly different to Churchill's. So I'd guess that's why. Still doesn't change the fact his views on race would today put you in a far right, racist party.

As usual you have totally misunderstood/misrepresented what I have said gone off on a total tangent.

The point I was trying to make is that he was a bastard, as were most leaders of the time. There were no real hero’s from that era. I made no mentions of society’s views or suggested that there wasn’t opposing views.

 You're right, I did misunderstand what you originally meant there. Apologies!

[Yorkykopite]

Weak stuff from De Valera there I think. All hypothesis and false analogy.

If the Nazis had conquered Britain the most likely consequential next step would have been the Nazi conquest of Ireland too. Then the Irish - like the English, no doubt - would have seen what an 'occupation' could really amount to.

(Churchill, incidentally, had been a Home Ruler before 1914 and opposed to the partition of the country.) 

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Seriously, I know most will disagree, but I think he sounds more like Trump at times than Churchill. The incredible makeup looks too unnatural and it might as well be a robot. As much as I like Gary Oldman, do we need another Churchill movie?

I enjoyed it and thought that the make up was top notch.For anyone wanting to watch it the screener came out last week.

[west_london_red]

Happy to admit I'm "semi-educated" on the subject of Churchill so would very much like to be educated. Are the following statements (in relation to Ireland's neutrality) fair enough?

1) When allied nations declared war on Germany it was because of Germany horrific land grabbing (I.e. not because of other Nazi crimes, such as the Holocaust)

2) Germany's horrific land grabbing was no worse than the UKs horrific land grabbing around the world

3) Therefore, for a country like Ireland, who had been "on the receiving end" of the UKs horrific land grabbing, they're both as bad as each other so morally they weren't doing a 'bad thing' being neutral.


Obviously the condolences to Hitler were a bit much (given the holocaust would have been known about by then) but isn't their neutrality 'fair enough'?

(Genuinely curious - I'm not Irish defending them, I've got no dog in the fight here)

Point 2 is absolutely key for me, Germany’s land grab was against White Europeans so seen very differently compared to the actions of Europeans against non-whites in Africa and Asia.

[Yorkykopite]

I said "pretty closely aligned," Yorkie. In terms of positions on race, I think that's a pretty fair statement in all honesty. But to answer your question (though you already know the answer), he didn't join Mosley and the BUF for a whole host of reasons, not least because he was a staunch believer in parliamentary democracy. Mosley's fascism was totally alien to British traditions and it morphed into something openly anti-Semitic despite initially resembling Mussolini's fascism at first. For all Churchill's racism, he was never a Jew baiter. Mosley's views on economics were also vastly different to Churchill's. So I'd guess that's why. Still doesn't change the fact his views on race would today put you in a far right, racist party.

But it's so ahistorical. You might as well say that Gladstone - another Victorian - had views closely aligned with Nick Griffin. These comparisons add nothing to human understanding and take a whole lot away.

[Antoine Lavoisier]

Ah yes, the old "well at least we aint got it as bad as them lot" argument.

[Corkboy]

Weak stuff from De Valera there I think. All hypothesis and false analogy.

If the Nazis had conquered Britain the most likely consequential next step would have been the Nazi conquest of Ireland too. Then the Irish - like the English, no doubt - would have seen what an 'occupation' could really amount to.

Are you saying we weren't really occupied by the British?

[west_london_red]

I thought this topic was about Churchill?

[Libertine]

I thought this topic was about Churchill?

I thought this was the "News and Current Affairs" forum.....

[oldfordie]

Let me respond in kind. Here's De Valera's version.....

"In his speech celebrating the Allied victory in Europe (13 May 1945) Winston Churchill remarked that he had demonstrated restraint towards Ireland because

'we never laid a violent hand upon them, which at times would have been quite easy and quite natural.'

Britain had occupied neutral Iceland in May 1940. In a response a few days later, de Valera acknowledged that Churchill did not add 'another horrid chapter to the already bloodstained record' of Anglo-Irish relations, but asked:

“   …could he not find in his heart the generosity to acknowledge that there is a small nation that stood alone, not for one year or two, but for several hundred years against aggression…a small nation that could never be got to accept defeat and has never surrendered her soul?   ”

In addition, he put the following, that

“I would like to put a hypothetical question-it is a question I have put to many Englishmen since the last war. Suppose Germany had won the war, had invaded and occupied England, and that after a long lapse of time and many bitter struggles, she was finally brought to acquiesce in admitting England's right to freedom, and let England go, but not the whole of England, all but, let us say, the six southern counties.

These six southern counties, those, let us suppose, commanding the entrance to the narrow seas, Germany had singled out and insisted on holding herself with a view to weakening England as a whole, and maintaining the securing of her own communications through the Straits of Dover.

Let us suppose further, that after all this had happened, Germany was engaged in a great war in which she could show that she was on the side of freedom of a number of small nations, would Mr. Churchill as an Englishman who believed that his own nation had as good a right to freedom as any other, not freedom for a part merely, but freedom for the whole-would he, whilst Germany still maintained the partition of his country and occupied six counties of it, would he lead this partitioned England to join with Germany in a crusade? I do not think Mr. Churchill would.

Would he think the people of partitioned England an object of shame if they stood neutral in such circumstances? I do not think Mr. Churchill would."

I have my own version but I like you, Yorky, and my version is really quite fucking offensive.

Lots of assumptions made by De Valera and he is wrong, the reason for this is he didn't have enough information to give a educated guess on what would have happened. Ireland would have suffered the same Fate as the UK.
Our 2 countries have always been linked by strong family ties. If Germany had left Ireland alone after occupying Britain what do you think would have happened, Ireland would have become a base to launch sabotage and resistance in Britain. Hitler would have no choice but to occupy Ireland and as we know. Hitler was a maniac when it came to stamping out resistance.
Did De Deville know about the German plans drawn up before the invasion of Britian when forming his opinion. the actual plans for what the Germany would do after the occupation of Britain. Ireland may have suffered the same fate. he obviously didn't.
First stage was to transport every man aged between 17 to 45 to mainland Europe to work as basically slave Labour, the outlook for this type of worker was bleak, they were worked to death on little food. not many would have survived. how many of these men would have been doctors?
German school teachers brought over to replace all British teachers, they would teach children to speak German as the German language would replace English, all signs replaced with German signs.
Woman would be sent to work in fields etc, the food produced would not be for the British, it was to exported to mainland Europe to feed the German war machine and population. our woman would work hard and also live on scraps. medical treatment would be very hard to get as British doctors would be in short supply, medicine for the British would not have been a priority.
I doubt many of us would be here now had we lost the war.

[Antoine Lavoisier]

I thought this topic was about Churchill?

It is - and the fact that he's not, as some, including Hollywood, would have you believe. You can't talk about him in isolation of those things.

[Yorkykopite]

Are you saying we weren't really occupied by the British?

Of course not. I'm saying there are different levels of occupation. This is not to defend the British record in Ireland - something I'll never do - but to point out that a Nazi occupation of Ireland would not have seen the Reichstag arguing about whether to set up new universities in Dublin or bring in a Land Act to give Irish peasants security of tenure (as, say Gladstone did). Hitler wouldn't have been talking about Irish Home Rule or how to preserve the independence of the Irish judicial system. He and his captains wouldn't have been sitting at home reading the poetry of WB Yeats. They'd have murdered him. And anyone who published him. In these senses - and more - the Nazi occupation of Ireland would have been rather different to the British one.

But we know this don't we......? 

[Antoine Lavoisier]

I thought this was the "News and Current Affairs" forum.....

There's a News film out Currently.

[Yorkykopite]

Corky, I would heartily recommend you to read the chapter on 'The Emergency' in Joe Lee's book, Modern Ireland. Politics and Society 1912-1985 (Cambridge 1989). Lee is a scholar, not a polemicist. He's also a Corkman, if I remember right. The book is one of the most beautifully written history books I've ever read and suffused throughout with a subtle irony as well as tremendous authority.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

There's a News film out Currently.

That is just about the build up to Dunkirk and him becoming PM.

A bit like watching a movie which celebrated Stalin's mighty triumph over the Nazis but didn't deal with anything else in his history?

See above.

[killer-heels]

It is - and the fact that he's not, as some, including Hollywood, would have you believe. You can't talk about him in isolation of those things.

Why not?

[west_london_red]

It is - and the fact that he's not, as some, including Hollywood, would have you believe. You can't talk about him in isolation of those things.

100% agree but it’s turning into a debate about Ireland.

[Yorkykopite]

100% agree but it’s turning into a debate about Ireland.

Let it roll? It's about Churchill and therefore could go off in all sorts of interesting tangents.

[west_london_red]

Let it roll? It's about Churchill and therefore could go off in all sorts of interesting tangents.

Agree 100%, it’s just there are so many directions this can and should go in and Ireland isn’t the only one.

Edit: I’m reasonably aware of Churchill in a wider context then WW2, but not what if anything he did specifically in relation to Ireland?

[Alan_X]

I found this from the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

Most of the OP is in there but with a different conclusion.

Anyone who knows anything about modern British history knows that Churchill was a bit of a c*nt. Racist yes and a believer in the ‘traditional’ British concepts of the ‘white mans burden’ - the inherent superiority of the British upper class over... everyone else.

I thinks there’s an odd thing going on in the thread that’s trying to weigh up two separate (but possibly related) issues: Churchill’s c*ntishness and his importance in the battle against Hitler and the Third Reich.

Chirchill’s importance to the defeat of Hitler wasn’t in winning the final battles. Once Russia changed sides and America finally came into the war the writing was on the wall. His importance was in the darkest hours when mainland Europe was over-run, Japan was on a murderous rampage across Asia and it would have been the easiest thing in the world to appease Hitler.

Churchill probably wouldn’t have suffered under the Reich. There were plenty in the aristocracy and the establishment who would have been fine with Britain under the Nazis. Churchill, possibly because of his c*ntishness and belief in Britain fought back.

You could argue (and many would today) that if Britain had capitulated then the death toll from the European War and the Japanese conquest of Asia (no world war) would have been lower. Of course millions would have still died in the Extermination camps (the remaining Jews, homosexuals, intellectuals, communists, political dissidents... anyone who looked a bit different) but the world would have been at ‘peace’. 

I read one sneering post saying that Churchill just ‘made a few speeches’.  Apart from the fact that he did far more, particularly getting support from the US, the importance and power of those iconic speeches should not be underestimated. Britain stood alone in Europe after Dunkirk.

”Ser, I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government – every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.


Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old”.

And

What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over ... the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth[note 5] last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."

Just a speech? Maybe, but what speeches and how important for a nation that had suffered a massive defeat and been sent home across the channel with its tail between its legs.

Anyone suggesting ‘anyone’ could have done what Churchill did is quite simply, wrong. There may have been someone but I’m at a loss to know who was around at the time who would have put up the same pugnacious resistance to Hitler. 

So does any of that excuse his history of racism and appalling colonial behaviour? No.

Am I happy that he was the leader of Britain at a time of exceptional danger for the world? Absolutely. Because it means we are free to read posts like the OP and call even our greatest war time leaders c*nts if we want to.

Revisit his past and read up on the dreadful things that Britain did at its colonial worst (Churchill wasn’t unique) but let’s not re-write history.

[TepidT2O]

Yeah.  Alan’s right.

[Yorkykopite]

Happy to admit I'm "semi-educated" on the subject of Churchill so would very much like to be educated. Are the following statements (in relation to Ireland's neutrality) fair enough?

1) When allied nations declared war on Germany it was because of Germany horrific land grabbing (I.e. not because of other Nazi crimes, such as the Holocaust)

2) Germany's horrific land grabbing was no worse than the UKs horrific land grabbing around the world

3) Therefore, for a country like Ireland, who had been "on the receiving end" of the UKs horrific land grabbing, they're both as bad as each other so morally they weren't doing a 'bad thing' being neutral.


Obviously the condolences to Hitler were a bit much (given the holocaust would have been known about by then) but isn't their neutrality 'fair enough'?

(Genuinely curious - I'm not Irish defending them, I've got no dog in the fight here)

1) Yes, mainly.

2) No.

3) Some Irishmen did reason like this, but very few I think. Some actually preferred Nazi 'land grabbing' to the British version, but they tended to belong to the IRA. De Valera was in two minds about whether he wanted the SS to 'liberate' Derry in 1940, whereas the IRA were very much for it.

[Xabi Gerrard]

1) Yes, mainly.

2) No.

3) Some Irishmen did reason like this, but very few I think. Some actually preferred Nazi 'land grabbing' to the British version, but they tended to belong to the IRA. De Valera was in two minds about whether he wanted the SS to 'liberate' Derry in 1940, whereas the IRA were very much for it.

Cheers.

Can you expand on 2) a bit please? Why was Germany's land grabbing worse than the UK's?

[Zeb]

The underlying point about Churchill seems always to be how British imperialism is viewed. I think it's fair comment to highlight that Britain, generally, still hasn't quite got to grips with what it did. As daft to use Churchill as proxy for that as it is to write/produce hagiography about the bugger though.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

if the fight was led by the old fashioned politicians and generals then the country we live in today would not exist.

But what would?

The answer is no one actually knows, the theories are theories nothing more.

[Alan_X]

Happy to admit I'm "semi-educated" on the subject of Churchill so would very much like to be educated. Are the following statements (in relation to Ireland's neutrality) fair enough?

1) When allied nations declared war on Germany it was because of Germany horrific land grabbing (I.e. not because of other Nazi crimes, such as the Holocaust)

2) Germany's horrific land grabbing was no worse than the UKs horrific land grabbing around the world

3) Therefore, for a country like Ireland, who had been "on the receiving end" of the UKs horrific land grabbing, they're both as bad as each other so morally they weren't doing a 'bad thing' being neutral.


Obviously the condolences to Hitler were a bit much (given the holocaust would have been known about by then) but isn't their neutrality 'fair enough'?

(Genuinely curious - I'm not Irish defending them, I've got no dog in the fight here)

You seem to have dropped the ball somewhere between 1 and 3.

Your justification for Ireland’s neutrality is based on Britain’s ‘land grab’ being no worse than Hitler’s (which is wrong in may counts but let’s go with it).

To do that you exclude the Holocaust in item 1.

I understand excluding it from British motivations (they are c*nts in your scenario) but why is it excluded from Ireland’s motivation for staying neutral? Are you saying Ireland was fine excusing the ongoing genocide of millions of Jews which seems to me to be a pretty massive difference between the two countries at the time.

[So… Howard Philips]

good old "neutral" Ireland?   

Well there's an urban myth in Liverpool that they left the lights on in Dublin so the Luftwaffe could find Liverpool. I'm sure that was deliberately spread by the Lodge though.

[Yorkykopite]

Cheers.

Can you expand on 2) a bit please? Why was Germany's land grabbing worse than the UK's?

Because it was accompanied by the destruction of all representative institutions, because it was accompanied by SS terror and the murder of political dissidents, the banning of independent trade unions, the banning of a free press and free speech, and the outlawing of all non-Nazi political parties. Because it was accompanied by the introduction of slave labour, and because if there was a Jewish population in the conquered nation it was also accompanied by the policy of genocide. Life under the Nazis, especially for the so-called 'inferior races' meant being part of a One Thousand Year Reich, with no let up in persecution and no means to gain redress. The rule of law was abolished in nations conquered by the Nazis. And no German could stand up in the Reichstag and demand an official enquiry into Nazi abuses in the conquered territories, let alone stand up and declare their support for independence for Czechoslovakia or Denmark. Nor were Czech national parties allowed to speak and vote in the Reichstag or hold mass meetings in Berlin and other German cities demanding freedom. No SS officer was ever charged, let alone convicted, of shooting a Jew or a Pole or a Czech. On the contrary they were given medals and pensions.

We do not know what the long-term consequences of Nazi imperialism would have been because, thankfully, the Nazis were defeated. (Churchill played a massive part in this.) But we can guess. It would have been barbarism beyond belief and the extermination of entire nations.

This is why it was worse than British 'occupation'.

[Djozer]

I found this from the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

Most of the OP is in there but with a different conclusion.

Anyone who knows anything about modern British history knows that Churchill was a bit of a c*nt. Racist yes and a believer in the ‘traditional’ British concepts of the ‘white mans burden’ - the inherent superiority of the British upper class over... everyone else.

I thinks there’s an odd thing going on in the thread that’s trying to weigh up two separate (but possibly related) issues: Churchill’s c*ntishness and his importance in the battle against Hitler and the Third Reich.

Chirchill’s importance to the defeat of Hitler wasn’t in winning the final battles. Once Russia changed sides and America finally came into the war the writing was on the wall. His importance was in the darkest hours when mainland Europe was over-run, Japan was on a murderous rampage across Asia and it would have been the easiest thing in the world to appease Hitler.

Churchill probably wouldn’t have suffered under the Reich. There were plenty in the aristocracy and the establishment who would have been fine with Britain under the Nazis. Churchill, possibly because of his c*ntishness and belief in Britain fought back.

You could argue (and many would today) that if Britain had capitulated then the death toll from the European War and the Japanese conquest of Asia (no world war) would have been lower. Of course millions would have still died in the Extermination camps (the remaining Jews, homosexuals, intellectuals, communists, political dissidents... anyone who looked a bit different) but the world would have been at ‘peace’. 

I read one sneering post saying that Churchill just ‘made a few speeches’.  Apart from the fact that he did far more, particularly getting support from the US, the importance and power of those iconic speeches should not be underestimated. Britain stood alone in Europe after Dunkirk.

”Ser, I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government – every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.


Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old”.

And

What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over ... the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth[note 5] last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."

Just a speech? Maybe, but what speeches and how important for a nation that had suffered a massive defeat and been sent home across the channel with its tail between its legs.

Anyone suggesting ‘anyone’ could have done what Churchill did is quite simply, wrong. There may have been someone but I’m at a loss to know who was around at the time who would have put up the same pugnacious resistance to Hitler. 

So does any of that excuse his history of racism and appalling colonial behaviour? No.

Am I happy that he was the leader of Britain at a time of exceptional danger for the world? Absolutely. Because it means we are free to read posts like the OP and call even our greatest war time leaders c*nts if we want to.

Revisit his past and read up on the dreadful things that Britain did at its colonial worst (Churchill wasn’t unique) but let’s not re-write history.

Good post. I'm the author of the "sneering post" you mentioned, but I appreciate the time you took to write that and like to feel that I learned something from it. Maybe I was wrong in downplaying the role he had in winning the war, but I would suggest that there may well have been other leaders who would have stepped up to the plate had he not become Prime Minister. As you yourself stated, we just don't know, but in truth you are more likely to be correct than me as you seem to have a firmer grasp on the historical politics of the time.

The only thing I take issue with is the assertion that because of his wartime leadership "we are free to read posts like the OP...[and call people like Churchill]...c*nts if we want to." Like probably almost everyone in this thread I lost family members in that war, and I'd argue that their sacrifice often gets lost in the mythologising of Churchill, and should be considered far more important in some respects, as they paid the ultimate price. Let me be clear - I'm not saying you or anybody else in this thread is ignoring the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, but it sometimes feels that way when the subject of Churchill is raised, and considering the character of the man I've always found the retrospective adulation he receives a bit over the top.

Anyway, thanks again for your post. Perhaps I learnt something today. I probably shouldn't be so hasty in letting my ingrained predjudices inform my views without knowing the whole picture. I'll probably carry on calling him a c*nt whenever his name comes up but will at least try to remember that his wartime contribution is one of the many reasons I am able to do so.

[Alan_X]

But what would?

The answer is no one actually knows, the theories are theories nothing more.

Actually we do know with a fair degree of certainty. There was a twelve year experiment in nazisim from 1933 to 1945. If Germany had won the war it’s highly unlikely that the Reich would have developed into a happy-clappy liberal democracy. Nazism is pernicious and still raises its head around the world

[So… Howard Philips]

Ah yes, the old "well at least we aint got it as bad as them lot" argument.

So you don't agree that the Nazi's targeted trades unions?

[oldfordie]

But what would?

The answer is no one actually knows, the theories are theories nothing more.

There are no ifs and buts about it,we do know what would have happened, the French had the same problems and they were crushed, old fashioned generals and politicians whose tactics came from WW1 had power but thought they knew better, even Hitler knew the importance of new weapons and technology and intelligence in modern warfare.
Churchill didn't just become leader and sit on his backside, he appointed the right people in certain positions,if he had reasons to sack them then they were sacked and new younger people with new ideas on how to fight modern wars were brought in.
If we would have had the wrong leader he probably had listened to the old outdated views on how to fight the war, we would have been crushed just like the French.

[Sangria]

As indictments of Churchill go that OP is about as weak and unreasonable as any I've read.

I'm certainly no Churchill fan, and still break into a smile whenever I think of the British people voting him out in 1945, but it's ridiculously easy for semi-educated people to talk absolute nonsense about the man.

Let me give you a hand. The only country in the world to offer condolences to the German embassy on the day Hitler died. Churchill's policy and the Royal Navy kept Ireland free from invasion from the Nazis and allowed the Irish government the luxury of being 'neutral'.

There's also the fallacy of viewing the past through the eyes of the present and judging thus. Churchill was out of whack as an imperialist even for the 1930s, but he wasn't so outrageous as the OP thinks he was. And on displays of imperialism in Afghanistan: I've seen quotes from modern Afghans who treat the whole fighting and raiding thing as part of an eternal game, who bear no grudges against British attempts to play it, whose only surprise is that war isn't the norm in Britain as well. Imperialism was unfashionable by the 1930s, especially at the level espoused by Churchill, but it wasn't that far off the norm.

[Xabi Gerrard]

You seem to have dropped the ball somewhere between 1 and 3.

Your justification for Ireland’s neutrality is based on Britain’s ‘land grab’ being no worse than Hitler’s (which is wrong in may counts but let’s go with it).

To do that you exclude the Holocaust in item 1.

I understand excluding it from British motivations (they are c*nts in your scenario) but why is it excluded from Ireland’s motivation for staying neutral? Are you saying Ireland was fine excusing the ongoing genocide of millions of Jews which seems to me to be a pretty massive difference between the two countries at the time.

I thought that the holocaust didn't play a part in the allies declaring war though - Yorkykopite kind of confirmed it in replying to my post (by replying "Yes, mainly" to Q1). In fact, was the extent of it even known when the nations declared war on Germany? Hope this makes it clear that I wasn't insinuating (or didn't mean to anyway) that Ireland were "fine excusing the ongoing genocide of millions of Jews".

Because it was accompanied by the destruction of all representative institutions, because it was accompanied by SS terror and the murder of political dissidents, the banning of independent trade unions, the banning of a free press and free speech, and the outlawing of all non-Nazi political parties. Because it was accompanied by the introduction of slave labour, and because if there was a Jewish population in the conquered nation it was also accompanied by the policy of genocide. Life under the Nazis, especially for the so-called 'inferior races' meant being part of a One Thousand Year Reich, with no let up in persecution and no means to gain redress. The rule of law was abolished in nations conquered by the Nazis. And no German could stand up in the Reichstag and demand an official enquiry into Nazi abuses in the conquered territories, let alone stand up and declare their support for independence for Czechoslovakia or Denmark. Nor were Czech national parties allowed to speak and vote in the Reichstag or hold mass meetings in Berlin and other German cities demanding freedom. No SS officer was ever charged, let alone convicted, of shooting a Jew or a Pole or a Czech. On the contrary they were given medals and pensions.

We do not know what the long-term consequences of Nazi imperialism would have been because, thankfully, the Nazis were defeated. (Churchill played a massive part in this.) But we can guess. It would have been barbarism beyond belief and the extermination of entire nations.

This is why it was worse than British 'occupation'.

Cheers.

Were black Kenyans, for example, given the rights under British rule that were denied to Czechs in Nazi Germany? I always assumed that the 'natives' in our colonies were treated pretty horrifically.

Anyway, probably one for after the game. Enjoy the match folks!

[mbroon]

I thinks there’s an odd thing going on in the thread that’s trying to weigh up two separate (but possibly related) issues: Churchill’s c*ntishness and his importance in the battle against Hitler and the Third Reich.

There's an odd thing going on where evil seems to be excused because of achievements or glossed over through favorable comparisons. There's an unsettling thing going on where views such as '... but he's our bastard' or that it 'depends on what side you were on back then' are aired.

I don't mean to make any sort of accusation, the above reads a bit as such. But I don't see the relevance of a 'lesser evil' comparison nor of his achievements when the topic was started on his reprehensible stances and actions.

There's also the fallacy of viewing the past through the eyes of the present and judging thus. Churchill was out of whack as an imperialist even for the 1930s, but he wasn't so outrageous as the OP thinks he was. And on displays of imperialism in Afghanistan: I've seen quotes from modern Afghans who treat the whole fighting and raiding thing as part of an eternal game, who bear no grudges against British attempts to play it, whose only surprise is that war isn't the norm in Britain as well. Imperialism was unfashionable by the 1930s, especially at the level espoused by Churchill, but it wasn't that far off the norm.

Why is it a fallacy? The same point was made on the previous page. Of course we view and judge history through the eyes of the present. That is to our great benefit, that we can learn from history and evolve as a society, which isn't to say we do.

Some voices in this thread just strike me as terribly defensively apologetic and I don't understand where the urge for that comes from.

[TepidT2O]

Which voices?

[Jiminy Cricket]

I found this from the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

Most of the OP is in there but with a different conclusion.

Anyone who knows anything about modern British history knows that Churchill was a bit of a c*nt. Racist yes and a believer in the ‘traditional’ British concepts of the ‘white mans burden’ - the inherent superiority of the British upper class over... everyone else.

I thinks there’s an odd thing going on in the thread that’s trying to weigh up two separate (but possibly related) issues: Churchill’s c*ntishness and his importance in the battle against Hitler and the Third Reich.

Chirchill’s importance to the defeat of Hitler wasn’t in winning the final battles. Once Russia changed sides and America finally came into the war the writing was on the wall. His importance was in the darkest hours when mainland Europe was over-run, Japan was on a murderous rampage across Asia and it would have been the easiest thing in the world to appease Hitler.

Churchill probably wouldn’t have suffered under the Reich. There were plenty in the aristocracy and the establishment who would have been fine with Britain under the Nazis. Churchill, possibly because of his c*ntishness and belief in Britain fought back.

You could argue (and many would today) that if Britain had capitulated then the death toll from the European War and the Japanese conquest of Asia (no world war) would have been lower. Of course millions would have still died in the Extermination camps (the remaining Jews, homosexuals, intellectuals, communists, political dissidents... anyone who looked a bit different) but the world would have been at ‘peace’. 

I read one sneering post saying that Churchill just ‘made a few speeches’.  Apart from the fact that he did far more, particularly getting support from the US, the importance and power of those iconic speeches should not be underestimated. Britain stood alone in Europe after Dunkirk.

”Ser, I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government – every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.


Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old”.

And

What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over ... the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth[note 5] last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."

Just a speech? Maybe, but what speeches and how important for a nation that had suffered a massive defeat and been sent home across the channel with its tail between its legs.

Anyone suggesting ‘anyone’ could have done what Churchill did is quite simply, wrong. There may have been someone but I’m at a loss to know who was around at the time who would have put up the same pugnacious resistance to Hitler. 

So does any of that excuse his history of racism and appalling colonial behaviour? No.

Am I happy that he was the leader of Britain at a time of exceptional danger for the world? Absolutely. Because it means we are free to read posts like the OP and call even our greatest war time leaders c*nts if we want to.

Revisit his past and read up on the dreadful things that Britain did at its colonial worst (Churchill wasn’t unique) but let’s not re-write history.

That's all fine and dandy, but it requires pragmatism from the reviewer of history. Too few people - it seems - are capable of this. Everything (from both sides of most arguments) must be 'pure'. I am put in mind of how many times Blair is excoriated by the left when he makes one of his anti-Brexit speeches. I never liked Blair and believe he lied through his teeth to make the Iraq war happen. I knew he was lying when he make his '45 minutes' speech to parliament (he was just too damn earnest). At that point, my dislike to turned to loathing. My point? well, when he is wrong, he is wrong; but when he is right, he is right. I, for one - despite my generally feelings about him - am glad when he makes some good points about the folly of the UK leaving the EU. It is the same with Churchill or most influential people from history: they are a mixed bag. Churchill was the right guy at the right time for the almost impossible job of being PM during WWII. This this does not condone the terrible things he said and did. But, for the purists, it is not good enough. If an ideology does not fit with theirs, they will concentrate on the negatives to the exclusion of all else. If the ideology fits, they will gladly gloss over anything from 'their man', no matter how odious.

I do not necessarily include those groups directly negatively affected by such large characters from history. It is understandable why they might take the narrower view. They generally do not reap 'the benefits', only 'the costs'. But from the rest us, I would hope for a little perspective, reasoning, and pragmatism. I generally hold great dislike for those on the right. But the ones I cannot tolerate are the 'purists', no matter their politics.

[mbroon]

Which voices?

Those I have quoted, to varying degrees, of which you are one. Am I off the mark?

[TepidT2O]

Those I have quoted, to varying degrees, of which you are one. Am I off the mark?

Yes.  I’m an apologist for nothing he did which has been mentioned.

But to suggest his achievements during the war years aren’t worthy of merit is churlish.