The Greatest of the Great, Part Deux

[sysyphus]

@luceafarul: In Canada, they held a televised contest (that went on for a month or so) where you could vote for the greatest Canadian. I'm guessing that the other countries on that list also made something like that, and the winners are the ones that have been chosen.

I think they're all like that. The British one was the original, titled "Great Britons", Canada was among the first to copy it.

I recall there was an "anybody but Diana" campaign.

 

[DAv2003]

I don't see that "leading the country through its darkest hour" is particularly worthy of note. He was prime minister during a war. Is that such a great achievement? Shouldn't more credit go to the generals and indeed all the troops who actually fought and won the thing? Stalin led the USSR during the same period - and the Russians suffered far more in the war than the British did and played a greater role in defeating Hitler - yet I don't see many people defending him as a great man because of it.

True on the Russian point but that doesn't say that England got it easy in comparison. The Blitz was a right bugger for instance. I believe the reason why credit goes to Churchill in World War 2 is because he actualy inspired the nation to continue fighting even during it's lowest ebb in 1940 - 1941. Churchill had faults (he was always ready to admit so himself) but the fact that he could lead a battered and bloody nation through an all consuming war that didn't seem to have any end in sight at the start, endears many people to him.

 

[Birdjaguar]

A definition of "great" would be helpful. Some folks have a period of their life when they are "great" and in the rest of it, they are just mediocre. Do "great" deeds in 1941 cancel out not so great acts or statements in 1917? People are remembered for periods of "greatness" or singular achievements rather than a lifetime of unending "greatness". For those who die young or at the height of their glory, the public often presumes that they would have lived a full life of greatness (JFK, Alexander the Great).

Shakespeare wrote great plays. Was he a bigot or racist? Do we care? If he was, would that diminish the "greatness" of his plays? Clearly, Elizabeth I was greater than the Bard, because it was in her reign and at her pleasure that he was able to write.

 

[Plotinus]

True on the Russian point but that doesn't say that England got it easy in comparison. The Blitz was a right bugger for instance. I believe the reason why credit goes to Churchill in World War 2 is because he actualy inspired the nation to continue fighting even during it's lowest ebb in 1940 - 1941. Churchill had faults (he was always ready to admit so himself) but the fact that he could lead a battered and bloody nation through an all consuming war that didn't seem to have any end in sight at the start, endears many people to him.

I still don't see this as much of an achievement. Surely the fact that the British kept fighting wasn't simply because the prime minister told them to! Churchill was a sort of icon who represented and reflected British defiance, rather than its creator. And I have to say, everything you say of Churchill in this paragraph could equally be said not only of Stalin but of Hitler too.

It's worth remembering what happened to Churchill in 1946. If he was such a national treasure and saviour of the nation, why did he get voted out immediately after victory?

 

[cyrusIII85]

We had a vote for the greatest American and Ronald Reagan won, beating G.W. and Lincoln

Shows you how much the conservative movement has spread .

 

[DAv2003]

I still don't see this as much of an achievement. Surely the fact that the British kept fighting wasn't simply because the prime minister told them to! Churchill was a sort of icon who represented and reflected British defiance, rather than its creator. And I have to say, everything you say of Churchill in this paragraph could equally be said not only of Stalin but of Hitler too.

It's worth remembering what happened to Churchill in 1946. If he was such a national treasure and saviour of the nation, why did he get voted out immediately after victory?

The British didn't keep fighting because Churchill told them to, but rather he made them feel as if the war might just be winnable. You say that he was an icon and it's true people actually looked to Churchill and believed that he could help them get through the worst. The key difference between Churchill, Hitler and Stalin as you say, is that the respect in Churchill came not from fear or a demand for obedience but actual respect for what he did and his respect for the people he governed.
I believe the main reason that Churchill was voted out of power was because to many people, he still represented the old order which had allowed the War to happen. The British people wanted a fresh start and didn't believe Churchill to be the one to give it to them.

 

[Kafka2]

As defence secretary in 1919-20, Churchill was responsible for putting down insurgency in Iraq, at that time occupied by Britain. He authorised not only the bombing of insurgents but also the large-scale gassing of civilians, mostly Kurds (he ordered this in the Soviet Union at roughly the same time, too). His comment on the morality of this?

The quote you posted to support the point above is all over the net, and is one of the most egregious pieces of misquoting I've ever seen. Here's the unedited quotation-

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. 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

You see? He was actually arguing in favour of using forms of tear gas as crowd control, instead of killing them.

 

[Israelite9191]

Nelson Mandela, he is the only one I see who did anything really great. I don't know too much about the German and the Canadian, and only a little about the Finn, but Nelson Mandela really achieved something spectacular.

Oh, and if I had voted for the greatest American, I would most likely have voted for Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., although several others, such as Chief Sitting Bull, Frederick Douglas, General Lee, Abraham Lincoln, etc. are right up there.

 

[Plotinus]

[Kafka2] Fair does, although I should also point out that, judging by the WWII memo, Churchill classed mustard gas among those that would "leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected", and that's certainly not the same thing as tear gas.

 

[Commy]

Why there is no Joseph Stalin from USSR?

 

[Irish Caesar]

Politicians are full of crap.

I write-in Tom Edison.

 

[Kafka2]

[Kafka2] Fair does, although I should also point out that, judging by the WWII memo, Churchill classed mustard gas among those that would "leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected", and that's certainly not the same thing as tear gas.

With mustard gas just as with CS gas, it's the concentrations that are vital. In high concentrations, both are lethal. However in lower dilutions, mustard gas is actually a fairly mild lachrymatory agent. Churchill's intent was certainly to use it in non-lethal contexts.

While gas was used in the Kurd/Arab uprising, there certainly weren't widespread fatalities caused by it, and it wasn't used by any military divisions under Churchill's command. The use of chemical warfare accusations against Churchill is pure muck-raking. He can be criticised for many other things, but not that.

 

[Kafka2]

Here is the key section on the WW2 memo-

Although one sees how unpleasant it is to receive poison gas attacks, from which nearly everyone recovers, it is useless to protest that an equal amount of H. E. will not inflict greater casualties and sufferings on troops and civilians.

He asked for a cold-blooded assessment as to whether gas should be used, and decided against using it.

 

[DAv2003]

Why there is no Joseph Stalin from USSR?

Because Russia hasn't done 'The Greatest Russian'.

 

[Xenocrates]

In Churchill's defence he could drink a LOT.

The alcohol seems to shine through his actions. The cocaine seems to shine thorugh some of his modern-day counterparts....

Whoever said 'what's greatness?' is right, of the people on that list that I know about I was only half tempted by Mandela, but he's let himself down quite badly in recent years.

 

[Xanikk999]

Why is ronald reagen even on the list (among other people).

If winston churchill is on that list then FDR has just as much a right to be also. He did a big part in ending the great depression in the U.S and chose some wise decisions during WW2.

 

[Xanikk999]

Why there is no Joseph Stalin from USSR?

Your kidding right?

If stalin is a great person then so is Hitler in all respects.

 

[superisis]

but he's let himself down quite badly in recent years.

How so? What has he done?

 

[DAv2003]

Why is ronald reagen even on the list (among other people).

If winston churchill is on that list then FDR has just as much a right to be also. He did a big part in ending the great depression in the U.S and chose some wise decisions during WW2.

F.D.R. isn't on the list because he wasn't voted the greatest. Though I believe he was in the top 10.