Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipdigit
Churchill was a human, prone to mistakes and he did make his share of them. But I feel his strength of character defined the British nation as a whole during the difficult times of 1940 and 1941.
I'll agree with Greece and Norway.
Spitefullness? In light of what he had already seen the Wehrmacht do to other nation's cities? I daresay he was the model of restraint in not laying pillage to German cities earlier than Bomber Command did. I know Arthur Harris wasn't in command of BC at the time, but his influence was already being felt through Charles Portal, who institued area bombing.
Lucas needed slamming. He leadership was lacking and he was relieved.
Stalin was the major cause of discord between the nations. Thinking only of the British Empire? Well, he was the Prime Minister of that coutnry. I wished that Roosevelt and Truman had done likewise where the US was concerned.
I would suspect that the US had plans to invade the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union had plans to attack the West. Any military worth it's salt has contingency plans ready for any likely eventuality.
|
I agree on all points. Churchill was no saint, but macker's criticisms are either simplistic or based on half truths. The fact is NO one is infallible. Gandhi and King certainly were not.
A perfect man has not yet taken a breath of air.People who criticize greatness for their flaws miss the point. It is not that these persons are without sins, it is that they managed to transcend their own character defects to achieve something that benefited mankind greatly. That is why we celebrate them.
The truth is that the critics who revel in tearing down heroes are much more flawed than the people they are taking aim at.