I agree with Grumpy, except I will go so far as to say that it isn't only Canadian pols that don't compare well with Churchill. Today's Blair and Bush aren't even good pale imitations of men like Winnie.

I meant to add that with the world facing such challenges and peril today we could certainly benefit from the leadership of a Churchill and/or Roosevelt.

I agree with you!

I think there's a few Irish people that would tell you a few things about Winston you may not like to hear.

Tommy Douglas, a magnificant orator and politician of high principle. I think he must be turning in his grave at Canadian politics and mnay of our politicians today.

British MP George Galloway, another speaker who can keep you awake.

Churchill could paint, lay bricks and was an excellent wit.

I recall the story of a woman (?) in the Houses of Parliament who told Churchill that if he was her husband that she'd poison his drink. He immediately retorted that if she were his wife, he'd drink it.

With all due respect, the deification of an imperialist is most unbecoming.

That Hitler was a war criminal does not exculpate Churchill as a war criminal.

There is no need for revision. Churchill's words reveal the true nature of the man. As at the time of Iraq’s first experience with chemical weapons, Iraq was on the receiving end from British RAF bombers. Churchill approved the attack with unconcealed racism:

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas... I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes... It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses; gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

In this day and age, when the equality of humans is constitutionally batted about, it is high time that humanity moved on past the idolatry of other humans, especially warmongers.

kotto

As a Brit in England throughout that war, I'm far from disagreement with your expressed view here on Churchill.

There is little doubt that he relished being a war-PM, just as G.W. Bush is reported to have wanted to be a war-President - probably made it happen.

I have a horrible suspicion that we have not, learned the whole truth regarding Rudolf Hess's landing in England in the early years of the war. His imprisonment until he died in jail was a monumental infringement of human rights in which many were gutless in their silence.

As far as the quote on poison gas is concerned, I believe Saddam Hussein's defence team has every right to refer to it, and probably will.

This piece is equivalent to a poor high school essay on "My Summer Experience in London" except a high school student would know how to punctuate better.

Look at this sentence. This is not writing.

"Maybe Hitler was a little rough on the Jews[,] but if Churchill had only made peace with him in 1940, why Hitler would have beaten the be-Jesus out of the Soviet Union[,] and we'd never [have] had the Cold War."

First, lets try inserting some commas and the word "have." But we are still left with "we'd."
What is "we'd" Rafe? Something you smoke at night? The "why" also does not fit into written discourse.

Then there is the content of this sentence. "Maybe Hitler was a little rough on the Jews." I can appreciate understatement as a rhetorical device, but this is extreme. I have come to expect that The Tyee would be a voice for progressive views, not regressive junk.

This is just bad. Let this hack go as soon as you can.

Whoops, sorry.

Calling Churchill a warmonger is foolishness. His remains a persuasive and authoritative voice on the absurdity of 'preemptive war.' It's difficult to confidently describe what the world would have been like if his lead were more often followed, but I think it's a reasonable case that we would be twice 50 years further down the road to civilization than we actually are.

Warmongering Imperialist, read your history, when? During the 20's and 30's Britains military was almost nonexistant. The navy was at bare minimum and the airforces mainstay was biplane fighters until 1938!

In the context of time Churchill no worse than anyone else, but saved the morale of the populace, brilliantly during evil days.

Maybe a little imperialism is not a bad thing, certainly it brought a wee bit of peace. Lest we forget!

i think stalin's brutality and his blocking units had more to do with hitler's demise than churchill. hitler's insanity and stubborness also had more to do with his defeat that churchill.

I was living in England when Churchill ran again in 1951, I believe. The Korean war was on and many people feared that Churchill would go into it full blast. The Daily Mirror ran a full, front page drawing of a hand holding a pistol, with a single line "WHOSE FINGER ON THE TRIGGER?" Churchill was elected anyway and sued the paper for defamation.

Millions of us can still remember that Churchill was also responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent European civilians when he agreed to let loose bloodthirsty maniacs like Bomber Harris etc, to obliterate European cities under nazi control. This is not to excuse similar attempts by Hitler, who failed, but Chruchill and Roosevelt, with unlimited powers, succeeded.

There have been tons of studies and books written on the subject of the uselessness of Allied bombings against military industries, one by JK Galbraith, where productions has been going upwards in leaps and bounds until practically to the end.

The bomber fleet commanders also knew this and concentrated on wiping out the cities, trying to demoralize the people, which also failed, like Hitler's attempt .

The British came in the night and couldn't see any military targets, so they killed civilians. The USAF coming in the day were undertrained and incompetent so they laid bomb carpets at a rocket signal of the lead plane. The certain coloured rocket went up and we could see all the planes in the block of about 50 planes letting loose, killing people by the thousands. Let us also not forget the annihilation of Hamburg and Dresden, without any military targtets and full of refugees from the Russians.

Yes, Chruchil had his moments of greatness, but they were well balanced with a lot of sins.
Not to mention turning up in the House drunk and sleeping it off in his seat, well reported in the papers at the time. Ed Deak, Big Lake.

I think it would be best to let Winston Churchill sink into the sunset along with the rest of the old "British Empire" mythology with its inherently racists subtleties toward anyone not born or residing somewhere between Cornwall and Newcastle.

Churchill was one of a long list of English politicians and "statesmen" who still saw most of the world's peoples as savages in need of redemption.

BTW, I'd suggest John A. MacDonald, our first prime minister, shares quite a few attributes with England's Churchill besides a fondness for booze and a tendency to bs more often than not.

Geez Asher it's a bit embarrassing, don't you think, to be razing somebody about grammar, and write something like "lets" as a contraction for "let us"? - check it out (hint - missing apostrophe). You'll also find somewhere around the same page that "we'd" is fine, means "we would" or "we had", depending.
Geez.

I never considered him a perfect hero, but he did see the danger that both Hitler and Stalin posed and those were his greatest contributions to the West. He certainly was a man of his times and to attempt to view him outside of those times, will lead to distortion.

A part of Winston life that is rarely mentioned.

In 1895, prior to his regiment departing for an extended posting to India, he went to Cuba as a military observer with the Spanish army in its fight against pro-independence rebels. He also reported for the Saturday Review. In 1898 he was attached as a supernumerary officer to the 21st Lancers (acting again as a war correspondent) and rode with them at the Battle of Omdurman, taking part in what is commonly thought to be the last full cavalry charge of the British Empire.
Churchill then became a war correspondent in the second Anglo-Boer war between Britain and self-proclaimed Afrikaners in South Africa. He was captured in a Boer ambush of a British Army train convoy and thrown into prison.
However, he made a daring escape which made him something of a national hero. One night he scaled the prison walls and slipped by the sentries. Then, travelling on freight trains, he crossed over 500 kilometres of enemy territory and crossed the South African border to Lourenço Marques (now Maputo in Mozambique). He quickly returned to British-controlled South Africa where he joined a South African cavalry regiment and was involved in a number of brutal and bloody battles, and resumed filing stories for a rapt public in Britain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Early_life

I am not getting paid to write comments, but Rafe is paid for what he produces. I do not have an editor to edit my material, but I would hope an online publication like The Tyee would. But apparently it doesn't, at least with Rafe who is turning The Tyee into a rag.

Why does he have a weekly column, yet he is not listed as a columnist? Really, it would be an insult to other columnists on The Tyee to call him that. He's a demagogue, and that kind of garbage does not translate well into type. It is so bad, that he can hardly begin to punctuate it.

I don't know about Rafe, but English was not my first, but fifth language and I never had a single lesson. Just write by feel and sound. So if I happen to make some grammatical mistakes, please go easy on me !!!!!!!! Ed Deak, Big Lake.
PS. I can only claim 3 now in variuous degrees of disrepair.

As Ed pointed out, it is not the quality of writing that is important. Rafe (gee, a radio talk host who is not a great writer, who would have thunk!) has been a thorn in many sides and that is likely why they asked for him to contribute. He made a living being a thorn and sometimes he is going to say stuff you don’t like, however I think his article is timely. Much effort is being put into discussing the leadership of nations and Churchill, love him or hate him was a influential leader at a significant time in Western history.

So show me a group of peace loving types in history, they will be few and far between. While official histories glossed over the bad parts, the revisionist of today sometimes go overboard in “correcting” history.

Churchill's England provided a safe haven for my family during WW2, and a German officer risked his life to forge papers for one family member who fled just before her parents and brother were rounded up and murdered at Bergen-Belsen. This all happened while McKenzie-King was talking about appeasement with the Nazis and telling the German Jews not to worry (source: Canadian Encyclopedia). I think Rafe's a goof but have to admit he's right about Winnie.

Gimme a break Rafe.

Churchill did nothing to prevent fish farming ever. How is it possible for you to support this pathetic wretch of a man.

I should have written Mackenzie King, sorry for my spelling error.

BTW, Rafe neglects to mention that Churchill absconded with reams of government documents when he left office, as he (wrongly) presumed them to be his personal property, infuriating the civil service and his successors in Parliament. No doubt his son Randolph found them useful for his biography on Winston, and Randolph also made millions when he finally sold them back to the government (which complained bitterly about having to pay for them) a couple years back. It would be ironic if these documents form the backbone of this new museum to Churchill.

Churchill was a great political leader perhaps because the era needed one. Consider his adversary Neville `Peace with Honour` Chamberlain. How about Hitler? A madman yes but also a great political leader. Stalin? To my mind a bureaucrat - a mediocre but ruthless bureaucrat. How about today? The man I saw as a great leader on 9/11 was Gugliani. Wow he was front and center taking control when leadership was needed. In comparison Dubya looked like he was going to cry. Canada? Maybe that`s our worst problem today - no leadership at all and at a time when we really need it.

Deep
As a Colonial ruler, Britain was the likely the best of them and certainly tried to leave some sort of legacy. Compared to the previous conquerors they were quite tame and generally let the locals rule each other. Of the Europeans powers, I not sure if the Spanish or the Belgians were the worst, although I lean towards the Belgians being the worst when I consider the mess they left their colonies in.
One immigrant asked how many times the First Nations here were invaded, I replied once. He laughed and asked me to think how many times Persia has seen invaders.

Do you have any idea how many people died because of Stalin? Even before WWII, I have seen new numbers coming out that indicate possibly 15-20 million of his own people, plus the 22 million lost in WWII. The war was estimated to have cost the lives of 56 million people. So I am struggling to understand how you can back your claim.

darcy, loved the fish farm comment

deep
sorry I posted my replay in another thread. so I will repeat it here:

Deep
Please don’t build a boat with the same logic, it won’t float. If you look at the effect that the Soviet Union has had on the world, almost all of the wars are being fought with Soviet (or one of their client states) equipment, ranging from Ak-47’s to T-55’s, so the cards just don’t stack up. Countries that were run or supported by the USSR have the worst track records in environment, human rights, etc. You don’t hear about because those who complain are dead or in jail.

I look forward to the hordes of protesters awaiting Hu when he arrives, protesting China’s human right record, military aggression, and environmental damage, etc. But I realize that protesting against some Chinese guy is not as fashionable as going after Bush.

Great topic. What always amazed me when reading about Churchill was the time before he came into being one of the greatest heroes of the last hundred years.

As Britain confronted Germany alone, Churchill had confronted being rejected by his peers, and many of the newspapers and other writings of the day. He was working non stop to pay bills, by writing books, the advances it seems he had always spent before completing the book.

His bricklaying (I love the permanence of brick, stone mortar), has always reminded me in my own small tough times, that you move ahead one brick, one step at a time.

What is important I feel about great people in history like Churchill, Ali, and others, is when it is on the line, when it is time to shine, they do.

No matter all that glitters around Churchill may not be gold, his presence, and leadership in a time that looks unbelievably more dark and nasty for me as I get another year older, tells me that Churchill had "Mojo".

This thread has proceeded through feckless idol smashing to shooting the messenger, to trashing everything and everybody, (feeding frenzy?) and predictably(?) to dfl's astounding conspiracy theory:

C'mon folks, the silly season is supposed to be finished Aug 31.

Well I can add a new name to the list (long) that I have been called:

A “Neocon apologist”

Maybe I should make up a business card and set up a PR business, deep can I use you as a reference?

Well my childhood was built around see the world, think for yourself and ask questions. Just because my father was NDP, does not mean I required to follow in his footsteps. My grandfather was even more labour related then my father and served as a conscientious objector caring for the wounded in WW I.

Bush and co. can be held responsible for some of problems, but blaming them for everything is just lazy thinking. The left is trying to create a propaganda image of him, which does not help the issues or even themselves. Bush can be rightly criticized on many issues without resorting to silliness or making him the bogeyman. I tend to agree more with his foreign policy positions than his domestics.

I tend to agree with Ed that the concepts of Left and Right in the West are becoming outdated. Most people I met seem to mix concepts from both side. Myself I prefer socialized medicine, government looking after infrastructure, strong military and for the present military action when required. I am anti-drugs and lean closer to centre right on Social assistance.

I also try not make personal attacks on those who hold views opposing mine. As to my purpose of being here, well I try to read a variety of articles and like to listen to arguments that people put forward, even if I don’t agree with them. If I see something that I don’t agree with I say so, that’s what living in a free country is all about.

I think we have to get a more practicle perspective about this. We exist at a time in this province, this country (never mind Bush and the U.S.) where our media, and the general political establishment are very dishonest, perhaps corrupt.

This general message needs to be completed to a critical mass of the more 'fluid voter' (see: cow people), before we go off looking at all of the dirty little secrets that Mr. Churchill may have had, notwithstanding the desire to explain this reality with history repeats itself.

You would not have a hard time convincing me that are food is not good for us. But fast food restuarants are all around us. There are no extra taxes for them. Every corporate 'gangster' that damages society has a charity to go with it, as a form of cover.

(A number of years ago many prominent blacks argued that the Jews used this format very well, as a form of untouchability.)

So, before we go to all the other truths (which I don't doubt), wouldn't we be better off busting some of today's so-called 'leaders'. And I mean busting them so they break.

September 8, 2005

ROBBINS Sce Research (1998)
robbinssceresearch.com

For immediate Release

BC Public Schools gouge Parents over Activity Fees

Glen P. Robbins President of ROBBINS Sce Research (1998) claims that “BC parents with children in public schools have been cheated out of $40-$80 million dollars in illegal activity fees over the past few years.”

Mr. Robbins was the first to go public with this revelation which has since been collaborated by CKWX 11:30 News in an article related to Victoria School Trustee John Young, who sued and won a Judgement against the outlaw fees at the BC Supreme Court level.

Adds Robbins “as far as I know this systematic gouging of BC families with children in public schools began sometime during the first Campbell administration under then Education Minister Christy Clark.” “It’s entirely possible that parents of kids in Coquitlam schools alone have been cheated out of as much as $6 million dollars over the past 4 years.”

Robbins claims the fees are tantamount to extortion because students “are routinely told that they will not receive lockers or be permitted to join other paid up students in activities causing those students shame and embarrassment.”

Robbins asserts, “The Campbell government needs to pay back these ‘stolen’ monies forthwith.” “The government has authorized schools to send parents an invoice for items they have for all intents and purposes already paid for. This is theft outright and an investigation should be undertaken immediately.”

Glen P. Robbins

(604) 942-3757
-30-

Does anybody know anything about the Welsh revolt in world war 1 when churchill sent in the troups to the mining valleys?
(I heard about it in Wales). I dont know any more about it. How big it was, how bluddy it was, etc. How much "hidden" history of churchill is there? There was also a (successful) rebellion in Ireland at that time.
So, I never visited Scotland, did they rebel there too? Seems there is more to the Myth of Churchill than meets the eye. Churchill, "warts and all", might be not much different than Oliver Cromwell, who, monster that he was, didnt hide the warts from the world.