[Tom4784]

'Defending history'?

No one who wants to erase the history of Churchill and any parts of UK history that shows us in a bad light cares about defending history, they only care about turning it into a fiction in which we were the heroes and we did nothing wrong ever.

The real history is that Churchill was a repugnant beast and if he was the leader of any other country, we would automatically view him less favourably because we wouldn't have the hero worshipper brigade trying to retcon history so their fictitious version of who he was replaces the reality.

People who actually care about defending the history of this country accept the bad with the good, they don't underplay it to spare their own feelings.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

'Defending history'?

No one who wants to erase the history of Churchill and any parts of UK history that shows us in a bad light cares about defending history, they only care about turning it into a fiction in which we were the heroes and we did nothing wrong ever.

The real history is that Churchill was a repugnant beast and if he was the leader of any other country, we would automatically view him less favourably because we wouldn't have the hero worshipper brigade trying to retcon history so their fictitious version of who he was replaces the reality.

People who actually care about defending the history of this country accept the bad with the good, they don't underplay it to spare their own feelings.

No the conclusion
of WW2 in Europe was down to Churchill
America and Russia.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by arista

No the conclusion
of WW2 in Europe was down to Churchill
America and Russia.

Down to the UK, America & Russia.

You didn't say Churchill, Roosevelt & Stalin so let's not make out that Churchill alone stemmed the German tides. A prime minister does not command the troops, they do not fight on the front line, they don't come up with battle tactics. Let's not make out that the UK's success in WW2 was down to Churchill and not the sacrifices that people made to wrest victory from the Nazi's clutches.

It tires me so much that people equate WW2 = Churchill in order to deify him while downplaying the actual people who won the war.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Down to the UK, America & Russia.

You didn't say Churchill, Roosevelt & Stalin so let's not make out that Churchill alone stemmed the German tides. A prime minister does not command the troops, they do not fight on the front line, they don't come up with battle tactics. Let's not make out that the UK's success in WW2 was down to Churchill and not the sacrifices that people made to wrest victory from the Nazi's clutches.

It tires me so much that people equate WW2 = Churchill in order to deify him while downplaying the actual people who won the war.

Yes, your last paragraph I hold to absolutely.

I state again, IF he was really at the time seen as this great leader who, to the delusion of some, singlehandedly won the war for the UK.

How come, in the election he CALLED for and quickly after the war ended, to capitalise on his so called hero worship.
He saw his government crash to just over a third support of 36% crashing from 48% , losing 189 seats to go under 200 seats.
In those votes cast by the voters, including the servicemen and servicewomen of that time.

Perhaps the attempt to hero worship that one man and acclaim him as THE reason we came through the war, really stuck in the throats of those voters and families and all armed forces too, who knew full well it was their efforts with the efforts of other nations who pulled all through the war, not just this one seemingly pompous individual.