[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

to suggest that he may have been in any way less than golden is met with cries of derision due to his inflated status

Where, exactly, do you imagine this to be happening? It certainly hadn't happened in this thread, nor would it happen when discussing the history of WW2 in an academic setting... Maybe in the mainstream media? Though I can't imagine he's mentioned much in this day and age. Social media, then? I can't picture many historical discussions of Churchill on there either .

Gosh darnit, IIRC even Doctor Who, which has on a few occasions depicted Churchills achievements in WW2, has featured scenes of the Doctor arguing with him / telling him off for some of his views.

Honestly? I don't think that these "cries of derision if he's painting d as less than golden" actually happen, other than in the imaginations of those who want to be black-and-white in the other direction. Most of the discussion I've seen - both here and in general - is quite accepting of the nuanced facts; that people with some distasteful opinions and behaviours can nonetheless still do great things, and likewise, people who are generally fair and morally upstanding are capable of doing bad things.

The unfortunate and complicated truth is that "good and evil" just do not exist. He had some abhorrent beliefs. Yet he had many great achievements. He WAS instrumental in turning the tide of the war. He can be applauded for his achievements whilst still criticising other aspects of his politics. I feel like that's something you struggle with on general, Kizzy... You do maybe have a tendency to make politics (both current and historical) into a "good guys versus bad guys" thing, when the reality is always murky.