Timeline for answer to What did Winston Churchill mean by this quote? by sempaiscuba
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 8, 2021 at 16:25 | comment | added | totalMongot | @WS2 Ok yes it is relevant to the question I just thought you were answering my comment because you put totalMongot in your comment | |
| Aug 7, 2021 at 20:18 | comment | added | WS2 | @totalMongot I am not entirely clear on what it is that you do not understand. I should have though a comment concerning Churchill's overall disposition toward France and Frenchmen was entirely relevant to the question. | |
| Aug 2, 2021 at 19:00 | comment | added | totalMongot | @WS2 I don't really understand the link with question, answer, or comments. | |
| Aug 2, 2021 at 12:16 | comment | added | WS2 | @totalMongot Churchill was certainly a great Francophile. Never was he happier than when painting canvasses in the South of France. He also believed strongly in the need for France to rebuild its military strength after WW2. But he had an ambivalent relationship with de Gaulle - at times talking to him as if he were a junior officer, at others seeing in him the embodimentof a Free France. | |
| Jul 26, 2021 at 15:55 | comment | added | totalMongot | @WS2 Being an economist or historian is a diploma at a time and location by an assembly having a certain methodology and opinions. It does not make you a God of Truth. Churchill in the quote of the answer assess, by himself, the behaviour of Frenchmen during WW2 with historicalbackground. It is Churchill's point of view, of course, not Truth, but from Churchill it is valuable since he talked a lot to Frenchmen during this period | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 16:47 | vote | accept | Hakim | ||
| Nov 29, 2017 at 21:21 | comment | added | WS2 | @sempaiscuba Historians would regard them as little more than historical journalism. But he was a good journalist and writer.(Anyone wondering how to write a letter of condolences need look no further than his to Eleanor Roosevelt on the death of FDR) His history of the WW2 is of value. As a leading player it reveals a lot about his own approach, and is replete with original sources, verbatim reports etc. So it is of use to historians, not so much as good history, but for reference purposes. But if you want a proper history of WW2 and the Nazi period there are vastly better works on offer. | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 14:34 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | @WS2 For someone who wasn't an historian, he did write some impressive histories. For example, Marlborough: His Life and Times, his history of The Second World War (he got a Nobel Prize for that one), and A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. ;-) | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 14:18 | comment | added | WS2 | Churchill, by profession was first a journalist, then a politician, a military leader and finally statesman. In all these roles he had an adroit and inspirational command of the English Language (perhaps his greatest asset). He was NOT an economist, historian, anthropologist, social philosopher, or great thinker. So anything he ever said of this kind is of no value whatever to anyone. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 19:15 | comment | added | Timothy | T.E.D. yes, but although while it is hard to prove or disprove generalisations about how different groups of people think, the nature of the difference that Churchill identifies may be perceptive and historically important. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 2:32 | comment | added | T.E.D.♦ | Reading the full context, I'd interpret it as meaning nothing more than "Frenchmen and Englishmen think differently" | |
| Nov 26, 2017 at 23:21 | history | edited | sempaiscuba | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 948 characters in body
|
| Nov 26, 2017 at 22:37 | history | answered | sempaiscuba | CC BY-SA 3.0 |