You’ve managed to pack in four falsehoods in a pretty small number of words.
Firstly, there’s always been people highly critical of Churchill, if anything the valorisation of one part of his long career over is a relatively recent thing. By ‘modern historians’ you at best mean a pretty small sub set of historians and even then the number …
You’ve managed to pack in four falsehoods in a pretty small number of words.
Firstly, there’s always been people highly critical of Churchill, if anything the valorisation of one part of his long career over is a relatively recent thing. By ‘modern historians’ you at best mean a pretty small sub set of historians and even then the number of those who’d get even vaguely close to ‘histories greatest monsters’ is minuscule. Churchill did some appalling things, leading Britain during WW2 shouldn’t mean those things are erased. Good luck finding any historian who said the Blitz as ‘redeemed Hitler’. The one thing the world will never be short of is left over straw.
You might want to remember that the first thing Brits did after the war was boot Churchill out of office in a landslide.
For starters it was the British people who stood alone against Hitler not merely Churchill.
At no point did I or indeed do I think any credible historian play down Churchill’s leadership, but it’s truly bizarre to think that should make everything else he did go away or excuse any other appalling things he did, which he has always been criticised for.
I see you’re not even going to try and defend the ridiculous idea that ‘modern historians’ see him as ‘histories greatest monster’.
If you want to see things in childishly simplistic terms I guess that’s your business, but serious should and will look to give account to all aspects of someone’s life and present a nuanced picture.
So we’ve moved on from ‘Modern Historians’ to debate between internet randoms, interesting backtracking. This may be shocking to learn, but I don’t really care what internet randoms think of Churchill.
No body should be ‘dog piled’ but with any particular circumstance it would depend on what either side arguing. What you seem to be presenting is a fight between two unuanced and simplistic grade school level portrayals of of Churchill’s life. The phrase bald men fight over a comb comes to mind.
It’s seems bizarre to me that people want to get outraged that others won’t accept a biography of Churchill that’s basically a hagiography, when at the time most people had a far more mature view of Churchill’s achievements and faults.
Maybe go back and read your original comment and you’ll see it was simply untrue in multiple ways and just stop...
You’ve managed to pack in four falsehoods in a pretty small number of words.
Firstly, there’s always been people highly critical of Churchill, if anything the valorisation of one part of his long career over is a relatively recent thing. By ‘modern historians’ you at best mean a pretty small sub set of historians and even then the number of those who’d get even vaguely close to ‘histories greatest monsters’ is minuscule. Churchill did some appalling things, leading Britain during WW2 shouldn’t mean those things are erased. Good luck finding any historian who said the Blitz as ‘redeemed Hitler’. The one thing the world will never be short of is left over straw.
You might want to remember that the first thing Brits did after the war was boot Churchill out of office in a landslide.
More left over straw I see.
For starters it was the British people who stood alone against Hitler not merely Churchill.
At no point did I or indeed do I think any credible historian play down Churchill’s leadership, but it’s truly bizarre to think that should make everything else he did go away or excuse any other appalling things he did, which he has always been criticised for.
I see you’re not even going to try and defend the ridiculous idea that ‘modern historians’ see him as ‘histories greatest monster’.
If you want to see things in childishly simplistic terms I guess that’s your business, but serious should and will look to give account to all aspects of someone’s life and present a nuanced picture.
So we’ve moved on from ‘Modern Historians’ to debate between internet randoms, interesting backtracking. This may be shocking to learn, but I don’t really care what internet randoms think of Churchill.
No body should be ‘dog piled’ but with any particular circumstance it would depend on what either side arguing. What you seem to be presenting is a fight between two unuanced and simplistic grade school level portrayals of of Churchill’s life. The phrase bald men fight over a comb comes to mind.
It’s seems bizarre to me that people want to get outraged that others won’t accept a biography of Churchill that’s basically a hagiography, when at the time most people had a far more mature view of Churchill’s achievements and faults.
Maybe go back and read your original comment and you’ll see it was simply untrue in multiple ways and just stop...