6 ms·

I wonder what the formula is for victories vs atrocities in terms of historical respect and modern acceptance. It seems we have entered into a period of no matt

I wonder what the formula is for victories vs atrocities in terms of historical respect and modern acceptance. It seems we have entered into a period of no matter how much good you did, there is a hard red line of unacceptability set in a modern context as to which all historical figures are judged. If Churchill wasn’t made PM there is a good argument to be made that the Jewish population would have been all but wiped out, and Europe today would be a fascist slave state to Germany. But then would the communist purges in Russia and China not have happened. No Vietnam. Peace for Europe but under brutal authoritarian rule. Any criticism of Churchill’s historical significance really needs to consider the alternative outcome without him. I don’t think there is anyone who would want to take him out of history having acknowledged this. I think most criticism of him comes from ignorance to history. But yes, the facts are important and it’s good that everything about history is discussed again and again.

cafard 6y ago
The big purges in the USSR happened in the 1930s.
- robin21 6y ago
  Thanks, Russia is my weak spot in history rn.
valarauko 6y ago
Are you really suggesting that Churchill was the singular character who determined the outcome of the war, and without him fascist Europe would stand till this day? >_Any criticism of Churchill’s historical significance really needs to consider the alternative outcome without him. I don’t think there is anyone who would want to take him out of history having acknowledged this. I think most criticism of him comes from ignorance to history._ My guess - another British PM would have made different choices, and perhaps the UK would have been overrun, or perhaps it would not. Perhaps the tide of war would have turned earlier, and the war ended in 1943, or perhaps in 1947. Perhaps it would have taken 2 or 3 British PMs to achieve it, or perhaps a better PM would have come along. Honestly, the "Great Man" approach to history is overwrought. Here's a different take on the trajectory of the war: once set into motion, the worldwide war was a systemic entity, above and beyond the actions of any singular actor, no matter how powerful. Tactics help, but the outcomes of wars turn on systemic parameters - resources, populations, infrastructure, etc. If we could redo the war a million times and change tactics/leaders each time, the Axis powers would lose close to a million times - with individual battles changing outcomes, but not the war. Perhaps in some cases the war would fizzle out immediately, and in some cases the war would drag on for some years longer.
- robin21 6y ago
  > Are you really suggesting that Churchill was the singular character who determined the outcome of the war, There is a lot of evidence to suggest that this is correct. Churchill was the only one talking about the danger of Hitler since 1935 and the need to re-arm. Everyone else was in the appeasement camp. No one wanted war and they did everything they could to avoid it before Churchill was PM and then continued after he was PM. The alternative to Churchill taking over from Chamberlain was Halifax who had huge support in parliament, and was who everyone wanted, but who was an appeaser, and whilst in Churchill's cabinet pushed for peace talks even after being wrong for the past 5 years on Hitler. It's not a large jump to say that if Halifax was PM, after the fall of France he would have pushed for peace which Hitler would have welcomed because his ideological nemesis lay with the Bolsheviks in the east. If Hitler had a treaty with the UK he could have committed all forces to the East and defeated Russia. Europe - game, set, match. If you study the events of the time, it does start to seem that he was a singular force. > If we could redo the war a million times and change tactics/leaders each time, the Axis powers would lose close to a million times The mistake here is that its not about redoing the war...its that the war between the UK and Germany would have ceased very prematurely without Churchill.
  - valarauko 6y ago
    Yes, the war between the UK & Germany would have gone differently without Churchill. It's quite a leap to go from there to state that Fascist Europe would have stood till today. If Halifax were PM & there was a peace treaty with Germany, who's to say Halifax would still be PM the next year and the treaty upheld by the next guy? Perhaps the situation would have thrown up a Black Swan PM? Even if Germany could overrun Russia - could they hold it for very long? Even without Russia, they were stretched thin, and wouldn't have been able to hold their continental wide Reich filled with hostile natives for very long. Thing is, we don't know. While Churchill was important for how the war does progress, it's a mistake to suppose that Churchill is necessary & sufficient in every iteration to determine the course of the war. If not Churchill, somebody else would have come along. Besides, it was only a matter of time before the Americans would have been drawn into the war, something the Japanese ensured. Even if the specifics of Pearl Harbor hadn't happened, America was bound to get involved, sooner or later. Perhaps it would have taken another year, but America had continental scale resources and population to tap into.

cafard 6y ago

The big purges in the USSR happened in the 1930s.

robin21 6y ago
Thanks, Russia is my weak spot in history rn.

valarauko 6y ago

Are you really suggesting that Churchill was the singular character who determined the outcome of the war, and without him fascist Europe would stand till this day? >_Any criticism of Churchill’s historical significance really needs to consider the alternative outcome without him. I don’t think there is anyone who would want to take him out of history having acknowledged this. I think most criticism of him comes from ignorance to history._ My guess - another British PM would have made different choices, and perhaps the UK would have been overrun, or perhaps it would not. Perhaps the tide of war would have turned earlier, and the war ended in 1943, or perhaps in 1947. Perhaps it would have taken 2 or 3 British PMs to achieve it, or perhaps a better PM would have come along. Honestly, the "Great Man" approach to history is overwrought. Here's a different take on the trajectory of the war: once set into motion, the worldwide war was a systemic entity, above and beyond the actions of any singular actor, no matter how powerful. Tactics help, but the outcomes of wars turn on systemic parameters - resources, populations, infrastructure, etc. If we could redo the war a million times and change tactics/leaders each time, the Axis powers would lose close to a million times - with individual battles changing outcomes, but not the war. Perhaps in some cases the war would fizzle out immediately, and in some cases the war would drag on for some years longer.

robin21 6y ago
> Are you really suggesting that Churchill was the singular character who determined the outcome of the war, There is a lot of evidence to suggest that this is correct. Churchill was the only one talking about the danger of Hitler since 1935 and the need to re-arm. Everyone else was in the appeasement camp. No one wanted war and they did everything they could to avoid it before Churchill was PM and then continued after he was PM. The alternative to Churchill taking over from Chamberlain was Halifax who had huge support in parliament, and was who everyone wanted, but who was an appeaser, and whilst in Churchill's cabinet pushed for peace talks even after being wrong for the past 5 years on Hitler. It's not a large jump to say that if Halifax was PM, after the fall of France he would have pushed for peace which Hitler would have welcomed because his ideological nemesis lay with the Bolsheviks in the east. If Hitler had a treaty with the UK he could have committed all forces to the East and defeated Russia. Europe - game, set, match. If you study the events of the time, it does start to seem that he was a singular force. > If we could redo the war a million times and change tactics/leaders each time, the Axis powers would lose close to a million times The mistake here is that its not about redoing the war...its that the war between the UK and Germany would have ceased very prematurely without Churchill.
- valarauko 6y ago
  Yes, the war between the UK & Germany would have gone differently without Churchill. It's quite a leap to go from there to state that Fascist Europe would have stood till today. If Halifax were PM & there was a peace treaty with Germany, who's to say Halifax would still be PM the next year and the treaty upheld by the next guy? Perhaps the situation would have thrown up a Black Swan PM? Even if Germany could overrun Russia - could they hold it for very long? Even without Russia, they were stretched thin, and wouldn't have been able to hold their continental wide Reich filled with hostile natives for very long. Thing is, we don't know. While Churchill was important for how the war does progress, it's a mistake to suppose that Churchill is necessary & sufficient in every iteration to determine the course of the war. If not Churchill, somebody else would have come along. Besides, it was only a matter of time before the Americans would have been drawn into the war, something the Japanese ensured. Even if the specifics of Pearl Harbor hadn't happened, America was bound to get involved, sooner or later. Perhaps it would have taken another year, but America had continental scale resources and population to tap into.