Churchill statue being covered is a 'tragedy' says Lord Lamont

When you subscribe we will use the information you provide to send you these newsletters. Sometimes they’ll include recommendations for other related newsletters or services we offer. Our Privacy Notice explains more about how we use your data, and your rights. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The former Prime Minister led Britain to victory and helped crush the fascist ideology of Adolf Hitler. During the Thirties, Sir Winston took the lead in calling for British rearmament to counter the growing threat of militarism in Nazi Germany, and in May 1940 he replaced Neville Chamberlain in Number 10. Alongside Franklin D Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin, he shaped the Allied strategy in World War 2 from the brink of defeat to victory in Europe.

But since then, the word “racist” has been plastered on his statue during two protests in London by groups that Lord Charles Moore dubbed “woke activists”.

And while it has led to “justified” questions being raised of his legacy, historian Sean McMeekin says it is not the right way to approach it.

He told Express.co.uk: “By contemporary standards, there are a lot of things that Churchill said and did over the course of his extensive career – so people will question him.

“I certainly don’t sanction or approve of the tearing down of statues, I think people have to respect his career as it is.

“Whatever you think of him, he was obviously a great figure and significant in history.

“I think it’s perfectly worthwhile and justified to conduct these arguments about Churchill and his legacy – but I think the tearing down and defacing of statues leads nowhere.

“This is cultural desecration and it reminds me of the cultural revolution in China.”

In February, a conference on the “racial consequences” of Sir Winston was held at Churchill College at Cambridge University.

Kehinde Andrews, professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, claimed Sir Winston was the “perfect embodiment of white supremacy” and added that “the British Empire was far worse than the Nazis”.

While some supported the claims, many have also been left furious, including historian Gary Scot Smith who summarised it as “an assault on Churchill’s reputation”.

And modern history expert Andrew Roberts concluded for the Churchill Project that the conference was a “two-pronged attack on Sir Winston” in a “blatant attempt to discredit him”.

While Mr McMeekin believes there is still “much to debate” on his legacy from both sides of the fence, he approaches Sir Winston’s mentality differently.

He added: “I don’t think Churchill was a hero or a villain in World War 2, my own personal view is he was more of a tragic figure.

“He set out to follow his deepest beliefs – whatever people think today, his belief was the British Empire was a force for good in the world.

DON’T MISS
Tehran’s war capability revealed amid tensions with West [ANALYSIS
US soldier risked ‘cataclysmic outcome’ with defection to USSR [COMMENT
Turkey close to Russia’s grasp amid Trump fury after Venezuela ruling [ANALYSIS]

“He was hoping to maintain it in the face of the Nazi German threat and towards the end of the war he saw that same threat coming from [Joseph] Stalin and the Soviet Union.

“In many ways, he failed. Britain was bankrupt at the end of the war, and while the British Empire didn’t disintegrate immediately, you see the seeds being sowed.

“I think history has to be appreciated on its own terms, it can’t simply be seen through a contemporary lens – we all see things differently today.”

During his long life, Sir Winston suffered several indignities.

He was dismissed from his position as the head of the Royal Navy in 1915 because of the disastrous defeat Anglo-French forces endured at Gallipoli during World War 1.

His decision as the Chancellor of the Exchequer to return Britain to the gold standard in 1925 was a financial catastrophe.

But his greatest ignominy was being ousted as Prime Minister in July 1945 after leading Britain through its “darkest hour” – an electorate weary of war was looking ahead.

But Mr McMeekin, who is also the author of ‘Stalin’s War,’ detailed to Express.co.uk why Britain may have dodged a bullet.

Sir Winston had ordered his Chiefs of Staff to prepare a plan to attack the USSR under ‘Operation Unthinkable’ that same month.

He explained: “Churchill at times could be so mercurial and impulsive that it’s hard to know quite what sparked this idea of suddenly going to war with the Soviet Union after the war was over.

“It could have been one of those notions that passed through his head after he began to realise, with a creeping sense of regret, what the war had really brought out of the eastern front.

“There were reports coming out of Poland of all kinds of horrible things going on and Churchill did apparently coin the ‘Iron Curtain’ phrase as early as May 12, 1945.

“You can see that he was beginning to think of this idea of communism descending on eastern Europe.

“I don’t think it was a realistic prospect politically or operationally for Britain, certainly without the US and maybe not even with it.”

Despite this, the expert still heaped praise on Sir Winston for foresight on the threats emerging at the end of World War 2.

He said: “I think Churchill was always more wary of Stalin than Roosevelt.

“Britain was a lot more vulnerable and weaker economically as it was dependent on the US for supplies and loans to pay with interest.

“Britain was also more vulnerable for resourcing for things like aircraft production, they stopped sending things like processed aluminium to Stalin in 1943.

“You can see the narrative is already a bit of an awakening.

“He tried to wake Roosevelt up to the dangers of the Soviet move into the entire Balkan area in 1944, but he wasn’t interested.”

Mr McMeekin claims that Sir Winston felt guilty for cosying up with the Soviet Union during the conflict.

He continued: “He even got Roosevelt to try an Allied landing as late as September 1944.

“I think there are signs that Churchill was awakening to the danger of the beast – the Soviet threat that emerged in Europe.

“It bore some of the responsibility for this due to his earlier policies, but he put up much more of a fight over Poland than Roosevelt did.

“I think he was frustrated with Roosevelt, but he couldn’t always say it out loud.

“Britain was so dependent on the US that he had to hold his tongue frequently on matters.”

On April 12, 1945, Harry Truman became US President.

Days later the Big Three met in Potsdam and the foundations for the Cold War were cemented when Truman kept secret the true force of his nuclear weapons from Stalin.

By 1948 the Soviets had installed left-wing governments in the countries of eastern Europe that had been liberated by the Red Army.

The Cold War had solidified by 1947 when US aid provided under the Marshall Plan to western Europe had brought those countries under American influence and the Soviets had installed openly communist regimes in eastern Europe.

Even after the death of Stalin in 1953, tensions would continue until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

Source: Read Full Article