41 Years ago today (24/1/1965) Winston Churchill dies

[Wim Libaers]

Of course, there are a few other things that are attributed to him...

"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes."

"I do not agree that a dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

Of course, in that period and context, those things may have been perfectly normal opinions.

[horsa]

Of course, in that period and context, those things may have been perfectly normal opinions.

You raise lots of interesting points there, Wim Libaers.

Indeed context is everything, particularly when we come to judge people . It’s so easy to take the moral high ground and judge history by projecting it backwards from our own modern day standpoint. What concerns me is
“do we still pronounce judgement on what is “right� and “wrong� even though the context is different – cannibalism, slavery, imperialism, the rights of women, equality, individual freedom etc “. For example the English Queen Elizabeth I is generally smiled on favourable by British history books yet, through Drake and others, she was arguably a state sponsor of terrorism against the Spanish – but that was the context of the Age.

My own view is that, at the end of the day, someone has to play God and say “These are the rules/moral values by which we judge things�. No doubt they are open to accusations of arrogance, imperialism and megalomania but so be it. Of course that’s easy for me to say, speaking from the safe comfort of the West. I know that it is the West, through its superior power and technology, who is likely to offer ( and does) the candidate for that.

As to Churchill’s attitudes to “lower grade races�, that was a commonly held belief amongst the English Victorians and ( to quote Hitler for a change ) “Churchill was just an old Victorian “.
Here I’m reminded of a very useful distinction that my university tutor introduced me to – the distinction between an excuse and an explanation. We cannot excuse Churchill for his racism but he is guilty of the lesser “crime� of something which is “wrong� but explainable given the context.

[TteFAboB]

I do not agree that a dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

Of course, in that period and context, those things may have been perfectly normal opinions.

Likewise, it would be the Aztecs that would conquer North America and say that line instead.

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by horsa

... The point is that by June 1940 the appeasement horse had already bolted. Churchill had regrettably arrived too late . By the summer of 1940 Britain was on the wrong end of a war that was effectively lost and with no real prospect of resistance or allies.

With HINDSIGHT we know that Hitler was not particularly serious about invading Britain and with HINDSIGHT we know he attacked Russia in 1941. In 1940 this was far from obvious.

The “we shall fight them on the beaches “ bluff of 1940 was a magnificent �go for broke gamble� that spectacularly and implausibly paid off - much to the applause and gratitude of Europe and the World , but in the real political world of 1940 what odds would you have given it in June 1940

So if you’d been Churchill you too would have fought on ? If Hilter had had the strategic sense to invade Britain in 1941 ( as most people considered he would ) and not been arrogantly mesmerised by thoughts of destroying the �ideologically decadent Soviet sub-humans� you could well have had a prostrate demilitarised and ethnically cleansed Britain of no use to anyone.

Good questions, Horsa.
It's the position that Churchill took in the summer of 1940 that made him the greatest Briton.
Although he was in my opinion militarily incompetent, he certainly was a political genius. He changed a hesistant and divided nation into a nation determined to fight it out, even till the bitter end if necessairy. He carried a heavy responsability and can be criticised for many wrong decisions, but he certainly stood on the right side of History. He inspired his own people as well as many in German-occupied Europe - including my parents - with his beautiful speeches. Even today I find them impressive, even emotionally moving, to listen to, especially those famous nine lines from his speech when Britain stood all alone after the Fall of France, in which he defined exactly what World War II was really about.

Originally Posted by Winston Churchill

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over.
I expect that 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 on this island or lose the war.
If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world 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 that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: 'this was their finest hour.'

Almost prophetic words, etched in History. This was the definition of a Moral War between the Good side and the Evil side.
Time has been unable to dilute anything from what he has said.

[horsa]

…etched in History. This was the definition of a Moral War between the Good side and the Evil side.
Time has been unable to dilute anything from what he has said

Abraham, this is so true. Churchill was nothing if not theatrical . In that uniquely desperate moment he spelt it out for the world what this struggle was all about and appealed for resistance from any quarter. Although he was galvanising a nation he was also addressing his other (real) audience – the United States. He was Horatio on the Bridge, Davy Crockett at the Alamo, Joan of Arc and (dare I say it ) the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke.

I still maintain that militarily he was living in cloud cuckoo land and simply got lucky – but Thank God.

[STEED]

Churchill the Bull Dog what a war leader thanks for not taking the BS from Mr Hitler well done Churchill

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by horsa

Abraham, this is so true. Churchill was nothing if not theatrical . In that uniquely desperate moment he spelt it out for the world what this struggle was all about and appealed for resistance from any quarter. Although he was galvanising a nation he was also addressing his other (real) audience – the United States. He was Horatio on the Bridge, Davy Crockett at the Alamo, Joan of Arc and (dare I say it ) the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke.

I still maintain that militarily he was living in cloud cuckoo land and simply got lucky – but Thank God.

I personally feel that Britains darkest hour was his greatest hour and as soon as things started to change for the better for Britain, his magic left him.
In 1940 he galvanized a nation, in 1943 he hardly survived strikes and a motion of no confidence in Parliament (if my memory serves me well). His last substantial influence on the grand strategy of World War II was at the Casablanca conference, where he (and the Chief of the Imperial Staff Alenbrook) convinced the US not to attack Western Europe in 1943 but to invade its "soft underbelly" - Italy. This turned out to be a strategic mistake in my view. The underbelly was not soft at all and provided perfect defensive opportunities and Western Europe was much more heavely defended in mid 1944 then in mid 1943.
But that is a different discussion and hardly diminishes the greatness of Churchill.

[horsa]

in 1943 he hardly survived strikes and a motion of no confidence in Parliament (if my memory serves me well).

I think the motion of no confidence was in 1941 after the fall of Crete. By 1943 he was politically secure at home ( post Alemein and success in the Mediterranean theatre) . You are right to say his influence waned as Britain's position improved but this was the inevitable consequence of working with a partner (America) who would rapidly outsrip her both economically and militarily.