[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I have no idea where you get your history from Kizzy, I just know that if you do believe in the concept of "good guys and bad guys" - or believe that a historical figure (e.g. Churchill) can't have contributed positive things on the grounds that they had other character flaws, then I don't agree with your view of history. So no, it's not an attempt to shut you down, it's an attempt to illustrate my belief that history (and people, past and present) are nuanced and complicated and that attempts to look at it in a black-and-white manner are misguided. So I suppose, then, yes, you have missed the point.

Also, yes I was referring to lend-lease, which I am aware was in the interests of the US, but Churchill was instrumental in securing it and in negotiating the ways in which it would be beneficial. Like I said - it's possible that the same would have come about without him, it's also possible that it wouldn't have, and it's possible that without his input it would have taken longer to secure and therefore have been too late. WW2 wasn't clear cut at any point and a delay could certainly have affected the outcome. Obviously, no one can say for sure... but if you could go back in time and remove him, would you be willing to risk it?

Is my history different from yours... Oh yours must be right then eh?
I don't, you 'suggested' I did.

I haven't suggested history isn't nuanced in any way have I? moreover I have pointed out the use of people from differing spheres of politics were allied at times to facilitate an end to war, that is not to say he was personally ideal as a peacetime PM due to his personal ethics in particular.

It is not wrong to suggest that this wartime effort overshadows the shadows of the man...It would be misguided not to acknowledge those so no I don't believe I missed the point as I raised that point initially didn't I?

Churchill asked Roosevelt to gift things initially, that's some negotiating skill, no I wouldn't remove him I haven't proffered that here. All I have done is give my opinion that the modern view of the man can be a little rose tinted in relation to his personal ideals and counter the opinion that colonialism was an accepted social norm in post industrial Britain, therefore he can be vindicated as a world leader expressing that attitudinal mindset.