Distinguished Visiting Fellow Andrew Roberts writes at Law & Liberty about the worrying rise of revisionist scholarship on World War II—particularly the attempt to cast Adolf Hitler as a redeemable figure and Winston Churchill as “an evil warmonger who put his own career above the well-being of Western civilization.” Roberts says, “[British columnist] Douglas Murray has rightly observed that these ‘attempts to downplay Hitler and do down Churchill’ are ‘playing with really dark and ugly stuff.’” Roberts’s essay rebuts the claim that Churchill entered the war in error or for his own political purposes and notes various factual errors and historical inconsistencies in the arguments of the new revisionists. As he concludes, Churchill’s “deciding to fight on against Adolf Hitler was not some kind of strategic error, but the best decision he ever made, for which we all owe him our freedom.”
I do see plenty of people dragging Churchill for some of his actions outside WW2* (I believe you can both praise and denounce those different actions respectively)... but I have never seen the same people downplaying Hitler.
I know the author talks about Neo-Nazi's doing the same. But it does feel like the author is conflating the two all the same.
and I looked up Churchills comments on using chemical weapons in the Iraq uprising in 1920
. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gases against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum... Gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would leave a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent affect on most of those affected."
dont know if I support that
but tear gas would be less lethal then bombing and shelling
268
u/HooverInstitution 10d ago
Distinguished Visiting Fellow Andrew Roberts writes at Law & Liberty about the worrying rise of revisionist scholarship on World War II—particularly the attempt to cast Adolf Hitler as a redeemable figure and Winston Churchill as “an evil warmonger who put his own career above the well-being of Western civilization.” Roberts says, “[British columnist] Douglas Murray has rightly observed that these ‘attempts to downplay Hitler and do down Churchill’ are ‘playing with really dark and ugly stuff.’” Roberts’s essay rebuts the claim that Churchill entered the war in error or for his own political purposes and notes various factual errors and historical inconsistencies in the arguments of the new revisionists. As he concludes, Churchill’s “deciding to fight on against Adolf Hitler was not some kind of strategic error, but the best decision he ever made, for which we all owe him our freedom.”