The real crime is that nothing has been done to improve Hull since...

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Churchill was a product of his time born and brought up in the later 19th century when the English/British ruled the largest empire of modern times. Yes Churchill was an imperialist - but most people were then! Churchill was also a man for his time certainly in 1940 when under his leadership - and as doubted by an earlier poster - Britain did actually stand alone against Nazi Germany keeping a bridgehead for the eventual liberation of continental Europe. Yes it was done mostly with US production and Russian blood but not in 1940. By 1945 he was 70 and Britain was changing, mostly - but not totally - for the better, and he was largely no longer relevant. However most people appreciated that without him in 1940/41 they would not have had the opportunity to vote and elect a socialist government. You cannot judge past events or people by the standards and sensitivities of today. Churchill had his weaknesses and had as many failures as he had successes - nut on balance he deserves to be considered as , at least one of, the greatest leaders this country has had.

Shameful attention seeking post.

Churchill was indeed a multi-faceted individual with some aspects largely very much less focused on since his elevation to national saviour status post perhaps 1945.And even then,it was a beautiful aspect of our country relative to many others,that he could be rightly lauded as a hero,but kicked out at an election when the war was over and the focus could just be on politics, without affecting his "national hero" status.

The Bengal famine is not something to be proud of nor was his treatment of the miners.And his military strategy re Gallipoli in world war 1 was a fiasco.Only 3 examples.

ps.blackgirl 3.He didn't send the POW's we captured back to please the Americans.It was an awful thing but a deal was cut,at Soviet insistence,that all the allies must return their respective nationals found in territory liberated by another ally to their "home country".We had very large numbers of POW's in territories liberated by the Soviet Union.If that deal hadn't been cut,a lot less than did would have made it back. Did you know quite a few never came back,disappeared at the end of the war into thin air,probably killed or sent to the Gulag and have never been accounted for,even today? Most of the people being handed back to the Soviet Union against their will weren't liberated POW's but Soviet nationals who had fought with the Nazis post 1941.That doesn't make it right but...Wonder if we would have agreed to any of our allies refusing to hand over any of our nationals who had fought with the Nazis (and very small numbers did).

As for anti-semitism in Britain in the 1930's,which the OP suggests we ignore in favour of still banging on about German anti-semitism in the 1930's, forgive me but there is perhaps a very slight difference between the support for it here and the near total support for the vilest form of it leading to the industrial slaughter of millions.And that ignores the many British people who took to the streets against Mosley's fascists here,hugely supported by the unions and left wingers.

Bear in mind,in the 1930's Churchill was an anti-appeaser.It was appeasers,who tended to contain in their ranks the anti-semites.

The main thing he's remembered for is the decision in 1940 not to cut a deal with the Nazis post-Dunkirk.If we had lost, he wouldn't be remembered well perhaps because we'd have all been indoctrinated to think of Hitler as a laudable figure(or indeed perhaps the opposite and he would have been a hero to the "underground resistance" and the general population.)

The outcome had appeasement triumphed in 1940/early 1941 would have been being in reality an indoctrinated client state of Hitler like Vichy France,though not at first under partial occupation. The Soviet Union likely would have fallen back way way further east in 1941 with the Nazis controlling even vaster swathes of its territory for decades,and The US unable to invade France due to lack of a "floating island" air and sea base in Northern/Western Europe.

So,lets get real.Do I agree with him politically including his rampant imperialism? No.Did he do some very bad things? Yes.Did he do some very good things? Yes.Did he do an amazingly great thing in being a superb people's war leader when it seriously counted? Yes

So,yes a need for balance and seeing beyond "national myth",but those calling for more balance (fair enough) all need to be as balanced and realistic overall as anyone else,particularly when stakes are very high and alternatives bad too and one decision or another has to be made (and,as in Bengal, he got it very wrong more than once during the war).

Edited by legaleagle (29 Jan 2015 10.08pm)

Agreed re his kids,especially Randolph,though remember Winston's own highly dysfunctional upbringing. His father died of VD when he was quite young and his mother was a society belle and dysfunctional parenting was quite the thing in Winston's class and generation.

And a prick is of course not a one sided thing only.You have to think of it in the round.

Edited by legaleagle (29 Jan 2015 9.44pm)

You are a prick!

Everyone is entitled to my opinions