tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post5912896522968783163..comments2024-03-22T11:55:50.335+13:00Comments on Not PC: QotD: Summing up ChurchillPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-59922558349063431252018-02-24T20:31:02.211+13:002018-02-24T20:31:02.211+13:00If you find the need to pull down western myth her...If you find the need to pull down western myth heroes, you find yourself in the failed lineage of socialist experimental thinkers: Rousseau, Marx, Derrida, Satre, Foucault. Why won't socialism conquor the west? Why won't capitalism fail? <br /><br />Churchill was a flawed man, and that is his redemption. That is why he is lauded. I think the depression angle emphasized is a distraction. In his many books he so obviously has a bubbling humour, a humanity. It seems that his doing and his words will endure beyond re-interpretation of the ideologues.powderburnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470856395558453160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-23139825710945966372018-02-20T21:08:09.328+13:002018-02-20T21:08:09.328+13:00Ahh lovely counterfactual debates. If there was no...Ahh lovely counterfactual debates. If there was no North African campaign then Rommel could well have seized the Caucasus oilfields and freed more troops to attack Moscow and St Petersburg during Barbarossa. If the Balkans had not bogged down Mussolini and brought in German troops then Barbarossa would have launched earlier and possibly taken Moscow before winter came. An Italian campaign could have cut into central Europe and saved more people from Soviet domination. History is what it was. If Churchill had not been the personality he was then likely the British would have negotiated a peace and left the Nazis free to concentrate on the East. That the strategies did not play out perfectly does not mean they were not worth trying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-80649639846193121802018-02-19T17:53:54.677+13:002018-02-19T17:53:54.677+13:00The writer refers, in the main, to Churchill's...The writer refers, in the main, to Churchill's ridiculous and single-minded obsession throughout the war with the so-called "soft underbelly of Europe" -- strategically unimportant goals that would only be hard won, everywhere from Italy to Turkey to the Balkans, to Vienna, to North Africa, to Norway -- in pursuit of which resources and energy were drained from the most important strategic goals. <br />Churchill's 'peripheral strategy' was a stategic disaster.<br /><br />You overlook that Churchill hunself had been around long before 1940, so should be judged by more than just the few months of the Battle of Britain. So it is certainly true that the skids were well under the Empire before 1940 -- partly due to rising nationalism, to the lack of any unifying 'principle of Commonwealth,' and partly because Britain was already almost bankrupt before the war began. Churchill played a role (small or large) in all of those. And yet he could still maintain, during the war, that holding together the empire was his primary war aim.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-7430140155596882502018-02-19T17:45:04.663+13:002018-02-19T17:45:04.663+13:00There's nothing here about "tearing down ...There's nothing here about "tearing down heroes with hindsight," simply a clear-eyed view of a major public figure of whom people know more from the mythology of film than they do from history.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-79403769849129800162018-02-19T13:30:57.370+13:002018-02-19T13:30:57.370+13:00The urge to tear down our heroes with hindsight se...The urge to tear down our heroes with hindsight seems to be part of the cultural relativism that is the scourge of Western society today. We have forgotten what heroes are - they are not perfect human beings but rather the often highly flawed individuals who step up when they are most needed. Churchill was the man we needed to lead the Western resistance to Nazism. Chamberlain wasn't up to the job and Hallifax would have delayed the inevitable, perhaps building up Allied strength but also risking the Nazis attaining a position of invincibility. Kiwiwithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10507667837257013301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-61466043073955940372018-02-19T12:39:50.899+13:002018-02-19T12:39:50.899+13:00I would be interested to know what the writer is r...I would be interested to know what the writer is referring to when he talks about "that victory came later and a higher cost"? If he is talking about the deferment of the invasion of Europe until 1944,then this was pushed by Allenbrooke, who was Churchill's main military advisor. There is a strong argument that the necessary pre-conditions for an invasion in 1943 didn't exist. <br />The campaign for Tunisia didn't end until May, so there was a lack of time for planning. <br />No unified command structure was in place, allied air superiority over the channel and northern France hadn't been achieved. <br />The campaign against the German transportation hubs hadn't been undertaken.<br /><br />One could argue that the skids were under the Empire well before 1940 when Churchill became PM.<br />Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15046915662193953926noreply@blogger.com