Thank you, Richard, for your illuminating reply. I am indebted to you for pointing me towards those past issues of FH, in which some spritely skirmishes in the controversy were played out. I admire your witty and shrewdly-probing rejoinders to Charmley’s petulantly snapping replies. There is no doubt he was pained by the none-too-enthusiastic reception of his efforts. I enjoyed the other essayist’s contributions too; all sparkling and brilliantly-reasoned pieces, which I would have been the poorer for not having read.
However, though I fully take your point about it being an old controversy, and about Charmley’s points having been already disputed in detail and despatched in the way they deserved, my concern is that the BBC still chooses to represent Charmley’s views as the ‘official’ appraisal of Churchill’s role in the War, thus serving as a treacherously false ‘lighthouse for wayfaring ships’. I do not, of course, mean that Churchill’s detractors will miraculously dwindle and disappear if only the BBC promoted a less unfavourable appraisal of him. But many who remain uneducated in the issues and have no knowledge of the War, aside from having heard some occasional mention of the chief protagonists, and who may well look to the BBC for some general account to satisfy their curiosity or bolster any glimmerings of knowledge that they may have begun with, will be treated to a disgustingly biased account of the subject; for Charmley’s essay is toxic, replete with sneering animadversion, and bathes Churchill in totally unmerited opprobrium. This partisan, blatant misrepresentation cannot affect those of us who know better; but it will very likely form a lasting impression on ‘each new-hatched, unfledged’ enquirer into the subject. As Lady Soames said in her ‘Bringing the camera back into focus’ piece (quoted in FH, No. 78), thus will virtues become faults, and faults virtues – lastingly. Finest Hour is a splendid periodical, and does a brilliant job – beautifully executed – of trying to make sure that virtue remains virtue. Still, I feel that we should leave no stone unturned to challenge those who would pervert and distort History to rob us, and the generations that follow, of heroes whose record is proof that our species is yet capable of decency, principled strength, and shining valour; and can help us keep our sights high. Let them level our ideals, and we shall watch ourselves degenerate into a race of petty, shapeless, uninspired creatures, incapable of anything fine or noble. On Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:27:53 PM UTC+12, Editor, Finest Hour wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 7, 2013 1:32:01 AM UTC-4, Grimsdyke wrote: >> >> Folks, have any of you seen this?: >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/churchill_gathering_storm_01.shtml >> >> I think it is disgraceful that an organisation such as the BBC, with a >> venerable reputation (largely unmerited, in my opinion) for unbiased >> reporting and for the high standards of its documentaries, should be >> peddling this opinion of John Charmley's as the 'official version' of >> Churchill and his record. We all know Charmley as one of Churchill's >> 'revisionist' detractors; and although he has an historian's credentials, >> his work rubs shoulders with outstanding scoundrels of the ilk of David >> Irving - whose Nazi views and rabid hatred of Churchill are well known. >> Charmley may not have such politically-based grounds for his >> barely-dignified satirising of Churchill, but that doesn't alter the fact >> that his is decidedly a minority opinion. I have read more than 40 >> biographies and histories of Churchill and his times - many by historians >> of unquestionable stature. But never have I seen the kind of smearing and >> smirching that Charmley launches against WSC; indeed quite the opposite. >> >> I have written to the BBC protesting against its promotion of Charmley's >> views in this way. I think it is a knowingly mischievous attempt to >> calumniate Churchill, and to dress the calumny up as 'authorised history'. >> Most people who visit the BBC website, who are either of recent generations >> who are increasingly losing touch with those times, or belong to lands >> whose association with WW2 was either remote or adverse to the Allies. They >> can scarcely be blamed if they come to believe - en masse - that Winston >> Churchill was a despicable, devious glory-hunter who distorted history for >> his own ends: they will have as their warrant the promulgation of precisely >> that view of Churchill by what would seem to be one of the foremost British >> media organisations for the dissemination of disinterested information. >> >> > The Charmley BBC article is nearly three years old. His thesis is even > older. It was exhaustively explored and debated by Larry Arnn, Manfred > Weidhorn, this writer, and John Charmley himself in *Finest Hour* 79-81 > in 1993 and *FH* 83 in 1994. Those interested may read these entertaining > articles, letters and reviews on the Centre website (click “publications”) > and draw their own conclusions. > > > It is well to note that the dispute centered upon only a few pages in his > *Churchill: The End of Glory*, where Charmley made mainly the same > arguments in his BBC article as reasons for Britain but to back away from > the Hitler war (he did not say surrender) when Russia was attacked—which is > hardly a view confined to Nazis. Quite a few patriotic Britons held > it...and some still hold it. > > > Overall Charmley’s book was well researched and fresh, and he came away, > he admitted, with grudging admiration for WSC, even while disputing > Churchill’s positions. His second book, *Churchill’s Grand Alliance,* is > painfully frank about postwar Anglo-American relations, and deserves > serious attention by those interested in the facts. > > > The point is that John Charmley is no Nazi apologist, no Churchill hater, > and no regurgitator of long-disproven fantasies or out-of-context > quotations--like certain more recent writers who are far more worthy of > condemnation. He made a scholarly case for his points of view—but those of > us who know better should be confident enough to know why they don't hold > water. > > > Incidentally, the empty notion that Churchill changed his tune on Hitler > was refuted in “Did Churchill Ever Admire Hitler?,” *Finest Hour* 156 > (Autumn 2012), which also published Ronald Cohen's comparative texts of > Churchill’s 1935 and 1937 Hitler articles. Of course that appeared eighteen > months after Prof. Charmley’s BBC article. For a copy, check the website or > contact me offline. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
