Winston S. Churchill: The Second World War

[SFG75]

I've always heard about this impressive series and have always wanted to read through it. I've only made a small dent in the first book, The gathering storm, but I really have enjoyed it. The years preceding the war has always been of interest to me.

One of the more interesting quotes:

On Versailles;"This is not peace, it's an armistace for twenty years."-Field Marshal Foch

 

[Hedwig]

That sounds interesting, thanks!

 

[sparkchaser]

I need to read this.

 

[TheManofThought]

You know, Churchhill wasn't as good of a man as they proclaim. He helped cause alot of hardship and suffering that came upon the Jews. And Britain, has alot of blood on here hands. Alot of stuff you can find just by surfing history. Wish you the best in your studies.

 

[sparkchaser]

Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[SFG75]

I suppose by "blood" the previous commentator is speaking of the history of colonization. While not entirely wrong, it also begs mentioning as Niall Ferguson does, that colonization brought many benefits-the roads system, infrastructure, and educated classes necessary for some nations to be able to get off the ground.....besides those that went the way of internal civil war and strife and pissed it all away. Could the U.S. and Europe have done more for the Jews? We could ask that today-are doing enough for the thousands slaughtered in Syria? Have we done enough for those equally suffering in some parts of Africa? Where is the line where you step in for the good of mankind and where do you not tie yourself down in a Lilliputian manner by getting involved in every part of the globe?

It isn't the critic who counts.........

 

[Meadow337]

Where is the line where you step in for the good of mankind and where do you not tie yourself down in a Lilliputian manner by getting involved in every part of the globe?

I think that question would be better appreciated if it came from a nation that wasn't entirely self serving in where it chose to get involved. Unfortunately I don't think such a nation exists therefore certain conflicts will continue to be ignored because there is no vested interest in seeing their resolution even if periodically there is some hand wringing and wailing over the 'atrocities'.

 

[pontalba]

I think that question would be better appreciated if it came from a nation that wasn't entirely self serving in where it chose to get involved. Unfortunately I don't think such a nation exists therefore certain conflicts will continue to be ignored because there is no vested interest in seeing their resolution even if periodically there is some hand wringing and wailing over the 'atrocities'.

Yes, what a shame we supported Britain in WWII, that FDR sent supplies even before the US entered the war. And equally terrible was the Marshall Plan that dug Europe out of the devastation of the aftermath. And our continued opposition to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Damn shame that.

 

[Meadow337]

huh?

 

[pontalba]

huh?

If I am not mistaken, your post above intimated the US is "I think that question would be better appreciated if it came from a nation that wasn't entirely self serving in where it chose to get involved.".

You may not appreciate what was done then, and I suspect even some recipients of same don't, but, self serving those acts were not.

 

[SFG75]

Pontalba's point cannot be stressed enough. Pacifists in both countries almost lost Europe to Hitler. the Marshall plan was not widely supported and it was very controversial. Why send money to Greece? Why prop up a bombed out Italy? The theory behind the aid held true as the Marxist movements were alive, but didn't end up calling the show in those countries. Meadow, would you maintain that the Soviets or Cubans were acting altruistically in sending troops and supplies to Angola and other nations near your neck of the savannah? Western values are not evil. If anything, they have been cultural lifesavers in the face of fascism, communism, and dictatorships of various stripes. Yes, we supported Trujillo, Pinochet, Diem, and others of questionable ilk. But as LBJ once said about an unsavory ally: "He may be a son of a #$%#, but he's our son of a #$%#"

 

[sparkchaser]

 

[Meadow337]

I think I made the observation that no nation has interfered in the course of another nation altruistically because it was the right thing to do. It's always either to support a particular ideology or in pursuit of natural resources hence many conflicts continue unabated because no one has a vested interest in stopping them.

 

[soonerthebetter]

You know, Churchhill wasn't as good of a man as they proclaim. He helped cause alot of hardship and suffering that came upon the Jews. And Britain, has alot of blood on here hands. Alot of stuff you can find just by surfing history. Wish you the best in your studies.

I don't quite get this. Churchill was the first world leader to support a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and helped bring about the Balfour Declaration, which committed Britain to this idea, even though it was in not it its own economic best interests. Perhaps he didn't do enough to help Jews escape from Nazi-held Europe, but then again, neither did any other country. Churchill had many, many faults--imperialism being one of his worst--but considering how rampant antisemitism was in Europe (and in Britain) back then, he was a much better "friend" to the Jews that most.

 

[JGL]

I don't quite get this. Churchill was the first world leader to support a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and helped bring about the Balfour Declaration, which committed Britain to this idea, even though it was in not it its own economic best interests. Perhaps he didn't do enough to help Jews escape from Nazi-held Europe, but then again, neither did any other country. Churchill had many, many faults--imperialism being one of his worst--but considering how rampant antisemitism was in Europe (and in Britain) back then, he was a much better "friend" to the Jews that most.

I would say that like most politicans, or anyone in a position of leadership, his actions can be catogorized in a variety of ways. For instance, Jews aside, he was had some responsibility for the British brutality towards Ireland during the Irish War of Indepedence. At various other points he also advocated letting Ghandi die (when he went on Hunger Strike) and tear gassing the Kurds in Iraq (long before Saddam actually gassed them).

That said, you'd be hard pressed to find a historical figure I respect more. Talk about a man who had failed at almost everything and just kept slugging forward. Between Galipoli and his return of England to the Gold Standard he had almost every reason to retire from politicsand live off his wealth. Instead, he kept slugging forward and wound up leading his country through one of the bleakest patches in its history.

 

[canuck]

It's surprising to hear the negatives about Winston Churchill when most of what I knew of the man was how much people relied on him during WWII - they seemed to feel as long as Winnie was there encouraging them everything would be o.k. I can remember the family listening to the radio when Mr. Churchill was due to speak - he was like a lifeline - I was just a youngster at the time but knew that I was required to be really quiet during the broadcast. I guess all of history's great leaders had lots of faults along with their strengths.

 

[SFG75]

Hmmm, so there are world leaders who are perfect and who are not creatures of their time. Amazing how he fell sooooooo short. The same kind of opprobrium is more deserving of the 1920s and '30s labour party.