Churchill Opinion Piece in the Post

I happened to catch this op-ed piece in the Washington Post while waiting for my better half outside Target. The author states rather plainly that Churchill should have gone down in the history books alongside Hitler and Stalin as a mass murderer. In addition it characterizes Churchill as nothing more than a xenophobe and not just a product of the times.

Figured it's worth a read and a comment.

In Winston Churchill, Hollywood rewards a mass murderer

 

I wonder how they think of Che Guevara.

 

I've seen one that's IMO even better. The face is replaced by a skeleton and the words read "He's dead ... Get over it"

 

The media and movie studios glorify Churchill, however he should be held in the same regard as Hitler and Stalin in relation to mass murder.
I do not and will not hold Churchill as a hero to Britain or the West.

The world is happy to forgive Churchill though, however I sense only as the Axis lost; it'd be interesting if German troops touched ground on British soil. Even if the Allies won, I wonder whether he would be held in the same regard.

 

Churchill might not have been the best man in peace time but who else would have made the country Stand as one against Germany. If I Recall correctly Winston's attitude made FDR believe europe deserved to be saved.

 

I agree.

 

He should certainly not be held in the same regard as Hitler and Stalin. I am not saying he is not surrounded by controversy, but that comparison is futile.

 

OK, that's one opinion. Certainly he was a racist and a war-lover but his attitudes towards native tribes in British colonies and protectorates weren't much different from many upper-crust English people. He definitely wanted to keep India in the Empire even though most of his countrymen knew the time of Empire was over. However, he did more than any other man to save Europe from modern barbarism so I think I'll excuse him for his faults.

 

I have had this debate with my son - pinko, gender and diversity politics obsessed student that he is... (This is more than you need to know about the occupants of Schloss Sheldrake.) Unfortunately, the fruit of my loins is not alone of the snowflake generation in equating Churchill's imperialist attitudes (and the neglect of the Begal famine victims) with the proactive actions of messrs Hitler and Stalin.

It may be an age and maturity thing

 

Churchill was certainly a man of his times, Victorian England at its best and worst. Quite probably the indispensable man in wartime Great Britain, but that doesn't absolve of his mistakes in total, only mitigate them. Then again all actors were playing two games, first and foremost winning the war and secondly, wining the peace after the war and by wining I mean a victory that meets their own national goals irrespective of the desires of others goals

Churchill's second most important goal was preserving the Empire as it was when he was a child. The only problem was that his myopia was that it had been fatally wounded by the Great War and could not be saved. Being the man he was, Em[ire was his religion and doing what he thought might preserve that Empire.

Churchill was a great, but flawed man. His greatness far out shown his personal flaws.

 

I read that actually Winston had learned to drink diluted whisky in India and the cigar had been taped so he actually only had it in his mouth.