Barely does a month go by without yet another book
about Churchill, each one very particular about which evidence to be included,
and each one perpetuating the myths leading to his heroic status (Review, Hero
of the Empire: The Making of Winston Churchill,24/09/16). He believed in
"Britain`s destiny to lead the world" in "moral improvement", but, sadly, this
incorporated the use of wars and "brutal colonial conflicts"; these may well
have included "fascinating thrills" for Churchill, but the victims of British
concentration camps and military massacres probably held a different
view.
Even the reviewer, Kwasi Kwarteng, sees
Churchill`s description of the Liberal party, "composed of prigs, prudes and
faddists", as an example of his "quick wit", and fails to add that this view did
not prevent Churchill soon crossing the floor to join them, albeit on a
temporary basis.
Isn`t it time for this hero-worshipping
nonsense to stop, and for Churchill to get the same treatment, from historians
prepared to utilise all available evidence, as other politicians?
No comments:
Post a Comment