[Dave Musgrove]

The debate about whether Churchill deserves his place at the top of the pantheon of Britain's heroes has risen up once more http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 234106.stm
What do you think, do you have Churchill chalked up as a man who saved the nation who should brook no criticism, or should we take a less rosy view of him and not forget some of his failings?

[Reginald Dalton]

I think there's no denying that Churchill was definetely flawed, but noone can deny that he rose to the occasion when it became clear WWII was going to happen. And he undeniably inspired the nation during it worst hour, so all in all I still think he's a Hero

Reg.

[WestminsterGuy]

Churchill. There's no doubt in my mind that he was a wonderful Britian and a great hero. He has been voted on poles as the number one Britian of the last 1,000 years. Therefore he is always to be known as a great hero. Now I'm not denying he had any faults; all heroes do. But to deny Churchill's importance in British history is to deny the importance of history. As for Churchill's achievements, there is no doubt in my mind that he will remain the archetypal Britian that he was in the years of WWII

[katnoodle]

Like many a famous character from the dark mists of history, he was a mercurial mixture of good and bad - just how good or bad depends on your personal viewpoint.

My view is that he had some shady policies: a harsh attitude to the suffragettes and to strikers; a dogged commitment to the Empire. But Britain's position in 1939-40 was arguably our most important moment of the C20th and Churchill was one of the few politicians who foresaw the horrors of what appeasement may have eventually brought. His determination to defeat Germany and to keep the country in fighting spirit are what most people fondly remember him for, quite rightly in my opinion.

As a wartime leader I think he can rightly be called a hero, but his peacetime domestic policies can hardly be similarly lauded. It's interesting to consider what his reputation would have been had the Second World War not intervened.

[Rosalind]

He will always be a hero to me ........ and my 13 year old great nephew!

[feller]

Churchill was THE man that the UK needed in 1940. There were no other men with his leadership
capabilities. Lord Halifax was an appeaser IMHO he shouldn't have recived anything but a thank you for services rendered . But was sent to the USA as Ambassador to the USA . Mr. Churchill stood by the British people and urged them forward to Victory. He made tours of bombed out parts of London, and elsewhere as did H.M. King George VI , something the nazi leadership did not do. Our citizens morale
was thus raised.
Now was that an act of a hero ? I think so , there were people who had a hate on for Churchill.And
it might have been expected to find that in a people that have just been bombed out. And even if he
had been booed , and he might have been for all I know , he would have taken that in stride.
As to the esteem he was held in I remember seeing a lady who in the election of 1945 was in a
quandry she had voted labor but still wanted Churchill as PM . And a second tip of the hat to him was made in the end of the 2nd Lord of the Rings movie when they paraphrased his Battle of France is over the battle for Britain is about to begin .Substiutute Helm,s Deep for France and Middle earth for Britain . get the point .

[OldSalfordMan]

Most defintely NOT a hero. Churchill was a good orator and an excellent self-publist which has helped build the Churchill myth. He was willing to change parties to progress his career, his meddling in purely military matters cost thousands of lives, his callous actions against strikers and suffragettes for purely political ends does not show greatness and his blatant manipulation of facts would shame even a modern day politician.
I am sure that as people who lived around the first world war, between the wars and during the war gradually die away his myth will grow namely through HIS history of the second World War and the multitude of books that liberally borrow from it. Many of the ordinary people of that time did not have the same memory of the man that has been created since WWII as evidenced my the fact they removed him from power as soon as they could after victory only returning him as an elected PM after the publicity machine had got to work. (we are all aware that some of the people can be fooled all of the time).
An excellent self publicist, with a highly selective memory for his version of history, most definitely but a hero NO.
How history views a peson changes with time and available evidence but the evidence of my own eyes and the recollections of people I trust can only lead me to the conslusion that he is not deserving of any form of hero status.

[dcdcosta]

To quote another towering figure of our age (Bill Clinton) "it depends what you mean by 'is'" Or, in this case, "hero." Few lives have been as extensively researched and scoured over as Churchill's, so the facts of it are abundantly clear. Yes, he was (at times) an appalling old bigot who hated "blackamoors" and a savage old monster who would happily have gassed all of Germany. But he was also the man who was needed to face the hour in 1940 and whose resolution and leadership helped rescue the civilized world.

While these contradictions may fly in the face of Hollywood or fairy-tale definitions of "hero" -- what other title could we possibly bestow?