Andrew Roberts, “The State of Churchill’s Reputation Today”

Historian and author Andrew Roberts addresses the 36th International Churchill Conference in Washington, D.C.
Dr Andrew Roberts has spent nearly thirty years researching, writing and
broadcasting extensively about Churchill and the Second World War. His first book, The Holy Fox, was a biography of Churchill’s foreign secretary Lord Halifax.
Since then he has published-amongst many other books-Eminent Churchillians,
Hitler and Churchill: Secrets of Leadership (accompanying his four-part BBC
history series), A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 (which won
the Intercollegiate Studies Institute Book Award), Masters and Commanders: How
Roosevelt, Churchill, Marshall and Alanbrooke Won the War in the West 1941-45
(which won the ICS Emery Reves Prize), The Storm of War: A New History of the
Second World War (which won the British Army Military Book Prize), Napoleon: A
Life, and Churchill: Walking with Destiny.

Dr. Roberts is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and the Royal Historical
Society, the Lehrman Institute Distinguished Lecturer at the New York Historical
Society, a visiting professor at the War Studies Department of King’s College,
London, and the chairman of the judges of the Lehrman Institute Military Book
Award. He lives in London and reviews history books for over a dozen newspapers
and periodicals. His website can be found at www.andrew-roberts.net

[@thepolymath777]

"Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the revisionists say because the established view of Churchill is already there." Roberts is a gift to Churchill's legacy. His assessments are spot on.

[@mattd6086]

Andrew Roberts is a very fine historian and an intellectual giant.

[@riverwolf654]

and youd know would you lol

[@mattd6086]

It must feel good to leave idiotic comments on KZbin huh @@riverwolf654

[@burnsport1]

Such an important point by Roberts - to read the SOURCE material on historical figures. Find out directly what they thought about things, often from their own mouth, and you'll find much sympathy for them.

[@casperdog777]

Andrew is a super speaker and writer. Thank you.

[@fmpairsoft9039]

Thank you for saving my research paper!

[@Churchillsociety]

Happy to help!

[@nushratjahannabila7047]

😂

[@b.alexanderjohnstone9774]

Just other day my 15 yo niece said that at school (in Melbourne) she'd been told WSC was a racist, to which I said 'if you think WSC was bad, you should've seen the other guy'. But I realised one must now have better arguments b/c this is no longer a crazy left-wing or fringe accusation. It's hard nowadays to escape conclusion our culture and history is under a sustained (if often ignorant) attack.

[@andym9571]

In the summer of last year ( after the BLM in London) I asked my mates kids the same. I asked them what they were taught at school and the answer was " he was a bad man and a racist who did some good things" . Quite astonishing that that is the level of ignorance of teachers in the UK today....either that or there is something else going on .

[@mikegalvin9801]

@@andym9571 Same is true in US with not only Churchill but our historical figures, who having the temerity to have been born before 1990 or so can never possibly meet up to the standards of today's PC. One other thing that occurs to me is that I fell in love with history as a Boomer child because of the great personalities and ripping yarn stories. Today the history that our young people are taught consists entirely of whining about how unjust everything was. That is not a good way to get young minds excited.

[@dnbeckmann]

Brilliant. Thank you very much.

[@3maisons]

In Chapter 15, Roberts writes about an article in Macleans Magazine that Churchill wrote in 1931, making "absurd predictions" like "we would grow only those parts of chickens we wanted to eat". Examine the imbalance between the huge size of chicken breasts vs. legs today, and you will see that even this "absurd" prediction is effectively true.

[@scottscottsdale7868]

Very good discussion.

[@GH-oi2jf]

Wikipedia is an authority on nothing. Props for calling it out.

[@aon10003]

Wikipedia gives sources. Its not more and not less than this person. The point about Wikipedia is that you get the background noice that puts everything together. But if you only is able to handle one view of events. Pick one and stay with it.

[@juancassius7056]

I know im asking the wrong place but does someone know of a method to get back into an instagram account..? I somehow lost the account password. I would love any assistance you can offer me!

[@giannidonovan3978]

@Juan Cassius instablaster =)

[@juancassius7056]

@Gianni Donovan thanks so much for your reply. I found the site through google and im in the hacking process now. Seems to take quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.

[@juancassius7056]

@Gianni Donovan It did the trick and I now got access to my account again. Im so happy! Thank you so much you saved my ass!

[@Jubilo1]

Encouraging- no spray paint on this video.

[@janlotichius7949]

Mr. Roberts, when you saay Churchill saved civilaztion, are you alluding to his civilazation of train stations, machinery etc., or to the Western civilaztion of which Ghandi said that it would be a good idea?

[@danmoritz3319]

I never previously knew much about the details of Churchill, other than the basic story of him "saving Britain" from the NAZI's. One day, almost by accident, I heard a Churchill quote somewhere, which inspired a search for more of his writings and quotes. To me, Churchills speeches are some of the top relatively few political, social, historical and military communications of all time. There is a balanced flow and rhythm that hammers points down at exactly the right moments. If you admire great English language writing, you are not fully educated if you haven't read Churchill. One of my favorites is the speech he gave on October 5th, 1938. Hearing the very thoughts going through peoples minds, as events happen, helps us understand THEIR history, better, true. But it also is extremely helpful in understanding our own world in that basic human nature really does not ever change very much, that, as much as we pretend otherwise, we really are not that different than them, a hundred or a thousand or five thousand years ago.

[@andym9571]

There is a lot to learn about him. All the things and ideas he was responsible for in WW2 but also his ideas in WW1 ...the tank ! Also responsible for the tea break for British workers and unemployment benefit too.

[@jshepard152]

Churchill denied saying it, but one of my favorite (supposed) Churchill quotes is "An empty taxi pulled up in front of Number Ten Downing Street and Clement Attlee got out."

[@somersetuk525]

WSC complete book collection for Sale. also over 100 by other authors. My late father was also a member of "International. WSC society" some signed and 1st editions.

[@marciasloan534]

For all detractors: The patient force of Churchill’s diplomacy won FDR. From one aristocrat to another. As simple as that. We can be scornful of the privileged,their luck in life we missed out on, but they trust Each other, and only Churchill could Influence FDR. Luck for everyone.

[@andym9571]

If only the BBC were prepared to air this instead of " a documentary " made by an Indian who did accuse Churchill of racism and responsibility for the famine...which seems to have become the mainstream view now at the BBC and amongst many school teachers. After all the BLM issues they should have at least put up a defence.

[@johnholmes912]

those who believe churchill to be responsible for the bengal famine will brook no argument to the contrary.....reasoned debate is, sadly a thing of the past

[@johncarlisle2755]

As Churchill was Prime Minister of the UK, surely he had supreme authority of Britains imperial possessions? How were these Calcutta councils established. By a democratic process? Or were they placed there by imperial patronage? If so, surely the executive head takes responsibility for the vices and the virtues of his administration. Churchill gets the credit for the steadfast resistance of his war cabinet (the majority of whom were Labour) ....that's ok. But he also should take the rap for the british admin in India. Even if it wasnt 6 million....it was certainly in the millions.

[@thevillaaston7811]

Australia, Canada, India, Newfoundland, New Zealand and South Africa all had their parliments.

[@johncarlisle2755]

How were these councils selected? Were they appointed by a system of patronage?

[@Telcontarnz]

@@johncarlisle2755 Churchill did not have supreme authority over these countries...they independently joined Britain in the war. This is a very bad attempt to pin the issue on Churchill when the facts show otherwise. Must be so upsetting to you.

[@johncarlisle2755]

@@Telcontarnz ....as a historian. I dont get upset about an historical fact...one way another. But I would like to check this out. India was part of empire so I am not sure of your research.

[@Telcontarnz]

@@johncarlisle2755 New Zealand, Canada and Australia were part of the Empire and had their own parliaments and elections. They independently decided to go to war against Germany and Japan. Something someone pointed out 3 months ago. As an alleged historian you can cite all your sources showing the British admin at least contributed to the Bengal famine. Then you’d have to link that to the commands they were working under. Then you have to ignore the comments in this lecture about the issues facing Churchill, and all the letters he wrote to the USA etc. pleading for help. Then you’d have to put it all in the context do a global war against two fascist regimes and decide whether it wasn’t the best course of action to defeat them. It’s easy to make these accusations with the benefit of hindsight. I don’t think your comments are backup up by historical fact, and even you, as a ‘historian’ have said you’d ‘like to check it out’. Maybe you should do that first. Anyway, I’m open to changing my mind if actually quite your sources proving your allegations. I’ll be waiting a long time. And before you say I need to quote mine, you are making the claim about Churchill’s guilt and so need to back them up.

[@janlotichius7949]

"It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir… striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice-regal Palace," Churchill said of his anti-colonialist adversary in 1931.

[@andrewdockrill]

It is bad when they do have to preface the talk with "this is not a hagiography". That;s not so good.

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

No it’s just a statement of fact

[@aon10003]

Read Biggles instead.

[@robertewing3114]

Churchills lisp was to appease his gay friends, Is there general appeasement? He asked the PM in May 1938. In 1920, he spoke of prudence and appeasement, was he explaining why he described his physical time with a musician musical? Roberts is defective on Churchills personal life, and on appeasement, but will be popular for it. He writes excellently, but it is biased to the popular take of Churchill as only saying gestapo-like Attlee to amuse.

[@nurlatifahmohdnor8939]

Page 201 Redcoats and Hessians = German soldiers hired by King George III to fight for England

[@simongleaden2864]

Tedious, boring introduction - why not just get the visiting speaker on? We've not come to listen to you, we've come to hear Mr Roberts!

[@jshepard152]

Introductions are best kept to one minute, and giving an intro of more than two minutes should be a capital offense.

[@davidbevan8149]

Andrew not very articulate

[@Telcontarnz]

You missed the word ‘is’ from you amazingly insightful sentence.

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

It is somewhat ironic that you call a world-renowned academic and writer as not being very articulate - when you can’t even construct a basic sentence of a few words.

[@paramarky]

What an ignoramus you are

[@josecanales2978]

Says the guy writing like a caveman