[Aj12]

(Original post by seanfromtheblock)
I think it's fairly telling that the electorate kicked him out at the earliest opportunity following the war.

This had far more to do with the government of 1939, appeasement and the fact that Churchill did not have much of a plan for the future, not for his actions during the war.

[tcblue]

I think so. He sent British troops into Tonypandy to quell the miners strike of 1911. This lead to the death of one Welshman. As daft as it may be, many people down here have not forgotten or forgiven, despite his efforts in WW2

[internet tough guy]

Thats the thing with wars isn't it?

They could either really mess up your legacy (i.e neville chamberlain), or they could propell you to eternal glory as is the case with Churchill. I sometimes do wonder what sort of PM he would've been judged as if there hadn't been WW2, would he instead simply be remembered as an imperialist on the wrong side of history?

[WhiterunUK]

He was a racist, and not the modern day "islamophobia herp insulted ma religion derp" type of racist, i swear at one point he claimed that indians were unfit to rule themselves as they were lesser- and after denying india the supplies it needed and causing a famine he said "if the famine in bengal is so bad, why isnt gandhi dead yet"

[gladders]

(Original post by seanfromtheblock)
I think it's fairly telling that the electorate kicked him out at the earliest opportunity following the war.

Churchill himself was easily the most popular politician in Britain in 1945. However he was at the head of a party which was the party of appeasers, and had fudged the post-war 'New Jerusalem' promised after the end of the First World War. His defeat was not a judgement on him, but on this party.

[The Marshall]

(Original post by SpiggyTopes)
He set up the Court of Human rights which treated everybody with equality.

Rubbish. He hated Indians to the utmost extent.

[rockrunride]

Clement was better imo. Not that I was alive in the era.

[The Marshall]

(Original post by HighestKungFu)
That is an anachronism. You have to view him in the context of his own age.

After delcaring his self hatred of Indians, I don't think so.

[Carter78]

(Original post by tcblue)
I think so. He sent British troops into Tonypandy to quell the miners strike of 1911. This lead to the death of one Welshman. As daft as it may be, many people down here have not forgotten or forgiven, despite his efforts in WW2

You're right, that is certainly daft.

It's usually good practice among historians not to judge the statements of past figures - especially if they were an accurate depiction of that feeling of society at that time. - Just look at Lincoln's views about black people, which despite his support of abolition were thoroughly racist.

What's more important is to look at the deeds of the individual. Churchill made a cock-up of Gallipoli, used Gas weapons against Iraqis and made some brutal decisions during WW2 such as the carpet bombing of German cities. However at the same time he also led the country through its darkest times and was an inspirational war-time leader. His legacy (which in part is our ability to debate this topic freely) should be judged positively on the whole.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Hermóðr)
Vastly.

The almost unanimous praise that this war criminal is afforded by the British media makes me sick.

Sorry would you rather be a nazi right now then?

[anarchism101]

A foul, foul man that deserves just about every insult thrown at him.

The 'product of his time' argument is very much grasping at straws. For a start, lots of things are 'products of their time' and we still rightfully denounce them. Puritanism was a product of its time, and was a huge cause behind a very good thing - the end of absolute monarchy in Britain - but that doesn't mean we go around saying how great Puritanism was.

Also, Churchill was extreme for his time. Less so than he would be now, but extreme nonetheless. It wasn't anywhere near mainstream opinion in British politics to suggest that machine gunners be used against the General Strike, as Churchill did. Nor was it mainstream to admire Mussolini, to approve the Morgenthau plan (a proposal for post-war Europe that included the almost total destruction of all industry in Germany), to say you were ok with poison gassing Arabs because you thought they were inferior beings, wanting to 'exterminate' Gandhi, oppose female suffrage, etc.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by cl_steele)
Sorry would you rather be a nazi right now then?

So everyone who isn't a nazi is a hero?

If it wasn't for Stalin, Eastern Europe would have been Nazi-ruled, yet we rightly denounce Stalin as a mass-murdering tyrant. I'm not suggesting Churchill was on Stalin's level, but we see everywhere else that opposing the 'bad guys' doesn't necessarily make you the 'good guys' - why the ultra-selective treatment of Churchill?

[cl_steele]

(Original post by anarchism101)
So everyone who isn't a nazi is a hero?

If it wasn't for Stalin, Eastern Europe would have been Nazi-ruled, yet we rightly denounce Stalin as a mass-murdering tyrant. I'm not suggesting Churchill was on Stalin's level, but we see everywhere else that opposing the 'bad guys' doesn't necessarily make you the 'good guys' - why the ultra-selective treatment of Churchill?

because he led Britain through the most trying time in her history and we came out victorious?
yes we denounce stalin as a mass murdering tyrant because he was and churchill wasnt? he didnt send millions of people to the Gulags, have a one party state and crap over democracy did he? he helped free europe from fascism...

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by HighestKungFu)
That is an anachronism. You have to view him in the context of his own age.

Hitler was of the same age as Churchill. Was his racism justified/understandable too?

[MostUncivilised]

(Original post by Fusion)
x

Winston Churchill is not overrated, though I think he's often misunderstood and people do themselves a disservice if they don't read up on his life to try to understand his life and background.

Churchill wasn't always right, but his heart always *tried* to be in the right place. When the Gallipoli campaign went to pieces, he resigned as First Lord of the Admiralty and fought in the trenches. In the 1930s, when he could easily have obtained a ministry by modifying some of his positions and rhetoric, he instead spent more time on his writing and journalism.

In Churchill you can detect a consistent, sincere effort to determine the truth of a matter, to discern the morality of one option or another. His views evolved not out of expediency but as a result of his own intellectual and moral evolution. It's that sincerity, that sense of individuality and the degree to which he was comfortable being an outsider and in the minority, they were his most attractive personality traits.

In 1940, he was the right man for the job and everything he'd done in his life up to that point prepared him for it. He would have been a disastrous PM in 1920, but in 1940 the stars were in alignment to take advantage of his best personality traits, his experience, his background. Without the Anglo-American national background, there's a good chance he would not have been as astute in courting the United States, probably not as successful, nor as perceptive in understanding how critical its involvement would be to winning the war.

Without his linguistic talents, he wouldn't have been able to cut through the artifice of political communication and engage the British people (and the world) in the way that he did. Without his own personal history of setbacks, he wouldn't have been as well equipped to take the setbacks of the war on board and get on with the job.

In respect of the "what he said" aspect, I'm guessing you're referring to the comments about Ghandi, Islam and poison gas. Calling Ghandi a "half-naked fakir riding an elephant", if I recall correctly, was not that bad; that kind of casual racism was common at the time, and you can't remove someone from their historical context. Ghandi himself said far worse (he said that Africans are not the equal of Asians and Caucasians, that they are biologically inferior, and so on). Ghandi also made an enormous contribution to the cause of Indian independence, so I judge him on his achievements and the standards of the time (actually, if anyone is overrated, it's Ghandi; his contribution is exaggerated, and his philosophy is childish). On Islam, Churchill was spot on; I wish he could have been right about other religions too.

All you can do is judge him by the standards of his time, the contribution he made to the country, and his deft touch in holding the UK together in a war it came very close to losing. So I'm curious and slightly confused about your "overrated" comment. By who? In what way?

[gladders]

Fantastic post, MostUncivilised, bravo!

Much as you can disagree with Churchill's beliefs, he was at least a believer in principle over ambition.

[Hermóðr]

(Original post by anarchism101)
So everyone who isn't a nazi is a hero?

If it wasn't for Stalin, Eastern Europe would have been Nazi-ruled, yet we rightly denounce Stalin as a mass-murdering tyrant. I'm not suggesting Churchill was on Stalin's level, but we see everywhere else that opposing the 'bad guys' doesn't necessarily make you the 'good guys' - why the ultra-selective treatment of Churchill?

It's difficult to debate with one who possesses such an uber-simplistic, black-and-white mentality.

There have been countless genocides and atrocities committed throughout history, and virtually all peoples from each corner of the globe have been at least partly responsible for perpetrating them. The Holocaust™ just happens to be within living memory, and the anti-white media propagandists have been nurturing a guilt complex in the Germanic people for decades.

[Infinitescarcity!]

I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure he deserved praise. I thought it was the whole coalition that formulated a plan for war too? I'm unsure on the answer though.

[gladders]

(Original post by anarchism101)
So everyone who isn't a nazi is a hero?

If it wasn't for Stalin, Eastern Europe would have been Nazi-ruled, yet we rightly denounce Stalin as a mass-murdering tyrant. I'm not suggesting Churchill was on Stalin's level, but we see everywhere else that opposing the 'bad guys' doesn't necessarily make you the 'good guys' - why the ultra-selective treatment of Churchill?

I think that fact of the matter is that Churchill had every opportunity to take the easy path like his fellow politicians and come to an accommodation with Hitler. He could have argued for staying out of any future war and doing deals with Germany to destroy Communism.

He didn't: he lay the British Empire on the altar of European freedom. He inspired the country to fight on in the face of utter ruin, in spite of the obvious attempts by Hitler to bring about peace.

And you don't think that deserves praise?

Meanwhile, Stalin was the one who deliberately sought out a deal with Hitler. He conspired to break up Poland and devoured the Baltics, and was only stopped from destroying Finland by a miracle. He only ended up fighting Hitler because Hitler attacked first. And then at the end of the war Stalin used his military might to expand the Soviet Empire.

That's exactly opposite to what Churchill did.

[HighestKungFu]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Hitler was of the same age as Churchill. Was his racism justified/understandable too?

I didn't say it was justified I just said that you need to view his opinions in the context of his age. Would he have been considered a racist during his epoch? That is difficult to say since the world was not as interconnected as it is today and Churchill had grown up during an age of empire, conquest and eugenics. That is my point.