As a consequence, this cyclical model of history, which never explained
anything terribly well, is adopted now as hard-nosed wisdom about the
world by policymakers and the general public alike. However, on closer
inspection, it turns out to be a childâs version of history: simplistic
and unhelpful.
I noted that the NYT review lists some of Churchill's sins according to Wheatcroft's book:
Churchillâs disastrous Gallipoli campaign in World War I, his fervor for maintaining Britainâs overseas empire, his misguided efforts during World War II to fight in Africa and the Mediterranean rather than invade France, his deadly lack of interest in the famine in Bengal, his support for carpet-bombing German cities and his cynical deals with Stalin, among others.
I wonder if Wheatcroft openly discusses the complicity of others in these failings. For instance, Gallipoli didn't happen just because Churchill alone thought the venture's success would knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war. Churchill was not the only one wanting to hold onto his country's empireâthat was likely the prevailing desire among the victors. France, for instance, desperately tried to re-gain control of Vietnam after WWII (which led to the US being heavily involved in supporting the French well before the disaster at Dien Bien Phu).
As for "his cynical deals with Stalin", Churchill was NOT playing from a strong hand. England had been dramatically reduced as a military and economic power. Stalin did not trust his Western allies and was consumed with protecting Russia with satellite buffer states. The massive and effective Red Army was not going to be removed from eastern Germany and eastern Europe through diplomatic negotiations or sweet talk. Churchill likely worked as hard as he could to get reasonable deals with Stalin and he was not helped by FDR's dramatic decline in health leading up to the Yalta Conference.
Here's an excerpt from the NYT review of Wheatcroft's bookâI strongly recommend y'all check out Andrew Roberts's comments in the Spectator piece (the link is found in the excerpt below):
If it feels as though Wheatcroft gives short shrift to the profound importance of Churchillâs courageous stand against Hitler, perhaps that is because he has written his book almost as an explicit rejoinder to Andrew Roberts, who celebrated that stand so expertly in his 2018 biography, âChurchill: Walking With Destiny.â
Small wonder that Roberts has already fired back in The Spectator, deriding Wheatcroftâs attack on Churchill as âcharacter assassinationâ and taking issue with various factual assertions. âNever in the field of Churchill revisionism have so many punches been thrown in so many pages with so few hitting home,â Roberts wrote. They are, of course, taking different views of the same man. Robertsâs book was described in these pages as the best single-volume biography of Churchill yet written. Wheatcroftâs could be the best single-volume indictment of Churchill yet written.
Churchill really screwed up with the Ironsides, too.
âHe led the British nobly and heroically during one of the great crises of history, and has misled them ever since, sustaining the country with beguiling illusions of greatness, of standing unique and alone, while preventing the British from coming to terms with their true place in the world,â Wheatcroft writes. âIf I make much of Churchillâs failures and follies,â he adds, âthatâs partly because others have made too little of them since his rise to heroic status.â
Churchill revisionism, of course, is almost as much of a cottage industry as Churchill hagiography. Books with titles like âChurchill: A Study in Failureâ have appeared regularly for more than a half-century, all the way through âThe Churchill Mythsâ last year. Nigel Hamilton just finished a three-volume series on Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicated partly to the notion that the American president had to stop Churchill from bungling the fight against Nazi Germany. (...)
âThis is not a hostile account,â Wheatcroft insists, eschewing the term ârevisionistâ in favor of âalternative.â But other than the one bright spot in 1940, it is a withering assessment of Churchillâs life, his efforts to airbrush his legacy and the so-called Churchill cult that emerged after his death.
I noted that the NYT review lists some of Churchill's sins according to Wheatcroft's book:
Churchillâs disastrous Gallipoli campaign in World War I, his fervor for maintaining Britainâs overseas empire, his misguided efforts during World War II to fight in Africa and the Mediterranean rather than invade France, his deadly lack of interest in the famine in Bengal, his support for carpet-bombing German cities and his cynical deals with Stalin, among others.
I wonder if Wheatcroft openly discusses the complicity of others in these failings. For instance, Gallipoli didn't happen just because Churchill alone thought the venture's success would knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war. Churchill was not the only one wanting to hold onto his country's empireâthat was likely the prevailing desire among the victors. France, for instance, desperately tried to re-gain control of Vietnam after WWII (which led to the US being heavily involved in supporting the French well before the disaster at Dien Bien Phu).
As for "his cynical deals with Stalin", Churchill was NOT playing from a strong hand. England had been dramatically reduced as a military and economic power. Stalin did not trust his Western allies and was consumed with protecting Russia with satellite buffer states. The massive and effective Red Army was not going to be removed from eastern Germany and eastern Europe through diplomatic negotiations or sweet talk. Churchill likely worked as hard as he could to get reasonable deals with Stalin and he was not helped by FDR's dramatic decline in health leading up to the Yalta Conference.
Here's an excerpt from the NYT review of Wheatcroft's bookâI strongly recommend y'all check out Andrew Roberts's comments in the Spectator piece (the link is found in the excerpt below):
If it feels as though Wheatcroft gives short shrift to the profound importance of Churchillâs courageous stand against Hitler, perhaps that is because he has written his book almost as an explicit rejoinder to Andrew Roberts, who celebrated that stand so
expertly in his 2018 biography, âChurchill: Walking With Destiny.â
Small wonder that Roberts has already fired back in The Spectator, deriding Wheatcroftâs attack on Churchill as âcharacter assassinationâ and taking issue with various factual assertions. âNever in the field of Churchill revisionism have so many punches been thrown in so many pages with so few hitting home,â Roberts wrote. They are, of course, taking different views of the same man. Robertsâs book was described in these pages as the best single-volume biography of Churchill yet written. Wheatcroftâs could be the best single-volume indictment of Churchill yet written.
I did notice that you did not mention (...). So I must have been correct on that.
Ok, two-trick pony.
âHe led the British nobly and heroically during one of the great crises of history, and has misled them ever since, sustaining the country with beguiling illusions of greatness, of standing unique and alone, while preventing the British from coming to terms with their true place in the world,â Wheatcroft writes. âIf I make much of Churchillâs failures and follies,â he adds, âthatâs partly because others have made too little of them since his rise to heroic status.â
Churchill revisionism, of course, is almost as much of a cottage industry as Churchill hagiography. Books with titles like âChurchill: A Study in Failureâ have appeared regularly for more than a half-century, all the way through âThe Churchill Mythsâ last year. Nigel Hamilton just finished a three-volume series on Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicated partly to the notion that the American president had to stop Churchill from bungling the fight against Nazi Germany. (...)
âThis is not a hostile account,â Wheatcroft insists, eschewing the term ârevisionistâ in favor of âalternative.â But other than the one bright spot in 1940, it is a withering assessment of Churchillâs life, his efforts to airbrush his legacy and the so-called Churchill cult that emerged after his death.
During a protest over the killing of George Floyd last year, demonstrators in London targeted the famed statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square. Underneath his name someone had spray-painted the words “was a racist.” To guard against further damage, the government temporarily boarded up the statue, drawing a rebuke from Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a self-styled Churchill acolyte, who declared that “we cannot now try to edit or censor our past.”
In his new book, “Churchill’s Shadow,” Geoffrey Wheatcroft takes a literary spray can to the iconic World War II leader, attempting metaphorically at least to recast the many memorials and books devoted to Sir Winston over the years. Churchill, in this telling, was not just a racist but a hypocrite, a dissembler, a narcissist, an opportunist, an imperialist, a drunk, a strategic bungler, a tax dodger, a neglectful father, a credit-hogging author, a terrible judge of character and, most of all, a masterful mythmaker. (...)
Say anything you want now that he is dead and gone. Doesn't change what he did to stop Hitler.
He was most certainly the right man at the right time.
I'm sure that you disagree with my opinion of Churchill.
Pretty sure you liked Chamberlain and think that he was the right man for the job of taking Hitler seriously.
I am also sure that you approve of Biden's ditching of the Churchill bust in the Oval Office.
During a protest over the killing of George Floyd last year, demonstrators in London targeted the famed statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square. Underneath his name someone had spray-painted the words âwas a racist.â To guard against further damage, the government temporarily boarded up the statue, drawing a rebuke from Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a self-styled Churchill acolyte, who declared that âwe cannot now try to edit or censor our past.â
In his new book, âChurchillâs Shadow,â Geoffrey Wheatcroft takes a literary spray can to the iconic World War II leader, attempting metaphorically at least to recast the many memorials and books devoted to Sir Winston over the years. Churchill, in this telling, was not just a racist but a hypocrite, a dissembler, a narcissist, an opportunist, an imperialist, a drunk, a strategic bungler, a tax dodger, a neglectful father, a credit-hogging author, a terrible judge of character and, most of all, a masterful mythmaker. (...)
Very clever indeed
