Sir Winston Churchill

[Ginger]

It's the fiftieth anniversary of Sir Winston Churchill's funeral. What would our lives today be like - what would the world today be like - if not for his fiery, unflagging resolve to stop Hitler at all costs?

[Cogidubnus]

Winston wasn't a saint...he was an old time Conservative, born in riches, who crossed the floor to the Liberals, then later back...to be fair his basic beliefs didn't shift that much, whilst those of the parties certainly did...

In truth he wasn't, in early days at least, much of a friend to the working classes, though he wasn't that much in touch with them until his South African adventures...he certainly didn't lack courage though...

He certainly experienced his share of both glory and f**k ups, though I think he was somewhat harshly treated over the Turkish expeditions...had what he actually wanted to do been carried out promptly and without prior grandstanding he might well have substantially shortened WWl...prevarication, however, carried the day and now the southern hemisphere tends to remember Gallipoli without the necessary background...

In 1939, at an age where most of us retire, he came into his own and became the very image of everything the British speaking peoples needed...a trucculent and gutsy bastard who wouldn't give in whatever...the rest is history...

I was eleven when he died and count myself fortunate to have shared breathing space with a man, who although diametrically opposite to much I believe in, contributed greatly to the survival of so much I adhere to...

All the best

Dave

[Rosella]

Well certainly Lord Halifax and other appeasers in the Cabinet were still droning away about negotiating with Hitler as late as the summer of 1940. If Halifax had been PM instead of Churchill (and that was a distinct possibility in the Spring of 1940 because he was a Chamberlain man) it would have been negotiations with Adolf, under unfavourable terms. An absolute disaster.

[Damaso Marte]

I've noticed that Americans tend to have a much higher opinion of Churchill than the British do. He doesn't seem all that popular over in the UK.

[Rosella]

When the BBC did polls a few years ago about the greatest Britons who had ever lived he was always in the top four or five, though. People have come out today in Britain to honour him.

With the British, party allegiances still come into it a bit, and I know at the time of his death, amidst all the tributes, one or two people said things like 'he was the greatest enemy British working people ever had', which is surprising, but of course he did his best to squash things like the General Strike in 1926 and brought troops out against miners in Wales, again in the 1920's. Sometimes memories like that last a long time.

[GUT]

We'd be talking German. Spechen zie Deutsche?

[kensei]

I am quite disconnected from the politics of the story, but my favorite quote of Churchill's is when a woman called him out and said, "You, sir, are drunk!"

Churchill replied, "And you, madam, are ugly, but I shall be sober in the morning."

They did give him a nice statue on the grounds of Parliament.

[Mayerling]

I suspect that in 1965 (and I was almost eleven that January) my feelings about Churchill were high ones, but my home life was dominated (as most citizens of the U.S. would have agreed) with the image of Franklin Roosevelt as a more fascinating and near-Godlike figure. Now I find this view not quite correct anymore. FDR too had flaws, but I tend to try to forgive them due to his upper class upbringing, and to the circumstances the political world of 1920-1945 forced on him. Nowadays I look at Churchill in much the same light. His flaws were also due to a special upbringing due to his class origins, and his politics were due to the stultifying political situations he found himself in in 1905 (when he crossed over to become a Liberal) and in 1923 (when he re-crossed to become a Tory again).

But for all his flaws he proved to be remarkably gifted in instilling his spirit into his nation and the world once he was in charge of the government. I can't imagine any of the alternative anti-Nazi leaders of 1939 (Eden, Attlee, Cripps, Amory, Bevan) as being in as good a position as Churchill to unite public opinion behind his belligerence. I know one thing - none of them ever left so many quotable speeches as did Churchill. He remains a remarkable figure to this day, and possibly Britain's greatest Prime Minister.

[Robert]

He wasn't a great peace time leader. He wasn't cut out for that. But he was a great wartime leader. You can have centuries of great peace time leaders, if you're lucky enough, but if you have a dud wartime leader when you're up against someone like Hitler, then it's curtains for ever.

I suppose I have to admit - though I feel like cutting off my typing finger - that Stalin too was a great wartime leader.

Roosevelt was a great wartime leader though the qualities required, for obvious reasons, were different.

Hitler was a bloody awful wartime leader. And Mussolini...well...um...er...

[barnflatwyngarde]

He was clearly the right type of man at a specific and unique moment in history, however his utter disdain for the working classes shone through brightly.

He was an an old patrician of an upper class system that he was determined to preserve at all costs.

In January 1919 a huge trade union rally took place in George Square, Glasgow. This was the latest act in a series of working class protests seeking to gain better working conditions. Taking part in the rally were men, women, children and babies in prams.

Churchill confined all local army soldiers to barracks in Maryhill, in case they sympathized with the workers , and sent a total of 10,000 troops, numerous machine guns, 6 tanks and a Howitzer, and many hundreds of police officers, to confront the workers.

One of the Governments regulations of engagement for the dispute stated:

“It is undesirable that firing should take place over the heads of rioters or that blank cartridges should be used.”

So, respect and gratitude for what he helped to achieve in WW2, but it is tempered with a clear understanding that he had no respect at all for working class men, women and children.

[Mayerling]

He wasn't a great peace time leader. He wasn't cut out for that. But he was a great wartime leader. You can have centuries of great peace time leaders, if you're lucky enough, but if you have a dud wartime leader when you're up against someone like Hitler, then it's curtains for ever.

I suppose I have to admit - though I feel like cutting off my typing finger - that Stalin too was a great wartime leader.

Roosevelt was a great wartime leader though the qualities required, for obvious reasons, were different.

Hitler was a bloody awful wartime leader. And Mussolini...well...um...er...

Actually you are right. He would have been a great peace time Prime Minister anywhere from 1741 to 1832. One can see him agreeing to what occurred at "Peterloo" in 1819 as good to keep public order. [I might add that he'd have been a better wartime leader during the American Revolution and the various wars with France - although his American mother might have made leadership in the 1770s impossible.] After 1832 he would not have been a good Tory Premier until the 1880s (as his father Lord Randolph might have been). Definitely out of step by 1918.

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

I think the bottom line is, regardless of whether the government is fascist, communist or democratic, if there's just been a war and the people who fought in that war think that they might be entitled to something, the message is "We don't need you any more, so push off." I don't know what it was like in the USA in 1919, but I noted 1932 and Macarthur.

[sdreid]

It's the fiftieth anniversary of Sir Winston Churchill's funeral. What would our lives today be like - what would the world today be like - if not for his fiery, unflagging resolve to stop Hitler at all costs?

I do remember Churchill's death and he was a popular figure here in the U.S. for his war leadership as well as his Iron Curtain Speech, which he delivered here.

He was after all, our first official Honorary United States Citizen, although Lafayette had been de facto considered as such before and he was later made official.

I had heard that Churchill wanted to use chemical weapons on Germany in retaliation for the V-2 attacks on England, for which they had absolutely no defense. Apparently some cooler heads talked him out of it and I wonder how he would have been viewed today if he'd taken that step.

[Rosella]

Churchill did indeed write to the military chiefs regarding the possible use of poison gas against the Ruhr and other German cities. This was in 1944 at around the time of the V2 rocket attacks.

There was a stockpile of chemical weapons built up in case the Germans used it in the coming D-day landings. However the military did not think it a good idea because of possible retaliatory action on the Germans' behalf.

Churchill, only half convinced but knowing there would have been the utmost protests by Anglican Church leaders, the Left, and others, let it go for the moment, and ultimately of course it was never used.

[Rosella]

Hi Jeff

I think the bottom line is, regardless of whether the government is fascist, communist or democratic, if there's just been a war and the people who fought in that war think that they might be entitled to something, the message is "We don't need you any more, so push off." I don't know what it was like in the USA in 1919, but I noted 1932 and Macarthur.

It wasn't really a question, IMHO, of 'we want something, so you're no use, push off!' in 1945.

The British people, at the end of a long war, decided that they wanted another Britain, a better Britain than had existed before the war. There had been huge shock during the war by many in the middle classes at being face to face with how people in working class areas and slums actually lived. The war lifted the lid on a lot of things that shouldn't have existed.

The Beveridge Report in the later war years inspired people, as did the discussions of a Welfare State. For the first time people who actually needed them would be able to receive basic necessities like hearing aids, spectacles, false teeth. There would be a better deal for British school children of ALL classes.

The British people knew that the Labour Party would be able to start delivering on a Welfare State, while the Conservatives would water it down. That was why Churchill and his party were rejected at the end of the war, no other reason.