Winston Churchill- what do you reckon?

Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
For me churchill remains a ruthless and maniac,british could and should praise him,after all he preserved their culture and prevented them from hitler and other people who surely were hostile to them.
 
Jun 2018
18
Tromso, norway
For me churchill remains a ruthless and maniac,british could and should praise him,after all he preserved their culture and prevented them from hitler and other people who surely were hostile to them.
Churchill didn't save Europe from Hitler. It was Stalin who defeated Hitler on the Eastern front, or at least made the biggest sacrifices. However, even if Churchill didn't save us from Hitler, it could be argued that he saved us from Stalin. Because without a democratic base in Europe, Stalin's Red Army would have overrun the whole continent at the end of the war. And would he have left voluntarily? I doubt it.
 
Nov 2008
1,402
England
For me churchill remains a ruthless and maniac,british could and should praise him,after all he preserved their culture and prevented them from hitler and other people who surely were hostile to them.
Churchill was certainly not a maniac. He could, though, be ruthless when he believed it was necessary. All great rulers throughout history have been ruthless at times during their careers, and that applies to despots as well as democrats.
 
Nov 2008
1,402
England
Churchill didn't save Europe from Hitler. It was Stalin who defeated Hitler on the Eastern front, or at least made the biggest sacrifices. However, even if Churchill didn't save us from Hitler, it could be argued that he saved us from Stalin. Because without a democratic base in Europe, Stalin's Red Army would have overrun the whole continent at the end of the war. And would he have left voluntarily? I doubt it.
All the allies contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany. Russia could not have done it on its own. It`s possible, however, that the UK and USA together could have defeated the Nazis without the help of the Soviet Union. Difficult, yes, but possible.
 

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,800
USA
Have you seem that wonderful new movie about Churchill? I think they pinned down some of his contradictions
1. He was utterly and totally ruthless (Indian Famine, Dresden, Irish home rule, Gallipoli etc etc, take your pick)
2. He was a manic depressive alcoholic.
3. He was not evil, like Stalin & Hitler, but quite funny and sensible
4. He was just what Britain needed to match Hitler & Stalin.

I mean, in peacetime, Churchill would be a freak, but faced with such horrible opposition, there was a desparate need for his variety of man. Wallace made a point in evolution stating that in times of change or transition, each variety represents a strength of the species, a new possibility to adapt. I think Churchill illustrates this quite clearly.

Hi friend. Churchill, Stalin and FDR were allies and are not comparable to Hitler. At a point in their history both The UK and USSR worked out a deal with the Reich..but in the end they sided with the allies. Even to this day the USA maintains alliances with countries that promote inequality like Israel and Saudi Arabia. The USA also has worked with Iran and recently North Korea. Now let it be said though the UK and USSR worked out deals, controversial deals with the Reich. But in the end the UK and USSR helped liberate the world from the Reich.

Its an alliance that went down in history. In the end it was Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo/Koiso Vs Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt.


For those itt defending Churchill, please also remember the greatness of the USSR.
 
Last edited:

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,481
Londinium
Churchill didn't save Europe from Hitler. It was Stalin who defeated Hitler on the Eastern front, or at least made the biggest sacrifices. However, even if Churchill didn't save us from Hitler, it could be argued that he saved us from Stalin. Because without a democratic base in Europe, Stalin's Red Army would have overrun the whole continent at the end of the war. And would he have left voluntarily? I doubt it.
While the “Stalin saved Europe from Fascism” line is often repeated it’s worth providing the context prior to the Soviets entering the war. At this point, they were in a formal pact with the Nazi’s and, in 1939 at the outbreak of WW2, invaded Poland alongside their Nazi partners.

From the invasion of Poland to the fall of Berlin, it was only the western allies, specifically the British and Commonwealth, which resisted the Nazis. The US public opinion was split, and needed some serious PR to get them on side (Pearl Harbour overrode any PR efforts and ensure the US would finally join the war against Fascism).

Stalin and his regime only fought the Nazis after they invaded their territory, prior to this their aforementioned pact held strong, and allowed both sides to prosper by carving up Poland/Baltics and securing their border. This security on Hitler’s eastern flank allowed the Nazis to invade and conquer western Europe.

From this pact, the “brave” Soviets actions allowed for the Nazi conquest of Europe – the trope of ‘they saved Europe’ is an after-thought to save face by the USSR and their supporters, and demonstrates an ignorance of history by selecting the events after the Nazi invasion of the USSR, and ignoring key role played by the Soviets in the Nazi invasion of Europe.
 
Aug 2012
1,554
Churchill was certainly not a maniac. He could, though, be ruthless when he believed it was necessary. All great rulers throughout history have been ruthless at times during their careers, and that applies to despots as well as democrats.
"Maniac" may be too strong a word, but he was certainly incredibly rash and often short-sighted.


Let's say, for example, he went with his impulse to have Gandhi trampled to death by elephants, what do you think would have come from that? And is that a reasonable thing to desire in response to non-violent resistance? Surely a more balanced individual would reflect upon their own behaviour? But, as with in Ireland, his concepts of governance seemed to linger on petty acts of vengeance and spite.


I would be wary to blame this on his well documented mental issues, or even his drinking, however. It was most likely a simple lack of adaptability on his part, he was living in a different time with different values to the age he found himself in.
 

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,481
Londinium
I would be wary to blame this on his well documented mental issues, or even his drinking, however. It was most likely a simple lack of adaptability on his part, he was living in a different time with different values to the age he found himself in.
This is something I’ve pointed out time and time again in this thread.

Furthermore, Churchill was extremely mild in his reactionary desires compared to many, if not all other, leaders of his time (not mentioning any names here!).
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,644
San Antonio, Tx
We are talking here about a bunch of idealistic young Indians in the late 1920s or early 1930s, desiring keenly to retaliate against the oppressive rule of the British Empire. They saw the British police and civil officials as brutal persons who arranged to shoot hundreds of innocents in the Jallianwala Baag massacre or cause the death of elderly leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai leading peaceful processions by raining blows of staves on the ribs of the old man. The sole aim, wrong or right, of these youngsters was to kill the British responsible for these acts. In their fervent idealism, they appear to have been attracted to the socialist philosophy of equality and brotherhood of all, which they obviously dreamt for , in their vision of an independent India.
I am positive they never even heard of the repression being carried out by Stalin in the so called worker's paradise 5000 miles away from the Punjab.
Not even the native Russians of the Soviet Union realised what horrors were going on believing that Stalin the ' great leader ' did not know about these things. The sophisticated Westerners like Sidney and Beatrice Webb or George Bernard Shaw were enchanted with the Soviet Union. And you are pointing fingers at the youngsters, who were eventually hanged or transported to the Andamans for life , for not knowing the truth about Soviet Union !!!
In fairness, and in support of your position, I was thinking of John Reed’s book Ten Days That Shook the World in which he wrote, “I have seen the future and it works”. Reed was wrong, but he wasn’t the only one.
 

rvsakhadeo

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
9,215
India
In fairness, and in support of your position, I was thinking of John Reed’s book Ten Days That Shook the World in which he wrote, “I have seen the future and it works”. Reed was wrong, but he wasn’t the only one.
Thanks for your. support ! All the best !