
A New Biography of Churchill - allthebest
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/is-this-the-best-churchill-biography-yet/
======
tao_oat
While we can praise Churchill for many things, we should never gloss over the
fact that he favored eugenics and was deeply racist [1]. For instance, he's
quoted as saying "I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the
Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a
wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a
higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race... has come in and taken their
place."

[1]: [https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ae55v8/winston-
church...](https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ae55v8/winston-churchill-
racist-warmonger-sterilize-mentally-ill)

~~~
C1sc0cat
A lot of the "liberal progressives" pre ww2 where in favour of sterilising
certain elements of the population until that whole "hitler thing" happened.

In the USA it was the conservative republicans that opposed it.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
I'm not sure I'd describe the Carnegie Institution, or Rockefeller Foundation,
who funded a lot of the eugenics research with the end in mind as notably
liberal progressive. Nor could the Republicans Coolidge ("Nordics deteriorate
when mixed with other races") and Hoover, who were both heavily in favour, be
described as progressive liberals. Roosevelt was in favour too, of course.

It was a movement independent of politics, and especially popular in pre-war
USA on both sides of the political divide.

~~~
C1sc0cat
HG Wells and a lot of the left leaning British intellectuals did and Sweden
only stopped sterilising in the 1970's

------
onemoresoop
Field Marshal Alanbrooke: "... And the wonderful thing is that 3/4 of the
population of the world imagine that Churchill is one of the Strategists of
History, a second Marlborough, and the other 1/4 have no idea what a public
menace he is and has been throughout this war! It is far better that the world
should never know, and never suspect the feet of clay of this otherwise
superhuman being. Without him England was lost for a certainty, with him
England has been on the verge of disaster time and again ... Never have I
admired and despised a man simultaneously to the same extent. Never have such
opposite extremes been combined in the same human being."

------
Lordarminius
I really enjoyed _The Last Lion_ a biography of Churchill by William
Manchester. I look forward to comparing that book with this.

~~~
pjmorris
Seconded, the three volume set is a very worthwhile read.

------
puissance
For anyone looking into getting a fuller picture, I'd recommend reading
Churchill's Secret War
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill%27s_Secret_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill%27s_Secret_War)).
Where this differs from some of the other works's on Churchill's life is that
it tracks the accounts of those affected by the Bengal famine of 1943 (how it
is related to Churchill is covered in the book) written in native
languages—which are, by far, inaccessible to English authors.

------
olivermarks
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18096513](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18096513)

------
known
Winston Churchill was half American; his mother was from Brooklyn
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Randolph_Churchill#Early_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Randolph_Churchill#Early_life)

------
fergie
The Spectator also have a great podcast with the author about this book:
[https://audioboom.com/posts/7040039-churchill-andrew-
roberts...](https://audioboom.com/posts/7040039-churchill-andrew-roberts-in-
conversation-with-robert-tombs)

------
rwmj
Also this new biography was favourably reviewed in the Economist:
[https://www.economist.com/books-and-
arts/2018/10/06/andrew-r...](https://www.economist.com/books-and-
arts/2018/10/06/andrew-roberts-paints-the-fullest-ever-picture-of-churchill)
(probably behind a paywall)

~~~
unmole
> His biography demonstrates its subject’s greatness but manages to make him
> lovable, too

So, nothing about the racist, imperialist side? Yet another hagiography?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Even Roy Jenkins (former old Labour cabinet minister) superb biography of
Churchill concludes he was the greatest Prime Minister of the 20th century. He
draws that conclusion even after pointing out Churchill's many flaws and
mistakes. What human isn't flawed? Roosevelt, de Gaulle, Ghandi, all had flaws
and racism too.

~~~
trukterious
Absolutely. The greater the man, the greater the flaws. Yet we still need
heroes from history to look up to, and we can't judge solely by modern
standards.

By analogy consider the contemporaneous movie _The Wizard of Oz_ (1939). It's
enjoyable and arguably morally-improving to watch. We are the better for it.
Yet a great deal of immorality existed behind the scenes:

[https://www.ranker.com/list/wizard-of-oz-behind-the-
scenes-s...](https://www.ranker.com/list/wizard-of-oz-behind-the-scenes-
stories/erin-mccann)

~~~
watwut
Sometimes "great heroes" do bad things even by their time standards. It makes
no one service to pretend it is not so and automatically assume everything bad
was normal at the time. It was not and their bad decisions had opposition.

We dont need lies about history, even when that lie is by omitting ugly stuff
about people we want to see as heroes. Such framing leads to dangerous
worldview and dangerous implications about current times too. It makes us less
capable to deal with actual real world complexity. Even heroes should be
questioned and mythical heroes are exactly that - myths.

We need truth about historical personalities, not hero worship.

------
antman
Churchill & The secret service is a better biography than most of the actual
biography books. It explains the creation of a modern secret service used to
gather intelligence on foreign and local targets including competing political
parties.

This played a major role on Churchill's intuition and ascend, and failed
miserably when he diverted resources to fight local political parties thus not
predicting the start date of two world wars.

After the wars had started, he did divert resources to handle things
succesfully.

TLDR: Churchill was his secret services. Succesful when not adapted to his own
personal biases

[https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Secret-Service-David-
Staffo...](https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Secret-Service-David-
Stafford/dp/1909609137)

