I hope and pray that millions will get to hear that lecture on Churchill. He was the one who God chose to lead Great Britain at the moment when the rest of the politicians were ready to sue for peace. Once he roused the nation the rest of the free world came together.
27 here. I’ve always admired Winston Churchill since I was 10 years old & only just caught the dying couple years of the History Channel still being the History Channel.
My US Army OSS grandfather knew Churchill in WW2. WC was a singular leader with great wisdom and vision. He was a tough bully, but the precise one we needed at the time. Younger historians like Daryl Cooper need to grow up.
It’s important to remember history, but it’s also important not to glorify, or vilify. Churchill the man, and the Churchill legacy, are prone to these extremes. He’s at his best when he feels and acknowledges his humanity, warts and all. He’s at his worst when his vanity and corpulence foul his judgement. When he had to, he had an ability to outrun the worst of his natural tendencies, he “learned from his mistakes”. He is the embodiment of best and the worst of us. This is thing which marks him as a figure worth remembering.
It's such a brilliant lecture by Mr. Roberts. Thanks for sharing. Looking forward to read the book as soon as I get it from Amazon. Greetings from Moscow.
Irving's Churchill's War uses actual 1st person and documents to prove your narrative as utter nonsence. Even when one realizes that the British traitor cost the Anglo Saxon people the Brittish Empire and subsequent devolution into a juaaio-masonic 3rd world s#@t hole.
My grandfather came from Britain to Costa Rica to stay by the 1920’s. He is said to quote Winston Churchill often oh and ever since my elementary school studies of the Great War and the Second World War I’ve been wanting to find a book that explains this giant! I’m buying Mr Roberts’ book!
I’m an American and very fond of George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, But Winston Churchill was the greatest world leader in modern times ever.............ever.
Judging by the crow's feet around the eyes of the people who spent a lifetime studying the man and his prodigious work and the fact that his image or mention still extracts a smile from anyone who knows anything about the man, ths answer is an emphatic yes. This is coming from a German who absolutely adores America.
Ursula Fuengerlings From an American who adores Germany... well stated! 🇺🇸🇬🇧🇩🇪🇮🇹🇯🇵 I’m extremely proud of how these nations picked up the pieces and carried on, especially Germany. History shows us how some people behaved during a certain period. The past century saw both despicable and honorable behavior. Blame and credit should go toward those who earned them. I have studied WWII for many years. The Axis nations have become our allies and have demonstrated resiliency and decency. I’m a white male from east Tennessee. I never owned a plantation or a slave. I don’t know if any of my ancestors did, but I also don’t even know most of their names or what part of Europe they were from. The world has only had ancestory.com for a short time, too. Accountability for individual or group behavior should always be accurate. Credit should go only to those who deserve it, and the same for blame. Holding people to account for genetic traits which are determined in the womb is not right. I’m neither sexist nor racist. I only care about behavior and Germans, since WWII and no doubt in prior centuries, have earned as much credit as any people. Tremendous rebound under nearly incomprehensible conditions!!! 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼🇩🇪
I liked Regan too. He was a genuine man who actually cared about people. Britain will fall into severe trouble in the next 5 yrs coming up. They are out of the EU and have only idiots to run the country from now on.2021 and it will all be downhill. There is literally nobody capable of steering the country after they are out of the EU on 1 January 2021. Combine this with Covid19 and Climate Change and Britain will slide down the pile going from once 4th largest economy to my predictions becoming below 15-20th in a short time period. The people who were once great, fair, well educated and strong will become of a much lower class because of poorer education.
@@MICKEYISLOWD Regarding loving Reagan. This is from my book ANGRY LOUD AND CLEAR TRUTH Paul Weyrich founded the Heritage Foundation in 1973 as a political lobbying group. It was funded by oil baron Nelson Bunker Hunt and his brother William Robert Hunt, as well as by Joseph Coors, the famous brewer, who supported the political and religious right tenaciously. Then Weyrich created the “Moral Majority” in 1979, and Jerry Falwell was placed as its president. Falwell’s friend Ronald Reagan was supported by the Moral Majority, and as we all know, was elected president in 1980. As early as 1971, Reagan had been expressing an approach to the future centered upon the return of Jesus and the battle of Armageddon similar to the fiction of Tim Lahaye’s books of the “Left Behind” series, which misrepresented what the bible teaches, highlighting Armageddon and promoting the unbiblical falsehood of pre-trib rapture. The book THE UNTOLD NATURE OF CHRISTIANITY debunks the widely believed pre-trib rapture doctrine completely, employing multitudes of scriptures as well as common sense which plainly and frankly buries “Left Behind” in the category of heresy and deliberate deception. According to Falwell, Reagan stated while campaigning in New Orleans, “I sometimes believe we’re heading very fast for Armageddon right now.” Falwell said of Reagan: “Reagan is a fine man. He believes what the Moral Majority believes, what god tells us.” Ronald Reagan swore to invigorate the economy by rolling back government regulations, balancing the budget, and lowering taxes. His economic theory was that the lower corporate taxes would stimulate the economy as a whole, thus increasing government revenue. Remember the trickle-down theory? From the 1980s to recently, the adjusted family average income has been about the same or lower than that before him. (At this time, the income of the exceedingly wealthy has multiplied exponentially, so the rest of our incomes has decreased). Reagan’s agenda improved the income only of the rich. In his eight years in office, Reagan added nearly $2 trillion to the national debt, more than all his predecessors combined, including those who had fought global wars. Yet his reputation among fundamental and evangelical heroes is stellar. He is regarded by them as the best president the country ever had. He was the first president that the Christian propaganda spin-doctors take credit for putting there. He did fight abortion, as well as affirmative action, and many social services were cut. Unemployment rose to 11% in 1982. He addressed that by cutting $35 billion from social programs like food stamps and federally funded job training programs. The US balance of trade started, for the first time, to be in deficit in 1980, continuing until 1994 and beyond, the worst years being 1984-88. While he is given credit by Christian leaders and media as being a savior; by dismantling USSR, by going against abortion, homosexuality, feminism, and affirmative action, and getting tough on crime; economics was the one true important issue of those behind the scenes, and Christians backed whoever the pastors supported. Why were they told to love an actor, who had put in so much uncharitable legislation? Here is the story behind the façade: In the second part of this book, under the section addressing propaganda, I will introduce to you the huge conglomerates which have their hands on all kinds of industry, including the media. GE owns NBC, A&E, AMC, Bravo, AT&T, and more, while also owning automobile companies, computers, refinery equipment, nuclear reactors, x-ray and ultrasound machines, insurance, mortgages, telecommunications, food and beverages, and they own much more. It has been a key player in the military industrial complex, was convicted of illegally collaborating with Germany’s Krupp Company, which was a big player of the Nazi weapons effort; and through NBC grossed over $2 billion in military contracts during the Vietnam War. Edward Langley wrote about Reagan signing with GE in 1954, describing GE as obsessed with conservatism like the John Birch society. After employment hosting in the General Electric Theater series on CBS, GE sponsored Reagan to tour the country, pontificating against communism, labor unions, social security, public housing; and advocating for the reduction of corporate taxes. These lectures had been the foundation for Reagan’s political career. Perhaps now you can see who and how the world’s most powerful nation is formed and developed. It is definitely not “by and for the people.” Funny, but mean-spirited selfishness and greed are not promoted in the bible that I studied for 10,000 hours. Bush Sr. (also a friend of Jerry Falwell), followed Reagan as the choice of the Christian right.
I have listened to Mr Roberts Churchill book and It is really very enjoyable and recommend it highly. This was a very well done speech which apparently was given without a note. Churchill was in my view responsible for the very life of Liberty we enjoy today. Not without his faults but must be judged as a man of his time the same consideration due the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.
I've read both Andrew Roberts' and Sir Martin Gilbert's single volume biographies of Churchill and they're both excellent. I wouldn't want to have to choose between them.
... It was really great to see all those people turn out for this discussion; however, I'm fearful of the lack of young people. They really needed to be there and hear what entails ' Good Leadership ' not the Kim Kardashian or Jesse Smoolet type ...
As well as the legalization of marihuana and cocaine. It's frightening to think that a pot head might be one day leading our country, or designing a bridge, operating on your heart...
The joke at the end comes from Shakespeare's early romantic comedy called: "The two gentlemen of Verona". The play isn't as well known as most of his others, so those who got the joke are well educated.
A wonderful lecture. Kudos to Pres. Arnn for inviting this great scholar to Hillsdale. That is to say: why is Mr. Roberts not invited to speak at elite Ivy league schools? How a person of Pres. Arnn's quality can also countenance the depredations of Donald Trump is a profound mystery to me. It should be noted that the only question Mr. Robert's did not answer was concerned with how Churchill would have reacted to Trump and the Trump campaign. I should like to think he'd have been appalled--at the very least by the quality of the rhetoric. I remain an avid supporter of Hillsdale College.
Winston is in my family line! We are thankful for all the good things he tried to do to help out ! I believe his name will be passed on to one of my grandsons one day,there has been talk about it!
stardustgirl God bless you. I might name my next, third, Rottweiler Winston. Junior and Wilson were awesome. My cousin recently discovered we’re related to Patton!
@@junior.von.claire 🇺🇸💙😇That's really awesome! I love genealogy, it let's you know what you're family is capable of doing! I know a ton of my family history, it's the best thing for the younger generations to know they can be great to! This COUNTRY WAS BUILT ON PRAYERS, AND HARD WORK, AND WE HAVE TO continue on in that if we want to Make this COUNTRY great! I'm so glad you are learning about you're family history, this makes learning fun for the whole family!💙😇God bless you too!
I've been watching these wonderful Hillsdale speech videos. But I am dismayed that they are usually not given to younger audiences. Those are the people that need to be hearing them. I think Hillsdale knows this. What's up?
true leadership is a God Quality...therefore rare....you are truly perceptive if you recognize the leaders in their time because you can lend support to them, which gives you added significance for the advancement of all God's agendas
In a collection of 20 th century historians whose biographies on Churchill that I have read with great curiosity such as Sir Matin Gilbert, Lord Roy Jenkins, and Philip Ziegler now I will add Andrew Roberts superlative lecture at Hilldale college, his presentation was humorous, to the point.Now I could have to get a non- fiction biography on Churchill by Andrew Roberts and read.
On a republican principle i should hate this man because of my countries relationship with him. Im Irish. But I don't, I respect him as leader. If he was not around at that time I'm certain there would not have been the result that happened in WW2. His life influenced a world beyond comparison. Europe owes him a death of gratitude even today. America would not have been as ready as it was only for his far sighted intuition about all these dark force's at play , the axis of Evil.. I salute his existence for the bigger picture. ✊ ☘️
1939: Oct 15 In a sickening double-standard; the allies remained silent about the brutal communist Soviet aggression (millions dead). Instead, the Churchill-Stalin-Pact was signed
During one of the tremendous struggles against fascism that characterized the 21st---yes, i said Twenty-FIRST---Century---a rioting, history-smashing twit (i use a POLITE word) of Brit heritage told an equally (perhaps) clueless "journalist" with gaffer (so we have the sound) something to the effect that "I haven't met this Winston Churchill fellow, but if i do i am going to SHAME him..." -----Should God be merciful and i ever have the chance MYSELF to meet this Winston Churchill fellow, i am going to thank him. Churchill still matters. The more so in times with twits ascendant.
Great to hear Andrew Robert's discussion. Churchill was a great defender of the principles of a Liberal Democracy - in Britain and Europe At the end of WW II , Churchill tried to defend the democratic rights of Poland . * He despised both communists and fascists But Churchill had his flaws - most notably being a person of his time , he was an Imperialist. * Churchill has been falsely accused of giving away Poland to Stalin at the Yalta Conference - of Feb 1945 . However , the truth is the Soviet Army was already occupying most of Poland and was about 80 Km from Berlin . Stalin was holding most of the cards and there wasn't much Churchill or FDR could do about it . Operation Unthinkable was declassified in 1998 . th-cam.com/video/o9Ovajkwyxw/w-d-xo.html .
Galipoli was not trivial. Galipoli was the most courageous sacrifice mankind has ever seen. No other nation outside of England has ever, repeat, ever, shown such deference, duty, honour and chivalry to the Queen of England than the ANZACS of Galipoli. None. For Queen and Commonwealth we salute the Bravest of all men. The ANZACS.
@@brianmoran1196 I was quoting the Turkish General, Attaturk. He watched as the Australians ordered by the British sipping tea, got mowed down by their machine guns.
Churchill was correct about the corrosive and destructive effect of giving women the right to vote. Women vote for increasing tyrannical nanny states. They sacrifice freedom for security and in the end we will all have neither.
Stephen Leftfield Agreed. Point to behavior, people, not genetic traits. Racism and sexism are lazy tools of the weak mind. When asked about a woman doing something, I ask “Which one?” And even that doesn’t tell the future. Rubbish, indeed.
@@junior.von.claire Men and women are genetically pre disposed to act differently to the same problem. What JR is saying is not an absolute truth about every women but hes talking about group level.
Eric B I understand. I just disagree with the assertion . Not only is more evidence of gender difference available today, per my deduction, but estimations about female leadership at the time were based on little evidence. They still could have been correct, but throughout history there have been excellent male leaders, as well as horrific ones. Churchill vs Hitler? Thatcher vs Clinton? Sometimes the particular female is inclined towards a tyrannical, nanny state, but sometimes the world is far better off with a woman at the helm than a man. It’s a matter of individual meritocracy, and no amount of modern feminism can effect my perspective. Feminism is sexism, too. I take people, and groups, one at a time. I do appreciate your wanting to clarify, however. It’s an important topic and I wish politics and ideology weren’t impeding so many from having civil exchanges on many issues. I don’t know for certain that I am right on this. I may change my mind at some point. I want to be truthful far more than I want to be right. It requires a degree of humility and honesty that is somewhat lacking today. While adopting a stance means having a belief and an argument, so many people want to win the court case. I would rather play attorney, too, but I ultimately want to be a better judge. When I hear someone put forth a belief or perspective and then conclude with, “...but I don’t know.”, I admire them for it. It’s often tempting to state what we think as fact, proportional to how much confidence we have in our argument. Facts bring ultimate confidence, to be sure. I realize that I have rambled on here and I apologize. My mother had breast cancer surgery six hours ago and I have yet to hear anything, so I am nervous. She did have a very long and successful career, and is still employed at 70. She’s one individual, but so is Hillary Clinton. I certainly take one person at a time! God bless 🙏🏼
@@junior.von.claire I wish your mother and you well. My assertion is based on averages. That said, married women, especially married women with children, vote more conscientiously than single men. Were I in total control, I would restrict voting in may ways. A voter would have to be COMPLETELY off all welfare, not work for the city, state of federal Government and be required to show photo ID with proof of citizenship. Any of those 3 categories are much more important to me than sex. I would also refuse the right to unionize for any Government employee and abolish all security for civil service. Those are all pipe dreams as Western societies are far too gone down to madness. It would take a complete collapse of western societies which in a nuclear age would be catastrophic to reboot the insanity. Still, Eastern Europe, Italy and a few other places are at least slowing the descent to madness. Churchill was correct about women in general, as is Ann Coulter today. My wife of 37 years (4 sane kids) is one of many exceptions, then again I taught her well. As to racism, I am a biracial Hispanic who qualifies as black by federal guidelines and a naturalized citizen. I thoroughly oppose any racial discrimination as currently exists against caucasians.
"I was not saying Churchill is better or greater, or comparing him with Jesus Christ as a person, or god as a thing or whatever it is. I just said what I said and it was wrong, or it was taken wrong, and now it's all this" (historian retracting claim that WC is more popular than Jesus). "If I had said screens are more popular than Jesus, I might have got away with it".
I'm now a bit doubtful about Churchill, having read some recent materials. I have become increasingly suspicious Churchill role in the WWII and that role seems to be not as favorable as historians have been presenting it to us which has led to many unnecessary deaths.
5 ปีที่แล้ว
Palla d'Aubrey Recent materials should not be trusted.
@ Pardon me, lapsus linguae - I meant recently read info which sounds quite plausible and logical and Churchill has fallen from grace, at least in my eyes. Another instance Leo Tolstoy was right remarking "History is wonderful thing it it were true". And let not forget it is written by the victors.
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory [tear] gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected." -- Winston Churchill
Talking, in case anybody mis-read it, about nothing more than the use of *tear gas*. And a short time later, again in 1919, in a minute to Air Marshall Trenchard he refers to the need for " the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind, but not death".
@@TheKomitet Why, thank you! I fear though that you flatter me when I don`t truly deserve it. My slavish devotion you see, is not to Churchill, but rather leans towards telling the unvarnished accurate and occasionally uncomfortable truths about the man, as for example historians Ashley Jackson, Richard Langworth and Andrew Roberts do in their excellently written critical, balanced and thoroughly researched biographies - the positives, the accomplishments alongside of the mistakes, the mis-steps and the flaws. You of course did not quote that 1919 War Office minute in full (all I usually see quoted on line is the selective quite out of context few words beginning "I am strongly in favour..."), with the intent of balance, fairness and objectivity. Your intention was plainly the opposite and I suspect that in fact you didn`t at all absorb the actual meaning of the paragraph but instead misread it as proof that he was promoting the use of deadly gasses, which of course he was not. Of course, he let himself down with his inappropriate and misguided use of the word "poisonous". Just to round off and hopefully assist you further in your quest for accuracy and truthfulness in the subject of Churchill, here is a further memorandum on the subject of the use of tear gas, directed to the War Office just a few days later - my source, Richard Langworth.... "If it is fair war for an Afghan to shoot down a British soldier from behind a rock and cut him to pieces as he lies wounded on the ground (something the 22 year old Churchill had witnessed several times), why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze? It really is too silly...." Thank you though for high lighting a facet of my personality that you consider "adorable". Too kind... (^_^)
@@toff358 On a more serious note. What were the British soldiers doing in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, India and the other mandates? To be a brutal occupier invites retaliation. Using perfectly justified retaliation by a subject to justify racially motivated actions and still claim to be humane and civilized is something conservatives have perfected. Churchill wrote the manual for such behaviour and must therefore be torn down from public pedestals.
About the we will fight on the beach speech... Andrew purposely forgot to explain that half of the old english dictionnary has french origin... and despite what he tell us we have many words of french origin in that churchill speech... Included in the last paragraph. Conclusion, as usual ...We have plenty of british horn tooting and flag waving tales.
The French decided that the nobles should not rule any longer France all the way back in 1789. And since they proceeded to murder and eliminate that nobility which had taken 2 thousand years for France to build, France has been governed ever since by men with humble upbringing. And without knowing they have created a new word derived from the word 'cloaca'. The oclocracy, i.e., the government by the mob. And since 1789 France has only shot her feet, France has only been defeated and suffered humiliations upon humiliations. This great historian, Mr. Andrew Roberts, is an expert in Napoleon. I have no doubt Napoleon was great, and he reinstaured the Monarchy in France in an implicit admission that the elimination of the French aristocracy by the left, i.e., that oclocracy that in a way or another has been (dis)governing France ever since was a mistake. But great or not, he lost the war, and his utter lack of understanding of the sea led to Trafalgar which destroyed the French and the Spanish empire. The oclocracy that has been (dis)governing France ever since has had a very very bad and dishonorable performance and up to now France has not recovered from their elimination of their aristocracy. That French oclocracy has been confused and do not know how to govern and much worse than that, what to do with their own leaders. They murdered Louis XVI and Marie Antoniette. Then Napoleon lost his wars and spent the rest of his days in Saint Helena. I am sure many Frenchmen think that island was a Mediterranee resort, but it was not, it was a prison. The British arrested a French emperor and it seems to me that murdered him there to eliminate his threat once and for all. Then that French oclocracy came up with Napoleon the Third, who only made unbelievable mistakes (which can only be explained by the lack of statesmen in the French government. They did not have old school statesment like for instance Talleyrand simply because that oclocracy guillotined them all). So Napoleon the third decided to transform Mexico into a French possession and a monarchy, and appointed a French emperor to govern Mexico and the Mexicans defeated the French forces and arrested that French emperror Maximilian, and shot him (and he deserved his fate). So not only the French murder their leaders. The British too and the Mexicans as well. Then The Vichy France which can only be explained as the culmination of the oclocracy, put he head of Charles De Gaulle at premium. If Churchill did not protect him, the French would have arrested De Gaulle and murdered him. Then, after the war, that war which the British and the Americans fought for the French because they refused to fight for France, it was the turn to De Gaulle to fight back and then he had Pierre Laval, the president of Vichy France shot. Before him, a young French shot the French Minister of the French Navy, Admiral Darlan (the role of the French navy during the Second World War can only be explained by the fact that France was governed by an ocloracy, which explains the French defeat as well in Trafalgar). And perhaps this is a coincidence, but Churchill was the last aristocrat to govern Britain. And in less than a generation Britain lost its empire. So, to answer that question posed by an illustrious interlocutor that Abe Lincoln came from the lower layers of the American society but was a great president, I think that he was an exception, within an American exceptionalism which existed back then but now, in the 21st century is being very hard to be maintained with the quality of leadership the Americans are having now.
A relentless realist in many ways, he never visited New Zealand. And it would probably have confirmed his predjudice if he had. When the first Dominion Office representive to actually viist and live in NZ, Battersby with the inevitable third from some obscure Oxford College. He took the the ineviable Middle Class view . Wellington ws a provincial dump, with absurd little trams rcking up Lampton Quay, Dunedin was a horror story, an even worse dump infested with Presbterian, morals no joy on the sabbath and public bahing only wearing clothes. Battersby resstricted himself to house parties, with the top two percent were those who had got rich from lamb runs or business partied and got sloshed all weekend often even in mixed company. Winston only followed the big picture hia last government wsa only for him about bombs, the RAF, restricting the Navy, keeping hte steam trains, opening up the TV cchannels to private competiiton, he claimed his real occcupation ws a journalist, and certainly that was how he paid for the wife, estate and Randolphs drink billl. Churchill said he had never heard about North Korea until 1948 and neve rknew there was such a thing as Korea until he was 74. He said the same thing about Gutemala when omeone toldhim the Americans had statged a coup. He found an Atals and there Was Gutemala. Anazingly there was actually some neutral blot on the map of the same name.
"Special font for irony". Poor taste, Mr. Roberts, this came from a completely innocent viewer and you slammed him, a viewer asking a legitimate question . Shame on youl
I had the misfortune to go to the same school as Andrew Roberts. Churchill was complicated but one thing one can’t do is to project Churchill as an ally for Brexit which is supported by people who have betrayed the UK with lies and deceit. I agree however that Churchill was the right man at the right time although he had a complicated history. He was of course a Liberal who supported Lloyd George and the People.s budget which established the pension. Complicated, provocative, imperialist, irritating but thanks to the support from outside the Conservative party he played a crucial role in saving the best traditions of western culture which is put in jeopardy again by Brexit
Churchill would have led us out of the EU today, he had no time for totalitarianism, indeed his life was spent fighting against it. Plus of course he had deep deep affection for his country and its people and would never have betrayed either.
socialism is the great teacher of this Age....we must learn what evil looks like, how it creeps in, how much we need Jesus, & so this is the end of the Age of Man
yeah, there is more to it than that...the population of the main province that was hit in 1943, Bengal, it's population increased by 43% from 1903-1941...why? mostly because of the introduction of life-saving Western medicines, which hugely decreased the infant mortality rate from the end of the 19th century...yet the society still had a culture of large families, due to the past infant mortality rate. The British Government tried to educate against this... Also, the invasion of Burma by the Japanese forced millions of refugees west into India (Bengal, the most Eastern province). All these factors combined, led to a famine...and Churchill was recorded as quipping, "if they only had less children" or something to the effect...which was not PC in the modern sense, but was objectively true. So, where exactly is the outrage?? Towards the Japanese invading Burma? Towards the British for brining life saving medicine? Or to the Indian women having their children at the rate their traditional culture suggested?
Also, during the 43 "famine" the majority of deaths had been caused by malaria and cholera...all of these evils had been solved by mid-1944...so, despite brown spot disease that killed the rice crop, and millions of refugees from Burma, and a hugely increased population compared to the regions original infrastructure...the British were able to solve the problem, even in wartime...within a year's time.
So, in a nut-shell...you had an unexpected crop failure, in a province with unexpected population boom...during a time of war...yet the British solved the 43 famine by 44...where is the outrage again?
Mark McAllister Excellent presentation of the facts. However, might you choose a different example than the Freedom Tower, please? There are plenty of other choices. 🇺🇸🙏🏼
@@MarkMcAllister-ni9sf You make it sound like the British Empire was some sort of charity service.. Rather than something self serving, its own foreign interest.
I obviously don’t agree with Roberts ridiculous views about the National Health Service which is appreciated by the vast majority of the British people
You don’t speak for me and nor for the rest of the British people. The NHS is failing and was a terrible mistake in the first place. It has existed in a perpetual state of crisis ever since it was created and Andrew Roberts was absolutely right to take a shot at it, as it’s totally failing to meet the needs of patients in a timely manner or with healthcare of an international standard. The stats are clear on this - no one copied our system and there are vastly superior healthcare systems around the world that deliver better outcomes for less cost and without the 4.5 million people on waiting lists that we have in the UK.
Appreciate the idea - but the NHS is now a very much abused, expensive and badly run political football today. Most of the British people just don’t realise that it has become a holy cow of a very dysfunctional type.
Not to be in poor taste, but I think it's funny how the entire room is full of old, white people haha. "There really ought to be a special font for irony" ouch haha
Rather a silly and saccharine talk, I must say. The recent "revisionist" criticisms of Churchill are all well-founded. His "eloquence" may appeal to academics such as Andrew, but it doesn't make up for his racism, classism and his huge military blunders, or his passion for war.
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Wonderful lecture. Deserves to be heard by millions. Bravo, Andrew Roberts, and thank you, Hillsdale College.
I hope and pray that millions will get to hear that lecture on Churchill. He was the one who God chose to lead Great Britain at the moment when the rest of the politicians were ready to sue for peace.
Once he roused the nation the rest of the free world came together.
I see a lot of oldsters in the audience. Where are the younger generation who should by all rights, benefit from this brilliant historian?
They’re on tiktok
27 here. I’ve always admired Winston Churchill since I was 10 years old & only just caught the dying couple years of the History Channel still being the History Channel.
Being brainwashed, by woke idiots, at public school.
Physically 50
19 in spirit
Striving to
Bridge the gap :)
I'm sure the cost of this event was to much for any university student.
Absolutely love Andrew Roberts, and so very sorry that I missed this event; he handled the questions masterfully.
My US Army OSS grandfather knew Churchill in WW2. WC was a singular leader with great wisdom and vision. He was a tough bully, but the precise one we needed at the time. Younger historians like Daryl Cooper need to grow up.
Reading Churchills History of the English Speaking Peoples. Am struck at the underlying humour that bubbles along with his words.
The space he should be concentrating on is the one between his ears. Brilliantly eloquent
GOD BLESS ANDREW ROBERTS; FANTASTIC BOOK; AN EXCITING READ OF AN IMPORTANT LIFE; THANKS FOR WRITING IT.
It’s important to remember history, but it’s also important not to glorify, or vilify. Churchill the man, and the Churchill legacy, are prone to these extremes.
He’s at his best when he feels and acknowledges his humanity, warts and all. He’s at his worst when his vanity and corpulence foul his judgement. When he had to, he had an ability to outrun the worst of his natural tendencies, he “learned from his mistakes”. He is the embodiment of best and the worst of us. This is thing which marks him as a figure worth remembering.
It's such a brilliant lecture by Mr. Roberts. Thanks for sharing. Looking forward to read the book as soon as I get it from Amazon. Greetings from Moscow.
Fantastic book! Very well written. A joy to read.
Churchill had the courage to stand up to malevolence. All English speaking people owe a huge debt of gratitude.
Irving's Churchill's War uses actual 1st person and documents to prove your narrative as utter nonsence. Even when one realizes that the British traitor cost the Anglo Saxon people the Brittish Empire and subsequent devolution into a juaaio-masonic 3rd world s#@t hole.
My grandfather came from Britain to Costa Rica to stay by the 1920’s. He is said to quote Winston Churchill often oh and ever since my elementary school studies of the Great War and the Second World War I’ve been wanting to find a book that explains this giant! I’m buying Mr Roberts’ book!
I’m an American and very fond of George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, But Winston Churchill was the greatest world leader in modern times ever.............ever.
Judging by the crow's feet around the eyes of the people who spent a lifetime studying the man and his prodigious work and the fact that his image or mention still extracts a smile from anyone who knows anything about the man, ths answer is an emphatic yes.
This is coming from a German who absolutely adores America.
Ursula Fuengerlings From an American who adores Germany... well stated!
🇺🇸🇬🇧🇩🇪🇮🇹🇯🇵
I’m extremely proud of how these nations picked up the pieces and carried on, especially Germany. History shows us how some people behaved during a certain period. The past century saw both despicable and honorable behavior. Blame and credit should go toward those who earned them. I have studied WWII for many years. The Axis nations have become our allies and have demonstrated resiliency and decency.
I’m a white male from east Tennessee. I never owned a plantation or a slave. I don’t know if any of my ancestors did, but I also don’t even know most of their names or what part of Europe they were from. The world has only had ancestory.com for a short time, too.
Accountability for individual or group behavior should always be accurate. Credit should go only to those who deserve it, and the same for blame. Holding people to account for genetic traits which are determined in the womb is not right. I’m neither sexist nor racist. I only care about behavior and Germans, since WWII and no doubt in prior centuries, have earned as much credit as any people. Tremendous rebound under nearly incomprehensible conditions!!!
👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼🇩🇪
@@ursulafuengerlings5031 are you kidding? how could any thinking aware person possibly like america?
I liked Regan too. He was a genuine man who actually cared about people. Britain will fall into severe trouble in the next 5 yrs coming up. They are out of the EU and have only idiots to run the country from now on.2021 and it will all be downhill. There is literally nobody capable of steering the country after they are out of the EU on 1 January 2021. Combine this with Covid19 and Climate Change and Britain will slide down the pile going from once 4th largest economy to my predictions becoming below 15-20th in a short time period. The people who were once great, fair, well educated and strong will become of a much lower class because of poorer education.
@@MICKEYISLOWD Regarding loving Reagan. This is from my book ANGRY LOUD AND CLEAR TRUTH
Paul Weyrich founded the Heritage Foundation in 1973 as a political lobbying group. It was funded by oil baron Nelson Bunker Hunt and his brother William Robert Hunt, as well as by Joseph Coors, the famous brewer, who supported the political and religious right tenaciously. Then Weyrich created the “Moral Majority” in 1979, and Jerry Falwell was placed as its president. Falwell’s friend Ronald Reagan was supported by the Moral Majority, and as we all know, was elected president in 1980. As early as 1971, Reagan had been expressing an approach to the future centered upon the return of Jesus and the battle of Armageddon similar to the fiction of Tim Lahaye’s books of the “Left Behind” series, which misrepresented what the bible teaches, highlighting Armageddon and promoting the unbiblical falsehood of pre-trib rapture.
The book THE UNTOLD NATURE OF CHRISTIANITY debunks the widely believed pre-trib rapture doctrine completely, employing multitudes of scriptures as well as common sense which plainly and frankly buries “Left Behind” in the category of heresy and deliberate deception. According to Falwell, Reagan stated while campaigning in New Orleans, “I sometimes believe we’re heading very fast for Armageddon right now.” Falwell said of Reagan: “Reagan is a fine man. He believes what the Moral Majority believes, what god tells us.” Ronald Reagan swore to invigorate the economy by rolling back government regulations, balancing the budget, and lowering taxes. His economic theory was that the lower corporate taxes would stimulate the economy as a whole, thus increasing government revenue. Remember the trickle-down theory? From the 1980s to recently, the adjusted family average income has been about the same or lower than that before him. (At this time, the income of the exceedingly wealthy has multiplied exponentially, so the rest of our incomes has decreased). Reagan’s agenda improved the income only of the rich. In his eight years in office, Reagan added nearly $2 trillion to the national debt, more than all his predecessors combined, including those who had fought global wars. Yet his reputation among fundamental and evangelical heroes is stellar. He is regarded by them as the best president the country ever had. He was the first president that the Christian propaganda spin-doctors take credit for putting there. He did fight abortion, as well as affirmative action, and many social services were cut. Unemployment rose to 11% in 1982. He addressed that by cutting $35 billion from social programs like food stamps and federally funded job training programs. The US balance of trade started, for the first time, to be in deficit in 1980, continuing until 1994 and beyond, the worst years being 1984-88. While he is given credit by Christian leaders and media as being a savior; by dismantling USSR, by going against abortion, homosexuality, feminism, and affirmative action, and getting tough on crime; economics was the one true important issue of those behind the scenes, and Christians backed whoever the pastors supported. Why were they told to love an actor, who had put in so much uncharitable legislation? Here is the story behind the façade:
In the second part of this book, under the section addressing propaganda, I will introduce to you the huge conglomerates which have their hands on all kinds of industry, including the media. GE owns NBC, A&E, AMC, Bravo, AT&T, and more, while also owning automobile companies, computers, refinery equipment, nuclear reactors, x-ray and ultrasound machines, insurance, mortgages, telecommunications, food and beverages, and they own much more. It has been a key player in the military industrial complex, was convicted of illegally collaborating with Germany’s Krupp Company, which was a big player of the Nazi weapons effort; and through NBC grossed over $2 billion in military contracts during the Vietnam War. Edward Langley wrote about Reagan signing with GE in 1954, describing GE as obsessed with conservatism like the John Birch society. After employment hosting in the General Electric Theater series on CBS, GE sponsored Reagan to tour the country, pontificating against communism, labor unions, social security, public housing; and advocating for the reduction of corporate taxes. These lectures had been the foundation for Reagan’s political career. Perhaps now you can see who and how the world’s most powerful nation is formed and developed. It is definitely not “by and for the people.” Funny, but mean-spirited selfishness and greed are not promoted in the bible that I studied for 10,000 hours.
Bush Sr. (also a friend of Jerry Falwell), followed Reagan as the choice of the Christian right.
Outstanding! Thanks so much!
I have listened to Mr Roberts Churchill book and It is really very enjoyable and recommend it highly. This was a very well done speech which apparently was given without a note. Churchill was in my view responsible for the very life of Liberty we enjoy today. Not without his faults but must be judged as a man of his time the same consideration due the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.
Brilliant speech!
"the other club" is pure Winston....great generation of using language as a servant & a vehicle of great power, no matter the circumstances.
I've read both Andrew Roberts' and Sir Martin Gilbert's single volume biographies of Churchill and they're both excellent. I wouldn't want to have to choose between them.
William Manchester's was pretty good, too, but I suspect that A. Roberts' book beats them all.
our heritage reveals our path to ourselves & to others. Choose the best you know, then never disappointed.
... It was really great to see all those people turn out for this discussion; however, I'm fearful of the lack of young people. They really needed to be there and hear what entails ' Good Leadership ' not the Kim Kardashian or Jesse Smoolet type ...
Are youth seem to be blind!
It’s more than just the youth that need some historical lessons.
As well as the legalization of marihuana and cocaine. It's frightening to think that a pot head might be one day leading our country, or designing a bridge, operating on your heart...
R E Malm precisely my first thought
Wonderful, just wonderful!
The joke at the end comes from Shakespeare's early romantic comedy called: "The two gentlemen of Verona". The play isn't as well known as most of his others, so those who got the joke are well educated.
amazing talk. amazing speaker.
I really enjoyed this--a very entertaining speaker.
contribution becomes its own reward
A wonderful lecture. Kudos to Pres. Arnn for inviting this great scholar to Hillsdale. That is to say: why is Mr. Roberts not invited to speak at elite Ivy league schools? How a person of Pres. Arnn's quality can also countenance the depredations of Donald Trump is a profound mystery to me. It should be noted that the only question Mr. Robert's did not answer was concerned with how Churchill would have reacted to Trump and the Trump campaign. I should like to think he'd have been appalled--at the very least by the quality of the rhetoric. I remain an avid supporter of Hillsdale College.
Thank you.
He was an example of fun....learned to self entertain at a very young age.
Churchill a superb leader and regent, my hero in all regards a beautiful and at times a flawed Knight.
This man is a fine gentleman
It was a proud moment in the USA for Trump to bring back Winston Churchill bust back into the Oval Office.
Alex Caskie THANK YOU SO MUCH for mentioning it! INDEED! It was so embarrassing when Obama sent it back! SO selfish. Well done, TRUMP! 🇺🇸🇬🇧
Winston is in my family line! We are thankful for all the good things he tried to do to help out ! I believe his name will be passed on to one of my grandsons one day,there has been talk about it!
stardustgirl God bless you. I might name my next, third, Rottweiler Winston. Junior and Wilson were awesome. My cousin recently discovered we’re related to Patton!
@@junior.von.claire 🇺🇸💙😇That's really awesome! I love genealogy, it let's you know what you're family is capable of doing! I know a ton of my family history, it's the best thing for the younger generations to know they can be great to! This COUNTRY WAS BUILT ON PRAYERS, AND HARD WORK, AND WE HAVE TO continue on in that if we want to Make this COUNTRY great! I'm so glad you are learning about you're family history, this makes learning fun for the whole family!💙😇God bless you too!
stardustgirl Amen and ty 🙏🏻👍🏻
I've been watching these wonderful Hillsdale speech videos. But I am dismayed that they are usually not given to younger audiences. Those are the people that need to be hearing them. I think Hillsdale knows this. What's up?
I had the book "Caminhando com o Destino" wrote by Andrew Roberts.
No more brother wars
true leadership is a God Quality...therefore rare....you are truly perceptive if you recognize the leaders in their time because you can lend support to them, which gives you added significance for the advancement of all God's agendas
Great book! Just finished it
In a collection of 20 th century historians whose biographies on Churchill that I have read with great curiosity such as Sir Matin Gilbert, Lord Roy Jenkins, and Philip Ziegler now I will add Andrew Roberts superlative lecture at Hilldale college, his presentation was humorous, to the point.Now I could have to get a non- fiction biography on Churchill by Andrew Roberts and read.
hear hear
What a great last sentence to finish. It was all worth it, even if it was the British empire..
PRAYING FOR BREXIT!🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Joining you🙏🏻🇺🇸🇬🇧
Joining you,
Please God, let Brexit happen.
STILL praying. As Winston said, “...We shall NEVER surrender!” Hang in there, people. All of Western Civilization is fighting a new type of war.
On a republican principle i should hate this man because of my countries relationship with him. Im Irish. But I don't, I respect him as leader. If he was not around at that time I'm certain there would not have been the result that happened in WW2. His life influenced a world beyond comparison. Europe owes him a death of gratitude even today. America would not have been as ready as it was only for his far sighted intuition about all these dark force's at play , the axis of Evil.. I salute his existence for the bigger picture. ✊ ☘️
Makes since Ireland has been occupied for centuries, your culture is simping to the British lol
deep Purple - the GIs were fighting in the Pacific fine with out the Crown or commies
if you want know how to live your live and have great enjoyment out of live, READ THE BIBLE!!!
All of These OLD PEOPLE. WHERE ARE THE YOUNG!!!
Interessante
please mine him for many great examples for all our lives.
1939: Oct 15 In a sickening double-standard; the allies remained silent about the brutal communist Soviet aggression (millions dead). Instead, the Churchill-Stalin-Pact was signed
Now in the year 2020 scum are defacing one of the greatest men to walk gods earth statues while the police watch and do nothing
During one of the tremendous struggles against fascism that characterized the 21st---yes, i said Twenty-FIRST---Century---a rioting, history-smashing twit (i use a POLITE word) of Brit heritage told an equally (perhaps) clueless "journalist" with gaffer (so we have the sound) something to the effect that "I haven't met this Winston Churchill fellow, but if i do i am going to SHAME him..."
-----Should God be merciful and i ever have the chance MYSELF to meet this Winston Churchill fellow, i am going to thank him. Churchill still matters. The more so in times with twits ascendant.
Brittain can still produce great men like Baron Roberts and Sir Niall Ferguson and probably others.
Long live Britannia!
11:35 Relates to "God & Chrurchill" by Jonathan Sandys.
“Serves but to root thy native oak”
Great to hear Andrew Robert's discussion.
Churchill was a great defender of the principles of a Liberal Democracy - in Britain and Europe
At the end of WW II , Churchill tried to defend the democratic rights of Poland . *
He despised both communists and fascists
But Churchill had his flaws - most notably being a person of his time , he was an Imperialist.
* Churchill has been falsely accused of giving away Poland to Stalin at the Yalta Conference - of Feb 1945 .
However , the truth is the Soviet Army was already occupying most of Poland and was about 80 Km from Berlin .
Stalin was holding most of the cards and there wasn't much Churchill or FDR could do about it .
Operation Unthinkable was declassified in 1998 .
th-cam.com/video/o9Ovajkwyxw/w-d-xo.html
.
Shackelton ernest Endurance ship master commander would be a great story
It is. You can read the wonderful book about this hero of a man for a moment. Very touching in the way he provided for his men during their ordeal.
churchill lived 5 normal humans lifetimes. we were so lucky he was there for us in 1939.
For us? Nothing. For the banks, everything.
"There really ought to be a special font for irony". EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN THINKING. Irony and sarcasm.
starts c. 5:50.
Imagine any german citizen brazenly worshipping any german leader in this manner. Unthinkable!
Appreciating and admiring - not worshiping.
Galipoli was not trivial. Galipoli was the most courageous sacrifice mankind has ever seen. No other nation outside of England has ever, repeat, ever, shown such deference, duty, honour and chivalry to the Queen of England than the ANZACS of Galipoli. None. For Queen and Commonwealth we salute the Bravest of all men. The ANZACS.
How about the Thermopylae or Salama?The Ceylonese?, the Fins? Davout's corp ?The Maori?. That is a Bold claim you make.
@@brianmoran1196 When did any of them fight for the Queen of England? Ya goose.
@@richrockefeller3331 I was referring to your statement "Galipoli was the most courageous sacrifice mankind has ever seen.".....and you know it.
@@brianmoran1196 I was quoting the Turkish General, Attaturk. He watched as the Australians ordered by the British sipping tea, got mowed down by their machine guns.
Churchill was correct about the corrosive and destructive effect of giving women the right to vote. Women vote for increasing tyrannical nanny states. They sacrifice freedom for security and in the end we will all have neither.
Stephen Leftfield Agreed. Point to behavior, people, not genetic traits. Racism and sexism are lazy tools of the weak mind.
When asked about a woman doing something, I ask “Which one?” And even that doesn’t tell the future.
Rubbish, indeed.
@@junior.von.claire Men and women are genetically pre disposed to act differently to the same problem.
What JR is saying is not an absolute truth about every women but hes talking about group level.
Eric B I understand. I just disagree with the assertion . Not only is more evidence of gender difference available today, per my deduction, but estimations about female leadership at the time were based on little evidence. They still could have been correct, but throughout history there have been excellent male leaders, as well as horrific ones.
Churchill vs Hitler? Thatcher vs Clinton? Sometimes the particular female is inclined towards a tyrannical, nanny state, but sometimes the world is far better off with a woman at the helm than a man. It’s a matter of individual meritocracy, and no amount of modern feminism can effect my perspective. Feminism is sexism, too. I take people, and groups, one at a time.
I do appreciate your wanting to clarify, however. It’s an important topic and I wish politics and ideology weren’t impeding so many from having civil exchanges on many issues. I don’t know for certain that I am right on this. I may change my mind at some point. I want to be truthful far more than I want to be right. It requires a degree of humility and honesty that is somewhat lacking today. While adopting a stance means having a belief and an argument, so many people want to win the court case. I would rather play attorney, too, but I ultimately want to be a better judge.
When I hear someone put forth a belief or perspective and then conclude with, “...but I don’t know.”, I admire them for it. It’s often tempting to state what we think as fact, proportional to how much confidence we have in our argument. Facts bring ultimate confidence, to be sure.
I realize that I have rambled on here and I apologize. My mother had breast cancer surgery six hours ago and I have yet to hear anything, so I am nervous. She did have a very long and successful career, and is still employed at 70. She’s one individual, but so is Hillary Clinton. I certainly take one person at a time!
God bless 🙏🏼
@@junior.von.claire I wish your mother and you well. My assertion is based on averages. That said, married women, especially married women with children, vote more conscientiously than single men. Were I in total control, I would restrict voting in may ways. A voter would have to be COMPLETELY off all welfare, not work for the city, state of federal Government and be required to show photo ID with proof of citizenship. Any of those 3 categories are much more important to me than sex. I would also refuse the right to unionize for any Government employee and abolish all security for civil service. Those are all pipe dreams as Western societies are far too gone down to madness. It would take a complete collapse of western societies which in a nuclear age would be catastrophic to reboot the insanity. Still, Eastern Europe, Italy and a few other places are at least slowing the descent to madness. Churchill was correct about women in general, as is Ann Coulter today. My wife of 37 years (4 sane kids) is one of many exceptions, then again I taught her well.
As to racism, I am a biracial Hispanic who qualifies as black by federal guidelines and a naturalized citizen. I thoroughly oppose any racial discrimination as currently exists against caucasians.
You’ve got that right.
He starts at 5 min
wouldnt the charge of the light brigade be the greatest Calvary charge? or at least most infamous
"I was not saying Churchill is better or greater, or comparing him with Jesus Christ as a person,
or god as a thing or whatever it is. I just said what I said and it was wrong, or it was taken wrong, and now it's all this" (historian retracting claim that WC is more popular than Jesus). "If I had said screens are more popular than Jesus, I might have got away with it".
Think of Dunkirk.
Sadly there are no young people in the Audience. Sadly anyone who could stand to learn from the man can't invite someone.
would someone care to explain the joke at the end
40:40 Meow 😂
I'm now a bit doubtful about Churchill, having read some recent materials. I have become increasingly suspicious Churchill role in the WWII and that role seems to be not as favorable as historians have been presenting it to us which has led to many unnecessary deaths.
Palla d'Aubrey Recent materials should not be trusted.
@ Pardon me, lapsus linguae - I meant recently read info which sounds quite plausible and logical and Churchill has fallen from grace, at least in my eyes. Another instance Leo Tolstoy was right remarking "History is wonderful thing it it were true". And let not forget it is written by the victors.
There are over a thousand biographies but I recommend the most recent "Churchill - Walking With Destiny" by Andrew Roberts
Don’t be a Snowflake! Thanks for electing President Trump America! Best President in History!
David - He will be remembered by history as one of the very worst. No question about it.
AMEN! 🇺🇸🇬🇧👍🏻
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory [tear] gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."
-- Winston Churchill
Talking, in case anybody mis-read it, about nothing more than the use of *tear gas*. And a short time later, again in 1919, in a minute to Air Marshall Trenchard he refers to the need for " the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind, but not death".
@@toff358 your slavish devotion to Churchill is adorable.
@@TheKomitet Why, thank you! I fear though that you flatter me when I don`t truly deserve it. My slavish devotion you see, is not to Churchill, but rather leans towards telling the unvarnished accurate and occasionally uncomfortable truths about the man, as for example historians Ashley Jackson, Richard Langworth and Andrew Roberts do in their excellently written critical, balanced and thoroughly researched biographies - the positives, the accomplishments alongside of the mistakes, the mis-steps and the flaws. You of course did not quote that 1919 War Office minute in full (all I usually see quoted on line is the selective quite out of context few words beginning "I am strongly in favour..."), with the intent of balance, fairness and objectivity. Your intention was plainly the opposite and I suspect that in fact you didn`t at all absorb the actual meaning of the paragraph but instead misread it as proof that he was promoting the use of deadly gasses, which of course he was not.
Of course, he let himself down with his inappropriate and misguided use of the word "poisonous".
Just to round off and hopefully assist you further in your quest for accuracy and truthfulness in the subject of Churchill, here is a further memorandum on the subject of the use of tear gas, directed to the War Office just a few days later - my source, Richard Langworth.... "If it is fair war for an Afghan to shoot down a British soldier from behind a rock and cut him to pieces as he lies wounded on the ground (something the 22 year old Churchill had witnessed several times), why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze? It really is too silly...." Thank you though for high lighting a facet of my personality that you consider "adorable". Too kind... (^_^)
@@toff358 Triggered much. Chruch"shill" nerd? Scratch a tory and a nazi bleeds.
@@toff358 On a more serious note. What were the British soldiers doing in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, India and the other mandates? To be a brutal occupier invites retaliation. Using perfectly justified retaliation by a subject to justify racially motivated actions and still claim to be humane and civilized is something conservatives have perfected. Churchill wrote the manual for such behaviour and must therefore be torn down from public pedestals.
About the we will fight on the beach speech... Andrew purposely forgot to explain that half of the old english dictionnary has french origin... and despite what he tell us we have many words of french origin in that churchill speech... Included in the last paragraph.
Conclusion, as usual ...We have plenty of british horn tooting and flag waving tales.
Churchill was a war criminal. India and Boer War are two examples. There are no ands ors and buts about it.
What utter rubbish, no ifs or buts
Page 148
Confucius = K'ung Chi'u = K'ung Fu-tzu
Great leaders may have a modicum of psychic prowess. WC no different.
The French decided that the nobles should not rule any longer France all the way back in 1789. And since they proceeded to murder and eliminate that nobility which had taken 2 thousand years for France to build, France has been governed ever since by men with humble upbringing. And without knowing they have created a new word derived from the word 'cloaca'. The oclocracy, i.e., the government by the mob. And since 1789 France has only shot her feet, France has only been defeated and suffered humiliations upon humiliations. This great historian, Mr. Andrew Roberts, is an expert in Napoleon. I have no doubt Napoleon was great, and he reinstaured the Monarchy in France in an implicit admission that the elimination of the French aristocracy by the left, i.e., that oclocracy that in a way or another has been (dis)governing France ever since was a mistake. But great or not, he lost the war, and his utter lack of understanding of the sea led to Trafalgar which destroyed the French and the Spanish empire. The oclocracy that has been (dis)governing France ever since has had a very very bad and dishonorable performance and up to now France has not recovered from their elimination of their aristocracy. That French oclocracy has been confused and do not know how to govern and much worse than that, what to do with their own leaders. They murdered Louis XVI and Marie Antoniette. Then Napoleon lost his wars and spent the rest of his days in Saint Helena. I am sure many Frenchmen think that island was a Mediterranee resort, but it was not, it was a prison. The British arrested a French emperor and it seems to me that murdered him there to eliminate his threat once and for all. Then that French oclocracy came up with Napoleon the Third, who only made unbelievable mistakes (which can only be explained by the lack of statesmen in the French government. They did not have old school statesment like for instance Talleyrand simply because that oclocracy guillotined them all). So Napoleon the third decided to transform Mexico into a French possession and a monarchy, and appointed a French emperor to govern Mexico and the Mexicans defeated the French forces and arrested that French emperror Maximilian, and shot him (and he deserved his fate). So not only the French murder their leaders. The British too and the Mexicans as well. Then The Vichy France which can only be explained as the culmination of the oclocracy, put he head of Charles De Gaulle at premium. If Churchill did not protect him, the French would have arrested De Gaulle and murdered him. Then, after the war, that war which the British and the Americans fought for the French because they refused to fight for France, it was the turn to De Gaulle to fight back and then he had Pierre Laval, the president of Vichy France shot. Before him, a young French shot the French Minister of the French Navy, Admiral Darlan (the role of the French navy during the Second World War can only be explained by the fact that France was governed by an ocloracy, which explains the French defeat as well in Trafalgar).
And perhaps this is a coincidence, but Churchill was the last aristocrat to govern Britain. And in less than a generation Britain lost its empire.
So, to answer that question posed by an illustrious interlocutor that Abe Lincoln came from the lower layers of the American society but was a great president, I think that he was an exception, within an American exceptionalism which existed back then but now, in the 21st century is being very hard to be maintained with the quality of leadership the Americans are having now.
Watch Jordan Peterson’s lectures on TH-cam! Learn reality!
A relentless realist in many ways, he never visited New Zealand. And it would probably have confirmed his predjudice if he had. When the first Dominion Office representive to actually viist and live in NZ, Battersby with the inevitable third from some obscure Oxford College. He took the the ineviable Middle Class view . Wellington ws a provincial dump, with absurd little trams rcking up Lampton Quay, Dunedin was a horror story, an even worse dump infested with Presbterian, morals no joy on the sabbath and public bahing only wearing clothes. Battersby resstricted himself to house parties, with the top two percent were those who had got rich from lamb runs or business partied and got sloshed all weekend often even in mixed company.
Winston only followed the big picture hia last government wsa only for him about bombs, the RAF, restricting the Navy, keeping hte steam trains, opening up the TV cchannels to private competiiton, he claimed his real occcupation ws a journalist, and certainly that was how he paid for the wife, estate and Randolphs drink billl. Churchill said he had never heard about North Korea until 1948 and neve rknew there was such a thing as Korea until he was 74. He said the same thing about Gutemala when omeone toldhim the Americans had statged a coup. He found an Atals and there Was Gutemala. Anazingly there was actually some neutral blot on the map of the same name.
CORRECTION: "Churchill had gotten the gold standard wrong." WRONG-O, you are ignorant on this topic, never researching it.
"Special font for irony". Poor taste, Mr. Roberts, this came from a completely innocent viewer and you slammed him, a viewer asking a legitimate question . Shame on youl
I had the misfortune to go to the same school as Andrew Roberts. Churchill was complicated but one thing one can’t do is to project Churchill as an ally for Brexit which is supported by people who have betrayed the UK with lies and deceit. I agree however that Churchill was the right man at the right time although he had a complicated history. He was of course a Liberal who supported Lloyd George and the People.s budget which established the pension. Complicated, provocative, imperialist, irritating but thanks to the support from outside the Conservative party he played a crucial role in saving the best traditions of western culture which is put in jeopardy again by Brexit
Churchill would have led us out of the EU today, he had no time for totalitarianism, indeed his life was spent fighting against it. Plus of course he had deep deep affection for his country and its people and would never have betrayed either.
This is in danger of turning into a hagiography.
socialism is the great teacher of this Age....we must learn what evil looks like, how it creeps in, how much we need Jesus, & so this is the end of the Age of Man
Of course what the green MSP actually said was in fact true and historically accurate but don’t let that stop the rehashing of political propaganda.
I love Churchill but his decision to not help India during their Famine is an outrage , to say the very least ...
yeah, there is more to it than that...the population of the main province that was hit in 1943, Bengal, it's population increased by 43% from 1903-1941...why? mostly because of the introduction of life-saving Western medicines, which hugely decreased the infant mortality rate from the end of the 19th century...yet the society still had a culture of large families, due to the past infant mortality rate. The British Government tried to educate against this... Also, the invasion of Burma by the Japanese forced millions of refugees west into India (Bengal, the most Eastern province). All these factors combined, led to a famine...and Churchill was recorded as quipping, "if they only had less children" or something to the effect...which was not PC in the modern sense, but was objectively true. So, where exactly is the outrage?? Towards the Japanese invading Burma? Towards the British for brining life saving medicine? Or to the Indian women having their children at the rate their traditional culture suggested?
Also, during the 43 "famine" the majority of deaths had been caused by malaria and cholera...all of these evils had been solved by mid-1944...so, despite brown spot disease that killed the rice crop, and millions of refugees from Burma, and a hugely increased population compared to the regions original infrastructure...the British were able to solve the problem, even in wartime...within a year's time.
So, in a nut-shell...you had an unexpected crop failure, in a province with unexpected population boom...during a time of war...yet the British solved the 43 famine by 44...where is the outrage again?
Mark McAllister Excellent presentation of the facts. However, might you choose a different example than the Freedom Tower, please? There are plenty of other choices.
🇺🇸🙏🏼
@@MarkMcAllister-ni9sf You make it sound like the British Empire was some sort of charity service.. Rather than something self serving, its own foreign interest.
Personal jarring comments are not worthy of a good historian.
Who is the introducer, and doesn't he shut up?
Irony.
Churchill is only important when you got no ideas about the future.
I obviously don’t agree with Roberts ridiculous views about the National Health Service which is appreciated by the vast majority of the British people
completely agree and a model for much of the commonwealth countries too
You don’t speak for me and nor for the rest of the British people. The NHS is failing and was a terrible mistake in the first place. It has existed in a perpetual state of crisis ever since it was created and Andrew Roberts was absolutely right to take a shot at it, as it’s totally failing to meet the needs of patients in a timely manner or with healthcare of an international standard. The stats are clear on this - no one copied our system and there are vastly superior healthcare systems around the world that deliver better outcomes for less cost and without the 4.5 million people on waiting lists that we have in the UK.
Appreciate the idea - but the NHS is now a very much abused, expensive and badly run political football today. Most of the British people just don’t realise that it has become a holy cow of a very dysfunctional type.
Not to be in poor taste, but I think it's funny how the entire room is full of old, white people haha. "There really ought to be a special font for irony" ouch haha
Rather a silly and saccharine talk, I must say. The recent "revisionist" criticisms of Churchill are all well-founded. His "eloquence" may appeal to academics such as Andrew, but it doesn't make up for his racism, classism and his huge military blunders, or his passion for war.
Amazing speech!
Thank you!