I had the misfortune to hear this racket this morning
I really dislike Piers Morgan, he has led the charge of gobshites being given a platform, I have plenty of other reasons to dislike him but ill end up writing for ages
The SMP has come out with this absolute nonsense for one reason and that is to get attention, look at me look at meeee
I really question that Attlee gave the order to bomb Dresden because Churchill was away. I'm sure Churchill was still running every main decision and was on the end of a telephone. Agree that Churchill was a man of his time and his upper class upbringing and as soon as the best 6 years of his life were over, was rejected by the people who realized that he was a war leader 1st and foremost. He did get another go at being Prime minister 1951 to 55 because of the slow progress after the war for one last swan song. An erratic career for most of his political life and his imperialism belief's but many held these views back in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Churchill can't be Judged from the 21st century without understanding the mores of the times he lived in.
It was an interesting debate in which both held their own, which irked Morgan a little I thought. The problem is, when two misguided people argue from positions that are a little bit wrong and a little bit right, they have the conviction to oppose each other. Sadly, I think both sides de-humanise Churchill in different ways, who IMO was one of the greatest ever Britons. But whilst he was a major part of winning the war, he did not win it single handedly, and Morgan's assertion of this insults other great people and shows the same levels of ignorance that the young Scottish Green MP had. The MP has the excuse of youth though.
Churchill should be admired for his strengths, but also have his weaknesses acknowledged too. He was the leader we needed in our time of need. He had a view of empire born from his times and upbringing. To judge him as if he was living today, as the young SMP did is totally wrong and unfair.
I think one of the best ways to try to understand Churchill is to read what the Labour leader Clement Attlee wrote about him. Attlee was his deputy and strong supporter during the war and despite being an opponent outside of war was a friend. From his words, you can see the clear mightyness of Chruchill the man, but also an honesty about the weaknesses - as Attlee saw them of course. You can see a man of compassion too, alongside a steely resolve. Which goes against what some of the haters, like the young SMP might say. I think undertsanding the man makes him greater, because he was a human being not a symbol. Attlee's words on Churchill should be made compulsary reading, and both the young SMP and Morgan may learn a bit from them. It doesn't diminish Churchill's importance to victory, but makes it real, much more so than any Hollywood love in could ever do.
I really question that Attlee gave the order to bomb Dresden because Churchill was away. I'm sure Churchill was still running every main decision and was on the end of a telephone. Agree that Churchill was a man of his time and his upper class upbringing and as soon as the best 6 years of his life were over, was rejected by the people who realized that he was a war leader 1st and foremost. He did get another go at being Prime minister 1951 to 55 because of the slow progress after the war for one last swan song. An erratic career for most of his political life and his imperialism belief's but many held these views back in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Churchill can't be Judged from the 21st century without understanding the mores of the times he lived in.
Then nor can Hitler, Stalin, or any other leader who rode the tide of the beliefs of the society they were in. Everyone is moulded by their experiences and everyone should be judged subsequently by the new historians. This leads to revisionism of the left and right but there are few absolute interpretations of the past. Having new understandings and theories gives dynamism to the past that passive acceptance to established history can't. FWIW I think Churchill was a shit who got lucky. Most of his ideas previous to WWII were disastrous failures or polarised people. Gallipoli, getting troops in on the Welsh miners etc. However in WWII the thing I admire him for is understanding that Britain wasn't able to win the war without major allies. He was good at cultivating them and when the US and the USSR came in good at dealing with them.
Odd how much some posters cling to what they must know is a warped view that is the product of their own indoctrination. A psychologist would have a field day.
Odd how much some posters cling to what they must know is a warped view that is the product of their own indoctrination. A psychologist would have a field day.
Odd how much some posters cling to what they must know is a warped view that is the product of their own indoctrination. A psychologist would have a field day.
I really question that Attlee gave the order to bomb Dresden because Churchill was away. I'm sure Churchill was still running every main decision and was on the end of a telephone. Agree that Churchill was a man of his time and his upper class upbringing and as soon as the best 6 years of his life were over, was rejected by the people who realized that he was a war leader 1st and foremost. He did get another go at being Prime minister 1951 to 55 because of the slow progress after the war for one last swan song. An erratic career for most of his political life and his imperialism belief's but many held these views back in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Churchill can't be Judged from the 21st century without understanding the mores of the times he lived in.
Then nor can Hitler, Stalin, or any other leader who rode the tide of the beliefs of the society they were in. Everyone is moulded by their experiences and everyone should be judged subsequently by the new historians. This leads to revisionism of the left and right but there are few absolute interpretations of the past. Having new understandings and theories gives dynamism to the past that passive acceptance to established history can't. FWIW I think Churchill was a shit who got lucky. Most of his ideas previous to WWII were disastrous failures or polarised people. Gallipoli, getting troops in on the Welsh miners etc. However in WWII the thing I admire him for is understanding that Britain wasn't able to win the war without major allies. He was good at cultivating them and when the US and the USSR came in good at dealing with them.
I disagree with that part - Hitler’s actions and his motivations were utterly reprehensible at the time and by the standards of the time. I wouldn’t put Churchill anywhere near that category.
Just because we can’t judge people of the past by today’s standards doesn’t mean we can’t judge them by any standards.
Fair play to Morgan on GMB today, slaughtered some 20 something dickhead SMP for calling Churchill a Rascist and White Supremacist !
Fairplay because Morgan was right or Fairplay because he constantly interrupted someone who has the temerity to challenge the entirely whitewashed version of Churchill that we are fed by the establishment
Morgan was right. Im ignoring the other shit that you wrote.
I'm grateful for your erudite and persuasive response. It's really challenged me to rethink the line of my argument
When its comes to Churchill, I really dont give a fuck what you, and others like you, think.
How you can get so wound up about a puppet dog on an insurance advert I don't know!
Odd how much some posters cling to what they must know is a warped view that is the product of their own indoctrination. A psychologist would have a field day.
I really question that Attlee gave the order to bomb Dresden because Churchill was away. I'm sure Churchill was still running every main decision and was on the end of a telephone. Agree that Churchill was a man of his time and his upper class upbringing and as soon as the best 6 years of his life were over, was rejected by the people who realized that he was a war leader 1st and foremost. He did get another go at being Prime minister 1951 to 55 because of the slow progress after the war for one last swan song. An erratic career for most of his political life and his imperialism belief's but many held these views back in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Churchill can't be Judged from the 21st century without understanding the mores of the times he lived in.
Then nor can Hitler, Stalin, or any other leader who rode the tide of the beliefs of the society they were in. Everyone is moulded by their experiences and everyone should be judged subsequently by the new historians. This leads to revisionism of the left and right but there are few absolute interpretations of the past. Having new understandings and theories gives dynamism to the past that passive acceptance to established history can't. FWIW I think Churchill was a shit who got lucky. Most of his ideas previous to WWII were disastrous failures or polarised people. Gallipoli, getting troops in on the Welsh miners etc. However in WWII the thing I admire him for is understanding that Britain wasn't able to win the war without major allies. He was good at cultivating them and when the US and the USSR came in good at dealing with them.
I disagree with that part - Hitler’s actions and his motivations were utterly reprehensible at the time and by the standards of the time. I wouldn’t put Churchill anywhere near that category.
Just because we can’t judge people of the past by today’s standards doesn’t mean we can’t judge them by any standards.
Hitler is the exception that proves the rule and there are few ( Stalin and Pol Pot aside perhaps) modern leaders so disgusting in belief , word and deed.
Churchill cannot and should not be put in anywhere near that category however he was guilty of lots of things including the following
Allowing hundreds of thousands of Indians to starve to death Supporting Chemical warfare against defenceless tribes in the middle east Supporting Eugenics Supporting Racial hierarchies He Wanted To Use ‘Keep England White’ as a Slogan He Covered Up The Katyn Massacre Send the army in to attack Welsh protesters who were starving
Odd how much some posters cling to what they must know is a warped view that is the product of their own indoctrination. A psychologist would have a field day.
Says the German Submarine.
Nice one. What the fuck does that even mean?
Your name is a German submarine
And a greenie is a rank ball of snotty phlegm. I just can't see the relevance.
Odd how much some posters cling to what they must know is a warped view that is the product of their own indoctrination. A psychologist would have a field day.
Says the German Submarine.
Nice one. What the fuck does that even mean?
Your name is a German submarine
And a greenie is a rank ball of snotty phlegm. I just can't see the relevance.
Churchill didnt have a large hand in defeating an army that utilised large balls of snotty phlegm as submergable vessels
I really question that Attlee gave the order to bomb Dresden because Churchill was away. I'm sure Churchill was still running every main decision and was on the end of a telephone. Agree that Churchill was a man of his time and his upper class upbringing and as soon as the best 6 years of his life were over, was rejected by the people who realized that he was a war leader 1st and foremost. He did get another go at being Prime minister 1951 to 55 because of the slow progress after the war for one last swan song. An erratic career for most of his political life and his imperialism belief's but many held these views back in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Churchill can't be Judged from the 21st century without understanding the mores of the times he lived in.
Then nor can Hitler, Stalin, or any other leader who rode the tide of the beliefs of the society they were in. Everyone is moulded by their experiences and everyone should be judged subsequently by the new historians. This leads to revisionism of the left and right but there are few absolute interpretations of the past. Having new understandings and theories gives dynamism to the past that passive acceptance to established history can't. FWIW I think Churchill was a shit who got lucky. Most of his ideas previous to WWII were disastrous failures or polarised people. Gallipoli, getting troops in on the Welsh miners etc. However in WWII the thing I admire him for is understanding that Britain wasn't able to win the war without major allies. He was good at cultivating them and when the US and the USSR came in good at dealing with them.
I disagree with that part - Hitler’s actions and his motivations were utterly reprehensible at the time and by the standards of the time. I wouldn’t put Churchill anywhere near that category.
Just because we can’t judge people of the past by today’s standards doesn’t mean we can’t judge them by any standards.
Churchill cannot and should not be put in anywhere near that category however he was guilty of lots of things including the following
Allowing hundreds of thousands of Indians to starve to death Supporting Chemical warfare against defenceless tribes in the middle east Supporting Eugenics Supporting Racial hierarchies He Wanted To Use ‘Keep England White’ as a Slogan He Covered Up The Katyn Massacre Send the army in to attack Welsh protesters who were starving
His admirers have to either deny that those things happened or admit that they're fine with them, which is why they choose to put their fingers in their ears and keep shouting.
Odd how much some posters cling to what they must know is a warped view that is the product of their own indoctrination. A psychologist would have a field day.
Says the German Submarine.
Nice one. What the fuck does that even mean?
Your name is a German submarine
And a greenie is a rank ball of snotty phlegm. I just can't see the relevance.
Churchill didnt have a large hand in defeating an army that utilised large balls of snotty phlegm as submergable vessels
; )
I think you've found a historical fact that we can all get behind.
Odd how much some posters cling to what they must know is a warped view that is the product of their own indoctrination. A psychologist would have a field day.
Says the German Submarine.
Nice one. What the fuck does that even mean?
Your name is a German submarine
And a greenie is a rank ball of snotty phlegm. I just can't see the relevance.
Churchill didnt have a large hand in defeating an army that utilised large balls of snotty phlegm as submergable vessels
; )
I think you've found a historical fact that we can all get behind.
Do I need to share link or name a source for this fact though?
I really question that Attlee gave the order to bomb Dresden because Churchill was away. I'm sure Churchill was still running every main decision and was on the end of a telephone. Agree that Churchill was a man of his time and his upper class upbringing and as soon as the best 6 years of his life were over, was rejected by the people who realized that he was a war leader 1st and foremost. He did get another go at being Prime minister 1951 to 55 because of the slow progress after the war for one last swan song. An erratic career for most of his political life and his imperialism belief's but many held these views back in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Churchill can't be Judged from the 21st century without understanding the mores of the times he lived in.
Then nor can Hitler, Stalin, or any other leader who rode the tide of the beliefs of the society they were in. Everyone is moulded by their experiences and everyone should be judged subsequently by the new historians. This leads to revisionism of the left and right but there are few absolute interpretations of the past. Having new understandings and theories gives dynamism to the past that passive acceptance to established history can't. FWIW I think Churchill was a shit who got lucky. Most of his ideas previous to WWII were disastrous failures or polarised people. Gallipoli, getting troops in on the Welsh miners etc. However in WWII the thing I admire him for is understanding that Britain wasn't able to win the war without major allies. He was good at cultivating them and when the US and the USSR came in good at dealing with them.
I disagree with that part - Hitler’s actions and his motivations were utterly reprehensible at the time and by the standards of the time. I wouldn’t put Churchill anywhere near that category.
Just because we can’t judge people of the past by today’s standards doesn’t mean we can’t judge them by any standards.
Churchill cannot and should not be put in anywhere near that category however he was guilty of lots of things including the following
Allowing hundreds of thousands of Indians to starve to death Supporting Chemical warfare against defenceless tribes in the middle east Supporting Eugenics Supporting Racial hierarchies He Wanted To Use ‘Keep England White’ as a Slogan He Covered Up The Katyn Massacre Send the army in to attack Welsh protesters who were starving
His admirers have to either deny that those things happened or admit that they're fine with them, which is why they choose to put their fingers in their ears and keep shouting.
I really question that Attlee gave the order to bomb Dresden because Churchill was away. I'm sure Churchill was still running every main decision and was on the end of a telephone. Agree that Churchill was a man of his time and his upper class upbringing and as soon as the best 6 years of his life were over, was rejected by the people who realized that he was a war leader 1st and foremost. He did get another go at being Prime minister 1951 to 55 because of the slow progress after the war for one last swan song. An erratic career for most of his political life and his imperialism belief's but many held these views back in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Churchill can't be Judged from the 21st century without understanding the mores of the times he lived in.
Then nor can Hitler, Stalin, or any other leader who rode the tide of the beliefs of the society they were in. Everyone is moulded by their experiences and everyone should be judged subsequently by the new historians. This leads to revisionism of the left and right but there are few absolute interpretations of the past. Having new understandings and theories gives dynamism to the past that passive acceptance to established history can't. FWIW I think Churchill was a shit who got lucky. Most of his ideas previous to WWII were disastrous failures or polarised people. Gallipoli, getting troops in on the Welsh miners etc. However in WWII the thing I admire him for is understanding that Britain wasn't able to win the war without major allies. He was good at cultivating them and when the US and the USSR came in good at dealing with them.
I disagree with that part - Hitler’s actions and his motivations were utterly reprehensible at the time and by the standards of the time. I wouldn’t put Churchill anywhere near that category.
Just because we can’t judge people of the past by today’s standards doesn’t mean we can’t judge them by any standards.
Churchill cannot and should not be put in anywhere near that category however he was guilty of lots of things including the following
Allowing hundreds of thousands of Indians to starve to death Supporting Chemical warfare against defenceless tribes in the middle east Supporting Eugenics Supporting Racial hierarchies He Wanted To Use ‘Keep England White’ as a Slogan He Covered Up The Katyn Massacre Send the army in to attack Welsh protesters who were starving
His admirers have to either deny that those things happened or admit that they're fine with them, which is why they choose to put their fingers in their ears and keep shouting.
I really question that Attlee gave the order to bomb Dresden because Churchill was away. I'm sure Churchill was still running every main decision and was on the end of a telephone. Agree that Churchill was a man of his time and his upper class upbringing and as soon as the best 6 years of his life were over, was rejected by the people who realized that he was a war leader 1st and foremost. He did get another go at being Prime minister 1951 to 55 because of the slow progress after the war for one last swan song. An erratic career for most of his political life and his imperialism belief's but many held these views back in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Churchill can't be Judged from the 21st century without understanding the mores of the times he lived in.
Then nor can Hitler, Stalin, or any other leader who rode the tide of the beliefs of the society they were in. Everyone is moulded by their experiences and everyone should be judged subsequently by the new historians. This leads to revisionism of the left and right but there are few absolute interpretations of the past. Having new understandings and theories gives dynamism to the past that passive acceptance to established history can't. FWIW I think Churchill was a shit who got lucky. Most of his ideas previous to WWII were disastrous failures or polarised people. Gallipoli, getting troops in on the Welsh miners etc. However in WWII the thing I admire him for is understanding that Britain wasn't able to win the war without major allies. He was good at cultivating them and when the US and the USSR came in good at dealing with them.
I disagree with that part - Hitler’s actions and his motivations were utterly reprehensible at the time and by the standards of the time. I wouldn’t put Churchill anywhere near that category.
Just because we can’t judge people of the past by today’s standards doesn’t mean we can’t judge them by any standards.
Churchill cannot and should not be put in anywhere near that category however he was guilty of lots of things including the following
Allowing hundreds of thousands of Indians to starve to death Supporting Chemical warfare against defenceless tribes in the middle east Supporting Eugenics Supporting Racial hierarchies He Wanted To Use ‘Keep England White’ as a Slogan He Covered Up The Katyn Massacre Send the army in to attack Welsh protesters who were starving
His admirers have to either deny that those things happened or admit that they're fine with them, which is why they choose to put their fingers in their ears and keep shouting.
He had his flaws as any great man/woman has but I am glad I don't have to shout my support for him in German
I really question that Attlee gave the order to bomb Dresden because Churchill was away. I'm sure Churchill was still running every main decision and was on the end of a telephone. Agree that Churchill was a man of his time and his upper class upbringing and as soon as the best 6 years of his life were over, was rejected by the people who realized that he was a war leader 1st and foremost. He did get another go at being Prime minister 1951 to 55 because of the slow progress after the war for one last swan song. An erratic career for most of his political life and his imperialism belief's but many held these views back in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Churchill can't be Judged from the 21st century without understanding the mores of the times he lived in.
Then nor can Hitler, Stalin, or any other leader who rode the tide of the beliefs of the society they were in. Everyone is moulded by their experiences and everyone should be judged subsequently by the new historians. This leads to revisionism of the left and right but there are few absolute interpretations of the past. Having new understandings and theories gives dynamism to the past that passive acceptance to established history can't. FWIW I think Churchill was a shit who got lucky. Most of his ideas previous to WWII were disastrous failures or polarised people. Gallipoli, getting troops in on the Welsh miners etc. However in WWII the thing I admire him for is understanding that Britain wasn't able to win the war without major allies. He was good at cultivating them and when the US and the USSR came in good at dealing with them.
I disagree with that part - Hitler’s actions and his motivations were utterly reprehensible at the time and by the standards of the time. I wouldn’t put Churchill anywhere near that category.
Just because we can’t judge people of the past by today’s standards doesn’t mean we can’t judge them by any standards.
Churchill cannot and should not be put in anywhere near that category however he was guilty of lots of things including the following
Allowing hundreds of thousands of Indians to starve to death Supporting Chemical warfare against defenceless tribes in the middle east Supporting Eugenics Supporting Racial hierarchies He Wanted To Use ‘Keep England White’ as a Slogan He Covered Up The Katyn Massacre Send the army in to attack Welsh protesters who were starving
His admirers have to either deny that those things happened or admit that they're fine with them, which is why they choose to put their fingers in their ears and keep shouting.
Odd how much some posters cling to what they must know is a warped view that is the product of their own indoctrination. A psychologist would have a field day.
Says the German Submarine.
Nice one. What the fuck does that even mean?
Your name is a German submarine
And a greenie is a rank ball of snotty phlegm. I just can't see the relevance.
Churchill didnt have a large hand in defeating an army that utilised large balls of snotty phlegm as submergable vessels
; )
I think you've found a historical fact that we can all get behind.
Do I need to share link or name a source for this fact though?
I really question that Attlee gave the order to bomb Dresden because Churchill was away. I'm sure Churchill was still running every main decision and was on the end of a telephone. Agree that Churchill was a man of his time and his upper class upbringing and as soon as the best 6 years of his life were over, was rejected by the people who realized that he was a war leader 1st and foremost. He did get another go at being Prime minister 1951 to 55 because of the slow progress after the war for one last swan song. An erratic career for most of his political life and his imperialism belief's but many held these views back in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Churchill can't be Judged from the 21st century without understanding the mores of the times he lived in.
Then nor can Hitler, Stalin, or any other leader who rode the tide of the beliefs of the society they were in. Everyone is moulded by their experiences and everyone should be judged subsequently by the new historians. This leads to revisionism of the left and right but there are few absolute interpretations of the past. Having new understandings and theories gives dynamism to the past that passive acceptance to established history can't. FWIW I think Churchill was a shit who got lucky. Most of his ideas previous to WWII were disastrous failures or polarised people. Gallipoli, getting troops in on the Welsh miners etc. However in WWII the thing I admire him for is understanding that Britain wasn't able to win the war without major allies. He was good at cultivating them and when the US and the USSR came in good at dealing with them.
I disagree with that part - Hitler’s actions and his motivations were utterly reprehensible at the time and by the standards of the time. I wouldn’t put Churchill anywhere near that category.
Just because we can’t judge people of the past by today’s standards doesn’t mean we can’t judge them by any standards.
Churchill cannot and should not be put in anywhere near that category however he was guilty of lots of things including the following
Allowing hundreds of thousands of Indians to starve to death Supporting Chemical warfare against defenceless tribes in the middle east Supporting Eugenics Supporting Racial hierarchies He Wanted To Use ‘Keep England White’ as a Slogan He Covered Up The Katyn Massacre Send the army in to attack Welsh protesters who were starving
His admirers have to either deny that those things happened or admit that they're fine with them, which is why they choose to put their fingers in their ears and keep shouting.
He had his flaws as any great man/woman has but I am glad I don't have to shout my support for him in German
I really question that Attlee gave the order to bomb Dresden because Churchill was away. I'm sure Churchill was still running every main decision and was on the end of a telephone. Agree that Churchill was a man of his time and his upper class upbringing and as soon as the best 6 years of his life were over, was rejected by the people who realized that he was a war leader 1st and foremost. He did get another go at being Prime minister 1951 to 55 because of the slow progress after the war for one last swan song. An erratic career for most of his political life and his imperialism belief's but many held these views back in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Churchill can't be Judged from the 21st century without understanding the mores of the times he lived in.
Then nor can Hitler, Stalin, or any other leader who rode the tide of the beliefs of the society they were in. Everyone is moulded by their experiences and everyone should be judged subsequently by the new historians. This leads to revisionism of the left and right but there are few absolute interpretations of the past. Having new understandings and theories gives dynamism to the past that passive acceptance to established history can't. FWIW I think Churchill was a shit who got lucky. Most of his ideas previous to WWII were disastrous failures or polarised people. Gallipoli, getting troops in on the Welsh miners etc. However in WWII the thing I admire him for is understanding that Britain wasn't able to win the war without major allies. He was good at cultivating them and when the US and the USSR came in good at dealing with them.
I disagree with that part - Hitler’s actions and his motivations were utterly reprehensible at the time and by the standards of the time. I wouldn’t put Churchill anywhere near that category.
Just because we can’t judge people of the past by today’s standards doesn’t mean we can’t judge them by any standards.
Churchill cannot and should not be put in anywhere near that category however he was guilty of lots of things including the following
Allowing hundreds of thousands of Indians to starve to death Supporting Chemical warfare against defenceless tribes in the middle east Supporting Eugenics Supporting Racial hierarchies He Wanted To Use ‘Keep England White’ as a Slogan He Covered Up The Katyn Massacre Send the army in to attack Welsh protesters who were starving
His admirers have to either deny that those things happened or admit that they're fine with them, which is why they choose to put their fingers in their ears and keep shouting.
Im fine with who Churchill was, he was a man of his time, to me and many others he is the greatest ever Brit. End of. And I say that as a person who's political leaning are not right wing. Without countering some of your inaccuracies on your list, Im not giving it the time, you could also add the annihilation of the French fleet in 1940, but there were reasons. Same with Gallipoli, he was hung out to dry...Great men make the toughest decisions, and I'm sick to the back teeth of people of our generation and younger generations who think its ok to judge people from years ago based on the way we live and think nowadays, when in reality they couldn't do what he did, they wouldn't have the bollocks, the bloke was a hero, who fought for our country as a young man, then in his 60's made tactical and political decisions that enabled us to win the biggest war that will ever be, and some shit bags want to denigrate him, almost like he was perfect, he wasn't, Churchill was a war time PM, and steered our country out of the darkest of times. The turds that criticise him need to remember that.
It was an interesting debate in which both held their own, which irked Morgan a little I thought. The problem is, when two misguided people argue from positions that are a little bit wrong and a little bit right, they have the conviction to oppose each other. Sadly, I think both sides de-humanise Churchill in different ways, who IMO was one of the greatest ever Britons. But whilst he was a major part of winning the war, he did not win it single handedly, and Morgan's assertion of this insults other great people and shows the same levels of ignorance that the young Scottish Green MP had. The MP has the excuse of youth though.
Churchill should be admired for his strengths, but also have his weaknesses acknowledged too. He was the leader we needed in our time of need. He had a view of empire born from his times and upbringing. To judge him as if he was living today, as the young SMP did is totally wrong and unfair.
I think one of the best ways to try to understand Churchill is to read what the Labour leader Clement Attlee wrote about him. Attlee was his deputy and strong supporter during the war and despite being an opponent outside of war was a friend. From his words, you can see the clear mightyness of Chruchill the man, but also an honesty about the weaknesses - as Attlee saw them of course. You can see a man of compassion too, alongside a steely resolve. Which goes against what some of the haters, like the young SMP might say. I think undertsanding the man makes him greater, because he was a human being not a symbol. Attlee's words on Churchill should be made compulsary reading, and both the young SMP and Morgan may learn a bit from them. It doesn't diminish Churchill's importance to victory, but makes it real, much more so than any Hollywood love in could ever do.
Comments
I really dislike Piers Morgan, he has led the charge of gobshites being given a platform, I have plenty of other reasons to dislike him but ill end up writing for ages
The SMP has come out with this absolute nonsense for one reason and that is to get attention, look at me look at meeee
Fucking spod
And we are all giving him that attention now
I'm sure Churchill was still running every main decision and was on the end of a telephone.
Agree that Churchill was a man of his time and his upper class upbringing and as soon as the best 6 years of his life were over, was rejected by the people who realized that he was a war leader 1st and foremost.
He did get another go at being Prime minister 1951 to 55 because of the slow progress after the war for one last swan song.
An erratic career for most of his political life and his imperialism belief's but many held these views back in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Churchill can't be Judged from the 21st century without understanding the mores of the times he lived in.
Everyone is moulded by their experiences and everyone should be judged subsequently by the new historians. This leads to revisionism of the left and right but there are few absolute interpretations of the past. Having new understandings and theories gives dynamism to the past that passive acceptance to established history can't.
FWIW I think Churchill was a shit who got lucky. Most of his ideas previous to WWII were disastrous failures or polarised people.
Gallipoli, getting troops in on the Welsh miners etc. However in WWII the thing I admire him for is understanding that Britain wasn't able to win the war without major allies. He was good at cultivating them and when the US and the USSR came in good at dealing with them.
Just because we can’t judge people of the past by today’s standards doesn’t mean we can’t judge them by any standards.
Churchill cannot and should not be put in anywhere near that category however he was guilty of lots of things including the following
Allowing hundreds of thousands of Indians to starve to death
Supporting Chemical warfare against defenceless tribes in the middle east
Supporting Eugenics
Supporting Racial hierarchies
He Wanted To Use ‘Keep England White’ as a Slogan
He Covered Up The Katyn Massacre
Send the army in to attack Welsh protesters who were starving
; )
Without countering some of your inaccuracies on your list, Im not giving it the time, you could also add the annihilation of the French fleet in 1940, but there were reasons. Same with Gallipoli, he was hung out to dry...Great men make the toughest decisions, and I'm sick to the back teeth of people of our generation and younger generations who think its ok to judge people from years ago based on the way we live and think nowadays, when in reality they couldn't do what he did, they wouldn't have the bollocks, the bloke was a hero, who fought for our country as a young man, then in his 60's made tactical and political decisions that enabled us to win the biggest war that will ever be, and some shit bags want to denigrate him, almost like he was perfect, he wasn't, Churchill was a war time PM, and steered our country out of the darkest of times.
The turds that criticise him need to remember that.
Fair enough ......... but to me and many others he was not the greatest ever Brit . End of.