Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 5th, 2012, 06:38 PM   #1

Hostile1's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: Camp Lejeune, NC
Posts: 11
Churchill's legacy


A subject that I have only recently found an interest in but the more I dig the more Winston Churchill impress's me, am I mistaken in this admiration and if so what went wrong in his leadership that lead to his ouster?
Hostile1 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 5th, 2012, 06:55 PM   #2

Shinobu Sensui's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Harlingen, Texas
Posts: 183

I too am might impressed with Churchill, but part of me can't help but think he was also a bit of British Teddy Roosevelt as, he had some "bloodlust" about war, and seemed rather prejudice at times. Grant, as far as the latter goes, he was just a product of his time.
Shinobu Sensui is offline  
Old June 5th, 2012, 07:01 PM   #3

lemage's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 506

An excellent wartime leader, but an average peace time leader.
lemage is offline  
Old June 5th, 2012, 07:31 PM   #4

Hostile1's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: Camp Lejeune, NC
Posts: 11

From what I have found so far he really seemed to fit the mold for a war time leader to perfection but at what point can your peacetime polices become so bad that it overcomes the courage and steadfastness you display in a true crisis moment?
Hostile1 is offline  
Old June 5th, 2012, 07:35 PM   #5

lemage's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 506

It was generally a desire for reform after the war, and remember he was one of the people who led them into the war. But after his defeat in the first term he returned in the 50's. Then it was a series of strokes that defeated him not an election. So he retired.
lemage is offline  
Old June 6th, 2012, 09:17 AM   #6

Nemowork's Avatar
Teflon Soul
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: South of the barcodes
Posts: 7,880

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hostile1 View Post
A subject that I have only recently found an interest in but the more I dig the more Winston Churchill impress's me, am I mistaken in this admiration and if so what went wrong in his leadership that lead to his ouster?
Basically Churchill was seen as a barely housetrained pirate and adventurer, thats brilliant if you want somebody to lead you through a war but the Labour party were offering to build a new world with equality, better opportunities and an end to the expense of Empire. the British people wanted to turn their backs on war and rebuild their country not live in Churchills more Victorian idea of the world.

As mentioned above, the wanted Churchill for the war but Clement Attlee for the peace!
Nemowork is offline  
Old June 6th, 2012, 08:22 PM   #7

WeisSaul's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Amsterdam
Posts: 2,836

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemowork View Post
Basically Churchill was seen as a barely housetrained pirate and adventurer, thats brilliant if you want somebody to lead you through a war but the Labour party were offering to build a new world with equality, better opportunities and an end to the expense of Empire. the British people wanted to turn their backs on war and rebuild their country not live in Churchills more Victorian idea of the world.

As mentioned above, the wanted Churchill for the war but Clement Attlee for the peace!
Didn't Churchill get reelected from 1951-1955? Why was that?

Churchill believed in a strong Britain. I can think of many ways in which the UK could have maintained a global status to this very day to the point where it would remain a very important part of the politico-economic discussion.
WeisSaul is offline  
Old June 7th, 2012, 02:00 PM   #8
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 620

ANSWER ?-Churchill was re-elected in 1951 on a minority vote -more people voted for Labour and against Churchill in 1951 then voted for him but because of the vagaries of our first past the post electoral system Churchill scraped a 15 seat overall majority to take office.
Churchill NEVER, EVER, IN PEACETIME received a majoirty voting endorsement from the British people.
Because he was distrusted as a peacetime politician because of his poor record as a peacetime government minister.
For example, when Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1925 Tory govt he made rising unemployment worse by putting Great Britain back on the pre 1914 Gold Standard which artfiicially restored the Pound /U.S. Dollar exchange rate so that British goods became 10 per cent dearer in world markets-result? high unemployment.
Churchill alienated millions of British trade union members by sponsoring and passing the Trades Dispute Act of 1927 whch castrated British trade unions until 1946 when the new Labour govt repealed this law.
Churchil was also hated within his own Conservative Party between 1926-40 by succesive Tory Prime Ministers Baldwin and Chamberlain because of their Appeasemenmt policies towards Nazi Germany which Churchill-to his credit- opposed.
Blue collar workers like my late Dad -who spent most of the 1920's unemployed -loathed Churchill and my Dad used to spit on the ground whenever Churchill appeared on cinema newsreels.
My Dad was disgusted with me because I told him that I admired Churchill the magnificent war leader while rejecting Churchill the poor qualioty peacetime politician that Churchill was.
Churchill committed electoral hari-kiri in July 1945 by making an idiotic radio election broadcast on BBC radio where he claimed that his loyal former Coaltion govt ministers like Atlee and Bevan would introduce ''GESTAPO METHODS'' into Britain if elected-a slur bitterly resented by the largely left wing returning servicemen who had fought Nazism for five years and who were responsible for Labour's landslide 140 seat majority-and oh yes, two Communists were also elected to the British Parliament in 1945-such was the left wing political mood of the country in 1945.
However, the great irony of Churchill's asanine slurs about Labour and the Gestapo was in 1946, when Harry S. Truman vetoed the large American post -war loan that made eventually Labour's left wing policies of totally socialised medecine -THE NATIONAL HEATH SERVICE-posiible Churchill-in the USA to make his famous Fulton, Missouri ''Iron Curtain '' speech (he borrowed the phrase ''IRON Curtan'' from Joseph Goebbels-but never mind)-Churchil persuaded Truman to grant the loan as Atlee and the Labour Party were not dangerous Reds but democratic politicians who could be trusted.
But Churchill?-great war leader- but poor peacetime leader.
P.S. Churchill in later life mellowed towards trade unions , joining the British bricklayers union when they invited him to after it became known that he did amateur bricklaying in his own garden.
Toomtabard is offline  
Old June 7th, 2012, 02:30 PM   #9

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 6,778

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeisSaul View Post
Churchill believed in a strong Britain. I can think of many ways in which the UK could have maintained a global status to this very day to the point where it would remain a very important part of the politico-economic discussion.
Britain was totally bankrupted by the war, maintaining a global status post-war was beyond any British government whatever their political leaning.
redcoat is offline  
Old June 7th, 2012, 03:53 PM   #10

WeisSaul's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Amsterdam
Posts: 2,836

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
Britain was totally bankrupted by the war, maintaining a global status post-war was beyond any British government whatever their political leaning.
It was one thing to maintain control over a place Tanzania, Aden, or Malaysia. It would have been another thing entirely to maintain control over Zanzibar, Socotra, Singapore, Malta, or Gambia.

I still can't understand why Britain didn't sell any territories to the United States to deal with the whole being broke thing. Considering how much the US offered Denmark for Greenland, the US was clearly in an expansionist mood.
WeisSaul is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
churchill, legacy



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Churchill's Fall After WWII dimmit European History 50 May 2nd, 2013 03:50 PM
Jacksonian Democracy, its Legacy, and how that Legacy is Affected by Indian Removal DPNorman American History 29 April 7th, 2012 03:18 AM
'Churchill's Official Assassin' JohnnyH History Book Reviews 0 October 25th, 2009 11:28 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.