
Painting as a Pastime by Winston Churchill (1948) - craigcannon
https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/churchillws-paintingasapastime/churchillws-paintingasapastime-00-h-dir/churchillws-paintingasapastime-00-h.html
======
mbroncano
Reading this, it comes to mind one of the most unknown episodes of Churchill’s
life is the Bengal famine of 1943 [1], in which he was personally responsible
for the death of at least two million Indian. I guess that painting and
writing wasn’t enough of a past time. Gallipoli wasn’t really something to
write letters home about, you just need to read something mildly objective to
realize the kind of sick person this man was.

The point I’m trying to make is, History is written by winners. In most
contexts, this man would be nothing more than another early 20th century
psychopath. Certainly not a hero, a giant or even a decent human being.
Wouldn’t he had been kicked out of 10 Downing St. Europe would have certainly
suffered another WW2 aftermath, only to feed his personal and sick bloodlust.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943)

~~~
aaron-lebo
This is inaccurate. Churchill if anything was underrated by history. The
Gallipoli disaster occurred not because of his plans (which was a quick naval
attack up the straits, which the British were on the verge of doing and the
Turks later admitted would have taken Constantinople had then done so -
probably ending the war much earlier, saving millions in Europe, Russia, and
elsewhere).

This is a man also largely responsible for the tank (also ending the war,
eventually) and probably the main reason Britain did not back down in 1940,
saving much of the world from far far worse in Nazi Germany. We can disagree
about his methods, but he was probably right in _why_ he was so aggressive
after WW2 - he saw the USSR for what it was, as he did many things through his
life.

Not without flaw or mistake, but to describe him as you have is not very
accurate. There's few people who deserve to be considered "great men", but he
was one of them. Even if not, he was not the one sided caricature you have put
forward. I'd suggest a good, in-depth biography.

It's perhaps easier to understand some of him when you read the pleadings of a
boy for his parents to see or respond to him, which they ignored while they
had time for the king and the rest of British high society. This is a man whom
actually fought in battles, didn't shy away from conflict or duty, unlike some
in his social class. He was at times a liberal and at times a conservative
(and took principled stands for both sides), but at the end of the day, was
not a monster and was much better than most. The victors may write history,
but sometimes there is a reason they won.

To offer a counter-example, consider Churchill's dressing down of the man
responsible for the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre in front of Parliament:

[http://www.indiaofthepast.org/contribute-memories/read-
contr...](http://www.indiaofthepast.org/contribute-memories/read-
contributions/major-events-pre-1950/365-churchill-on-jallianwala-bagh-
massacre-1919)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre)

 _Both Secretary of State for War Winston Churchill and former Prime Minister
H. H. Asquith however, openly condemned the attack, Churchill referring to it
as "monstrous", while Asquith called it "one of the worst outrages in the
whole of our history".[54] Winston Churchill, in the House of Commons debate
of 8 July 1920, said, "The crowd was unarmed, except with bludgeons. It was
not attacking anybody or anything… When fire had been opened upon it to
disperse it, it tried to run away. Pinned up in a narrow place considerably
smaller than Trafalgar Square, with hardly any exits, and packed together so
that one bullet would drive through three or four bodies, the people ran madly
this way and the other. When the fire was directed upon the centre, they ran
to the sides. The fire was then directed to the sides. Many threw themselves
down on the ground, the fire was then directed down on the ground. This was
continued to 8 to 10 minutes, and it stopped only when the ammunition had
reached the point of exhaustion."[55] After Churchill's speech in the House of
Commons debate, MPs voted 247 to 37 against Dyer and in support of the
Government.[56] Cloake reports that despite the official rebuke, many Britons
"thought him a hero for saving the rule of British law in India."[57]_

Dyer was celebrated by the pubic at large both before and after the attack
(and after this speech). But if Winston was a such an inhumane monster, why
take the side he did? You'll find in many occasions in history, he took
principled and considered if not always correct positions. He certainly wasn't
a Hilter or even a Bush.

For more reading:

[https://www.amazon.com/Last-Lion-Winston-
Churchill-1874-1932...](https://www.amazon.com/Last-Lion-Winston-
Churchill-1874-1932/dp/0385313489)

~~~
mito88
this book makes a valid point:

[https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0307405168/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_e...](https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0307405168/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_eijjBbHKQ5VKY)

~~~
oldcynic
No, it _really_ doesn't. It's pulp fiction fantasy.

I read it when it came out and I enjoyed it - as fiction. I like alternative
histories - I've read many. I enjoyed the novel SS-GB 30 years ago far more,
it was far more credible.

From memory... His whole argument is built on the assumption all Hitler wanted
from Poland was the return of Danzig, and that all Germany wanted was peace
and prosperity, but poor harmless Germany was surrounded by oppressive
enemies. The same oppressors who spent 15 years appeasing whilst Germany
occupied Rhineland, Austria and Sudetenland (Czechoslovakia) Well, there are
so many ways to tear down the second point I barely know where to start.

So let's have a go at the first. He claims Hitler wanted Poland as an ally so
clearly only wanted Danzig. So how better to gain an ally than invade them? So
he starts trying to make a case that German diplomatic efforts were entirely
honest and seeking to preserve peace. Further he dismisses the Polish
politicians in short order (as some historians have done). It does rather
raise the question of why then would Germany want an alliance.

Nonetheless they signed a non-aggression pact (note: not an alliance) in the
mid 30s. Germany then sought to be given sovereignty of Danzig the surrounding
region and roads leading to it (includig a half-built autobahn) in, I think 36
or 37. Poland declined, ultimately resulting in the 39 German ultimatum and
invasion. Yup, definitely seeking an ally.

From there he builds on those unlikely assumptions and dives off into fantasy
and antisemitism. Oh, and if Britain had accepted the Nazi's 1940 peace offer
the Holocaust would not have happened at all. Even with all the antisemitism
in Germany throughout the 30s and the propaganda and violence against them?
Further he claims moral equivalence between Hitler and Churchill. Oh dear,
really?

You could make a credible case of an unnecessary war, but it would resemble
this book barely at all. There's a lot of arguments and ways you could
approach that.

You might start with Churchill's (surprising given his history) actions as
Chancellor in the 20s. The disastrous return to the Gold Standard, and by
dramatically reducing defence budgets, _especially_ naval, encouraged further
German rearming and especially naval building. One of the few points I was
able to agree with in the book was his criticism of Churchill's adoption of
the Ten Year Rule. Though he makes it as a minor argument.

You might also point at the harsh terms of Versailles and the failure of the
post-war alliance. It's worth noting Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points War Aims and
instigation of the League of Nations. Not to forget the Americans never
actually got as far as officially joining the League which significantly
weakened the global standing of it. As far as reparations go it was
_Clemenceau_ who wanted harsh terms - mainly as so much of the war took place
on French soil. With the obvious expenses that caused. Lloyd George argued
firmly against excessive reparations. The United States Senate voted down the
agreed 3 party post-war alliance with France and Britain. Churchill wanted an
Anglo-French alliance in the absence of Americans to keep the continental
peace but was unsuccessful. None were willing to occupy alone. Thus
reoccupation of Rhineland, Sudetenland etc were rather easier than they should
have been. The rest is factual history.

Forgive any mistakes. It'll all be on Wikipedia so I'm not going to link.

------
strict9
For many of the reasons outlined in this introduction, I've taken up drawing,
wood engraving, and origami/papercraft. The repetitive parts (carving lines or
folding paper) in particular have an acute soothing psychological effect.

Additionally, my sense is that while engaged in these activities parts of the
mind normally dormant while working with code all day spring to life.

Seems a good antidote to boredom or sadness is painting, drawing, sculpting,
gardening, or something else that's a different language:

>Since change is an essential element in diversion of all kinds, it is
naturally more restful and refreshing to read in a different language from
that in which one's ordinary daily work is done.

~~~
lsalvatore
I've sadly come to the conclusion that painting is not a relief from coding
for me. Coding is translating data logic to keyboard strokes, and then
painting is conceptualizing very different abstract shapes into brush strokes.
They are actually so similar in concept that the coding wears out the part of
my brain that would be really helpful for painting. I've spent many days split
between coding and painting and I've yet to come out the experience feeling
extremely worn out at one of the two. Of course I'm talking about
representational painting, not just making random marks. I've had many nights
of making random marks with brush strokes and all I create is a mess. Perhaps
I need to try to completely lose the analytical part of my brain during
painting.

~~~
obelix_
The subject you pick and the reaction of the people around you to your initial
attempts makes a big difference here.

People underestimate this.

So pick subjects that interest you or are sure to tickle/provoke/excite the
people you intend to show the work too.

------
mark212
George W. Bush was so inspired by this essay that he did the same thing after
leaving office.

[https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/27/politics/george-w-bush-
painti...](https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/27/politics/george-w-bush-
paintings/index.html)

~~~
narag
Drawing is not great, but color is nice and faces are expressive. I wouldn't
buy the paintings but they're better than I expected.

------
pnathan
There's a book of his paintings available. It's fascinating, a peep into a
uncommonly seen side of one of the giants of the 20th C.

