Forum menu
Of late, many people seem to be questioning the extent of propaganda, not only in the modern day, but in the history we've been taught.
So was Winston Churchill a white supremacist mass murderer, who advocated chemical weapons, concentration camps and used tanks on his own citizens, or a lovable drunk who socked it to the Nazis?
both
next!
Both.
Is this the bloke from "Darkest Hour"? Not seen it.
just don't ask him to plan any military campaigns in the med.
Trying to answer a question like this with a one word answer was the sort of trap that I would've though a seasoned politician like McDonald would not have fallen into.
Both
Don't forget he is a source of many quotes too.
Kimbers has it - he wasn't a popular politician in 1938/39 so WW2 was quite an iron out of the fire for his own personal legacy. life, and history, is nuanced and we shouldn't ask simplistic questions like hero/villain.
Was he ever photographed with Jimmy Savile?
How about "Significant Historical figure"?
People seem a bit caught up with rather black and white framing of people as "Good" or "Bad" through the lens of modern standards of conduct and ethics... the truth is that no person is "All good" or "All Bad" its shades of grey...
Being able to recognise that about anyone (living or dead) is probably quite a key skill for anyone in becoming a more balanced individual.
Trying to answer a question like this with a one word answer was the sort of trap that I would’ve though a seasoned politician like McDonald would not have fallen into.
+1
Lazy labels don't give anyone a good answer.
Here he is meeting Stalin who was responsible for millions dying in death campd, makes you think.
Is this the bloke from “Darkest Hour”? Not seen it.
Yes, he was very good in that. Good film, you should see it.
Jimmy Savile...
Eccentric childrens entertainer and charity fundraiser extraordinaire, loved by the nation and embraced by the political elite and royalty, or prolific paedophile engaging in organized abuse of children across the country, protected from prosecution by the same elite?
Perhaps this whole nuance thing isn't just historic; going by media coverage and HM Government policy, how would you rate the following:
Vladimir Putin; Hero or Villian?
Mohammed Bin Salman; Hero or Villian?
Kenneth Clarke; Hero or Villian?
Bashar Al Assad; Hero or Villian?
Jeremy Corbyn; Hero or Villian?
Boris Johnson; Hero or Villian?
Nicolas Maduro; Hero or Villian?
both like most great leaders.
thatcher is a prime example, as is herr hitler.
If Wikipedia is to be trusted his decision over Tonypandy doesn't seem too bad at all:
Churchill's role in the events at Tonypandy during the conflict left a persistent anger towards him in South Wales, that still persists today. The main point of contention was his decision to allow troops to be sent to Wales. Although this was an unusual move, and was seen by those in Wales as an over-reaction, his Tory opponents suggested that he should have acted with greater vigour.[6]:[p111] The troops acted more circumspectly and were commanded with more common sense than the police, whose role under Lionel Lindsay was, in the words of historian David Smith, "more like an army of occupation".[6]:[p111] The troops were also generally viewed with less hostility than the local and Metropolitan police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonypandy_riots#Criticism_of_Churchill
Both
Sometimes good people do bad things
Sometimes bad people do good things
It is fair to say that if WW2 hadn’t happened he would have been a relatively minor political character with a not very good reputation for impetuous decision making. But WW2 happened & what he did pretty much trumps most of the flaws in his character and the mistakes he made.
If Wikipedia is to be trusted his decision over Tonypandy doesn’t seem too bad at all:
TBF, that article says the Army conducted themselves better than the cops. It doesn't comment on the original decision to send them there in the first place. Put it this way, do you think if the strikers had been say; lawyers or doctors, that the army would be even been considered?
Don’t forget he is a source of many quotes too.
yup, my favourite Churchill quote is "one should never believe everything one reads on the internet"
makes you think.
Does it though?
I think this is half the problem a picture out of context with a single sentence doesn't really tell anyone without any prior knowledge anything, it simply serves to paint a simplistic (negative) picture, it should perhaps spur people on to do a bit of research for themselves.
We hear often how today we are a more conncted society with information galore at our fingertips but you still need ot go and look it up, if the interwebs is full of people (perhaps a bit disingenuously) using a picture to imply "a thousand words" and that's what people end up believeing then all that accumalated knowledge becomes almost worthless...
Yes Churchill met with Starlin, he had to be on some sort of diplomatic terms with him because the soviets were our war time allies, you know, when fighing the Nazis who also likes a death camp or two... It's never a s simple as all that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that.
A wilful disregard for details and context when looking back on historical events and figures is a cheap trick used by people with a personal agenda rather than a true desire to learn from history...
Does it though?
I got it drac.
Does it though?
I think this is half the problem a picture out of context with a single sentence doesn’t really tell anyone without any prior knowledge anything, it simply serves to paint a simplistic (negative) picture, it should perhaps spur people on to do a bit of research for themselves.
He was a truly disastrous Chancellor, but I don't know if that qualifies as villainous.
100% villain. My renewal quote was insane. Just because he looks innocent and nods a lot it doesn’t mean you can trust the bastard.
I too was going to post his atrocious time as chancellor, so IMO ..
Darkest villan, of the deeply dark variety.
Don't think he was too keen on women by all accounts either.
Awkward one isnt it.
Was everything he did a necessary evil and a means to an end?
Is it just another example of how crappy the human race is that we need people like this and that we would rather not know the truth?
Was what he did acceptable back then? It is easy for us to judge now looking back on events in history but hindsight is a wonderful things and it is easy to be judgemental and ave morals when you aren't facing obliteration from an enemy. Of course we also do so without knowing all the nitty-gritty details.
Look a recent US presidents, we have Obama who I liked and really stood by his morals and then we have Trump. Irritatingly it would appear to be the latter who has somehow managed to make progress with North Korea.
Lol @ funkmaster 😂
Both as far as I can see - much of the mythology surrounding him since WW2 seems to have been of his own invention, and people continue to swallow it hook, line and sinker. Read Alanbrookes war diaries for a more balanced view. Having said that I still view him as a great figure in British history, just not THE great figure. For me, he is too compromised for that.
Our local populist ERG Brexit headbanger Tory MP put a post on his FB about McDonnel's comments.
Essentially is was another example of the horrible traitorous nasty labour party - they'll even attack our greatest ever leader. Nothing is scared for these commies etc.
Very unpleasant populist rabble rousing.
Perhaps this whole nuance thing isn’t just historic; going by media coverage and HM Government policy, how would you rate the following:
Vladimir Putin; Hero or Villian?
Mohammed Bin Salman; Hero or Villian?
Kenneth Clarke; Hero or Villian?
Bashar Al Assad; Hero or Villian?
Jeremy Corbyn; Hero or Villian?
Boris Johnson; Hero or Villian?
Nicolas Maduro; Hero or Villian?
Are you bringing 9/11 back up again JHJ?
All of the main figures in history were flawed people and did some good things and some not so good things. If it were not for WW2 the Churchill wouldn't have been remembered at all he was such a forgetable and insignificant character, but clearly his WW2 achievements were just about the most important thing to have happened in the last century. The world would be very different now if it were not for him.
Even Mother Teresa is not squeaky clean.
Very unpleasant populist rabble rousing.
a kettle calling a pot black then.
Both.
To quote radio 4
A sinner is seldom a saint but a saint can run.
Also stop applying 21st century values to the past.
Things change you can't judge everything by the same yardstick.
(There are certain caveats to that before any one gets all picky)
Both and he he summerised it pretty well himself
“The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong.”
The worlds a conflicted place
There was a good comment piece in The Times by Daniel Finkelstein a few days ago on this subject prior to John McDonnell's statement but written in response to Green Party MSP Ross Greer saying he was a racist (can't post a link as it will be behind the paywall I assume). Finkelstein, who is hardly a rabid left winger, titled his article "Winston Churchill was a racist but still a great man" and explored the contradictory nature of Churchill's personality and, by extension, other "great people". Specifically Finkelstein acknowledges that when people "say that he was a white supremacist, they are right" as well as exploding the myth that Churchill's views were universal at the time (they weren't and indeed those on India were a source of division from more liberal Conservatives). However his conclusion, which to me seems valid, is that insisting that to be a "great man", means he must never have thought or done anything bad is misguided. Tbh I struggle to think of any leader in history who would survive the gaze of our relatively judgmental views untarnished.
So at what point did Hitler become a villian?
Being able to recognise that about anyone (living or dead) is probably quite a key skill for anyone in becoming a more balanced individual.
“The past is a foreign country, people do things differently there”
It’s a fun exercise for some people with rather too much time on their hands to sit behind a keyboard and indulge in revisionist practices, dredging up the past and attempting to re-write it to fit their own personal prejudices and conspiracy theories.
Vladimir Putin; Hero or Villian?
Depends on whether you’re Russian or not. To a great many Russians, mourning the day’s of the Soviet Empire, having a strong man in power who’s trying to recreate that empire is something to be proud of.
The fact that the man is perfectly happy to murder anyone who raises any questions about his autocratic, despotic rule, indeed has written into Russian law the edict that such people are now considered traitors to Mother Russia, and can be eradicated anywhere, at any time, by the Russian state, or agents thereof.
See recent events in Salisbury for an example.
Churchill was an out and out racist bastard, and no friend of ordinary mortals either, but it wasn't just brown and black people he despised but also the Australians (read Lord Moran's memoirs).
As for hero, his early history at least points to personal bravery. He was in amongst it in hand to hand combat with sharp pointy things with the Madhi, and his exploits in the Boer War weren't those of a shrinking violet either.
Being a nice guy wasn't going to be of much use in dealing with Hitler, so maybe he was simply the right man for the job at the right time, and we can't take that away from him.
However his conclusion, which to me seems valid, is that insisting that to be a “great man”, means he must never have thought or done anything bad is misguided
problem is once you declare someone 'great' you are abslving them of the bad things, no matter how horrific
So at what point did Hitler become a villian?
about September 1919 when he wrote to another DAP member about his views that Jews "must be removed"
How's that?
So at what point did Hitler become a villian?
Soon after he missed out on the last slice of plum cake.
Both. Often at the same time.
Thing is, you need your villains. Stalin was plain evil, but without him the war would have been very different. From top to bottom you need people who can do the wrong thing for the right reasons. Like, Secretary of Defence Macnamara was totally accepting that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes as he gave the order, as was General LeMay who was responsible for carrying it out (knowing you're committing a war crime and yet also believing that it's the right thing to do might just mark you out as a great man...)
And I'm not giving him a pass for the stuff that wasn't directly WW2 related, but you have to roll it all together.
So at what point did Hitler become a villian?
about September 1919 when he wrote to another DAP member about his views that Jews “must be removed”How’s that?
Sounds like reasonable justification to consider him a villian...
but if that's the case, why were key financiers in the USA and Great Britain aiding his efforts?
why were key financiers in the USA and Great Britain aiding his efforts?
And we're off.
but if that’s the case, why were key financiers in the USA and Great Britain aiding his efforts?
And we're off....The question you need to ask then is: At what point did X (person in the USA/UK that specifically saw what Hitler was doing and decided at that point that he/she would covertly divert funds to him to make sure the German Worker's Party was well financed) become a hero or villain.
Otherwise, it's just more of your well worn hyperbole, innit.