Thursday, April 19, 2012

The Problem with Churchill

New member of the blogosphere (and longtime Mad Monarchist member) AB Royalist takes a critical look at the much celebrated Prime Minister Winston Churchill and his role in the downfall of the grand old British Empire. If you can stand a point of view sure to be controversial have a look at The Problem with Churchill Part I and Part II. Is it perhaps partly due to the near deification of Churchill by the much reviled "neoconservative" clan that more seem to be looking at Sir Winston in a different light these days? Those familiar only with the inspiring speeches of the days of the Blitz might be surprised to find out some of the less known facts about Mr. Churchill. Was he a visionary leader or a chronic blunderer? Have a read and decide for yourselves. I can imagine there will be some strong reactions to this.

6 comments:

  1. I am hard to anger, and I knwo all men may be critisied. I don't expect much better from a Politician, and oftne long for the Middle Ages, when there were no electeds.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have not read the series yet, but I will say I have never been able to look at Churchill the same after learning of the way he traduced Leopold of Belgium.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Politicians are politicians, they all have their imperfections, but some are better than others. I've always thought Churchill to be one of the better ones. Actually, had he stayed in office beyond 1955, the British Empire might well have been preserved. He was personally opposed to decolonization, usually prefaced by the politically correct phrase "too rapid", and the empire lost comparatively little territory under his tenure, in comparison to Macmillan, Douglas-Home, and Wilson, who really presided over the dismemberment of the empire.

    The only territories lost by the crown under Churchill were Israel,Libya, Jordan (all of which were mandate territories that the UN insisted on receiving independence), plus Somaliland, which was returned to Italy, and of course, Ireland, Burma, and India. Even India originally remained under the crown after independence for a few years, so their was at least some attempt to preserve royal authority in the jewel of the empire. Decolonization under his successors was much more haphazard and carelessly planned.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I will state in no uncertain terms that I have never ever forgiven Churchill, FDR and Eisenhower for their betrayal at the end of World War II. They allowed half of Europe to be delivered to Stalin, and also approved Operation Keelhaul.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yalta was a sell out and Churchill must bear some responsibility, also, the Churchill government of 1951 accepted much of the socialist economics of Atlee, accelerating Britain`s economic decline. However, most of AB`s article was littered with historical inaccuracies, petulant in its tone, and rather immature.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The facts speak for themselves, I stand by my remarks. Churchill was a blunderer of colossal proportions, who destroyed the British Empire by his own actions, and did nothing to stop socialism when it really mattered as even you noted. I admit to being rankled in that article, however that's not surprising when you see how often the man as adulated over and over....

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...