World History

Last edited Fri Dec 5, 2025, 02:57 PM - Edit history (2)

...changed the world for the better, as did his courage.

His command of the English language, among major political figures, was and remains, without parallel.

He is, of course, one of the most important historical figures of the 20th century, a giant.

His political and strategic military stances, and indeed his moral views, are far more subject to criticism than those of his literary skill.

He was, above all, an imperialist, which certainly complicated his relationship with his American allies, and led to a great deal of suspicion of his motives with his American allies in the war.

I discussed Nigel Hamilton's considerations of the testy relationship between the Americans and the British, led by Churchill, in a trilogy, of his relationship with FDR here:

I have started reading Nigel Hamilton's trilogy on FDR as Commander in Chief during the Second World War

...and here:

An account of a very sick FDR struggling to get the United Nations in place as he faded rapidly into death.

Hamilton was born British, but has become a naturalized American citizen.

He contends that FDR had to manage Churchill to keep him from doing harm to the war effort, as well as to assert American repugnance of British colonialism, which colored all strategic considerations in the war. In particular, the United States wanted very much to limit, to the point almost of prevention, British participation in the Pacific War against Japan, since Americans did not want to die for British colonial interests in what was then Burma, Malaysia, and Singapore as well as India.

Churchill is therefore something of a historically ambiguous figure, an indispensable figure if only for his courageous stance in going it alone in what was clearly an extremely risky and widely perceived, then, as being doomed, fight against Hitler from 1940 until the German attack on the Soviet Union in June of 1941.

His pressure to support the "Germany First" strategy was probably wise, although the efforts of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, particularly in the case of the Anglophobe Admiral Earnest King, to still divert enough American resources to switch to an aggressive rather than defensive posture in the Pacific, was equally wise.

Hamilton makes the case that the US had to confront some level of British - for lack of a better term - cowardice in confronting Germany.

Churchill's "soft underbelly" thinking for the battle on the Italian peninsula was perhaps the worst decision in the war in which he had his way. The entire war in the Mediterranean Sea was Churchillian, and was viewed by many in the American military, not without justification, as a means to protect British colonial interests.

The "Legacy of Violence" book to which I referred in the OP, begins with an account of recent demonstrations that included spray painting the pedestal of a statue of Churchill, with "Churchill was a racist."

The spray painted graffiti is, unfortunately, represents a true statement. The "White Man's Burden" by which Britain justified the violence of colonialism was actually propaganda to whitewash outright theft, supported by murder.

Other posts I've made about the fascinating personality of Churchill are here:

The Mystery of Winston Churchill's Platypus Has Been Solved.

Based on the interesting premise of the book jacket, I asked my wife I could buy it, and did so.

The latter book, which I have only read partially, draws distinct contrasts with respect to colonialism between a former British colonial officer, George Orwell, and Winston Churchill, two of the most important Brits ever to have lived, save of course the likes of a few others, in particular, Issac Newton and William Shakespeare.

I personally live in fear of Orwell's vision. The "Telescreen" turns out to be the internet.