View Single Post
Old January 15th, 2006 #59
Border Ruffian
Posts: n/a

I think the "allied war effort" is more to blame for producing Churchill, especially as most know him, than the other way around.

The only real praise Beck seems to have for Churchill is that he writes well, and I have to agree if the excerpts he used are representative.

I Don't know much about Churchill myself. I've read some things on the internet before which showed he wasn't nearly as pc as the mass-media would like us all to think he was. The short readings Beck chose were unfamiliar to me and frankly they made me interested in finding out more. I'm pretty sure that was the intention, and it worked as far as I'm concerned.

He wisely advised against wasting money on biographies, not that it affected me personally anyway. I can't afford 1/10 of the books I want and Churchill isn't the highest on my list of interests right now. However I do have a library card and have even been known to use it

Again I don't know that much about Churchill, but my impression(before and especially after hearing the last TTIND) is that he was a figurehead as much as anything. I doubt he was much more important to the second world war than Bush is to this war in Iraq. If Bush has a heart attack tomorrow, there won't be sudden change in our government's direction.

I wouldn't be surprised if most or all of what you say about Churchill is true, Cthulhu. I'd like to know more, but I doubt if Churchill is important enough to have WN's attacking each other as heretics for pointing out a good quality here or not cursing him loudly enough there.