Well said! I like your epigrammatic ending, which is both accurate and graceful; and agree instinctively with your analysis of Charmley's malady. He is like a man in a crowd who must shout obscenities in order to be heard above the general noise. Also, his seems to be an inferior spirit, evidently empty of nobility, and thus he is envious of Churchill's manifest nobility of spirit. The same can be said of David Irving. In spite of Charmley's not being (apparently) infected with the same rabid political beliefs as Irving, nor fighting entirely the same battles as Irving, his 'trench' is in some respects close enough to Irving's to share some of the excrement.
On Saturday, September 14, 2013 8:12:31 PM UTC+12, [email protected] wrote: > > Grimsdyke is if anything too kind in his cogent and biting criticism > of Charmley. Modern history as a discipline ever seeks its place in history > by re-writing it. It is a well known phenomenon of modern authors that they > must find their own take on the facts of the past in order to present to > the world their own new perceived versions; thus and only thus can they > stake their claim to scholarship and eminence. No prizes are likely to be > won be reinforcing accepted wisdom, even if it is accepted precisely > because it is wise. Charmley is a victim of the hubris of the age but we > should not feel too much sympathy, he is too clever by half and half as > clever as he should be. > > Professor Anthony Luder > Bar Ilan University > Israel > > > > > *-------Original Message-------* > > *From:* Grimsdyke <javascript:> > *Date:* 14/09/2013 09:10:40 > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:> > *Subject:* [ChurchillChat] BBC distortions, with a little help from > Charmley > > Having read Charmley’s 'The Gathering Storm' essay on the BBC website > http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/churchill_gathering_storm_01.shtml > , > I just couldn't help posting these few observations here: > > He calculatedly distorts the implications of a sentence that Churchill > wrote about Hitler in his 'Great Contemporaries'. He says: "It is not just > that Churchill was inconsistent in his criticisms of Hitler (whom he once > hoped to see 'a kinder figure in a gentler age'); his whole reading of > events leading up to World War Two was badly flawed, and looks good only > with the advantage of hindsight." > > Any person with even a fraction of the understanding of the English > language that Charmley must possess (or should, if he doesn't) will see > immediately that Churchill was making an essay in being fair: seeking to > avoid pre-judging Hitler too harshly (given that he had already, by this > stage in his essay, dealt very sternly with his subject) lest he turned > out, after all, to redeem himself as time unfolded. At the time of writing, > Hitler had not performed many of the acts that were to make his name stink > in the nostrils of the world - or that were to extort the admiration of men > like Chamberlain and Halifax; so Churchill could not, in fairness, denounce > Hitler with the summariness that we can today. He was giving Hitler - in > those pre-war years - the benefit of the doubt, while still making some > very stringent pronouncements on his record thus far. > > To re-present that statement to today's readers as does is, to my mind, > malignant, mischievous, and unscrupulously evasive of context. Not to put > too fine a point on it, he misuses his status as a historian (demonstrably > discountable in my opinion, if all his vast learning could lead him only to > behaviour such as this) to prostitute a view of Churchill that is blatantly > skewed. And in doing so, he shows a contemptuous disregard for the > intelligence and discernment of his reading public. It offends me to be > lied to by someone who poses as a construer of historical truth. I think he > should have dealt more honourably with the material that he purveys. > > Also, to illustrate a point that would be clear to anyone with a nodding > acquaintance with the principles of logic, to say that a person's judgement > 'looks good with the advantage of hindsight' is to concede unequivocally > that that judgement was particularly *foresighted*. History abounds with > examples of actions and words that were proved wrong in the event - i.e. > with hindsight. We often criticise these actions but at the same time > acknowledge that they 'couldn't have known'. But to be proven *right* by > later events is to show oneself to be possessed of uncanny percipience, if > not uncommon brilliance. So for Charmley to say ".... and looks good > only with the advantage of hindsight" does his argument no favours, and > in fact contradicts and dissipates it. Not only that, but by inserting the > word 'only' he convicts himself of irrationality: seeking to invest an > observation with pejorative tones looks decidedly stupid when the > observation itself can only compel admiration for its object – in this > case, Churchill. > > In fact Charmley’s whole thesis recalls to my mind a line from the > prolegomenary pages in Lytton Strachey's 'Eminent Victorians': *"...the > polemic was cheaper than it should have been because many of its gems were > fakes".* > > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > <http://www.incredimail.com/?id=621159&did=10501&ppd=2820,201206281812,9,1,92542941193484126&rui=110725580&app_test_id=0&sd=20130914> > FREE > Animations for your > email<http://www.incredimail.com/?id=621159&did=10501&ppd=2820,201206281812,9,1,92542941193484126&rui=110725580&app_test_id=0&sd=20130914> > > <http://www.incredimail.com/?id=621159&did=10501&ppd=2820,201206281812,9,1,92542941193484126&rui=110725580&app_test_id=0&sd=20130914> > > <http://www.incredimail.com/?id=621159&did=10501&ppd=2820,201206281812,9,1,92542941193484126&rui=110725580&app_test_id=0&sd=20130914> > > <http://www.incredimail.com/?id=621159&did=10501&ppd=2820,201206281812,9,1,92542941193484126&rui=110725580&app_test_id=0&sd=20130914> > > <http://www.incredimail.com/?id=621159&did=10501&ppd=2820,201206281812,9,1,92542941193484126&rui=110725580&app_test_id=0&sd=20130914> > Click > Here! > <http://www.incredimail.com/?id=621159&did=10501&ppd=2820,201206281812,9,1,92542941193484126&rui=110725580&app_test_id=0&sd=20130914> > > <http://www.incredimail.com/?id=621159&did=10501&ppd=2820,201206281812,9,1,92542941193484126&rui=110725580&app_test_id=0&sd=20130914> > > <http://www.incredimail.com/?id=621159&did=10501&ppd=2820,201206281812,9,1,92542941193484126&rui=110725580&app_test_id=0&sd=20130914> > > <http://www.incredimail.com/?id=621159&did=10501&ppd=2820,201206281812,9,1,92542941193484126&rui=110725580&app_test_id=0&sd=20130914> > > <http://www.incredimail.com/?id=621159&did=10501&ppd=2820,201206281812,9,1,92542941193484126&rui=110725580&app_test_id=0&sd=20130914> > > <http://www.incredimail.com/?id=621159&did=10501&ppd=2820,201206281812,9,1,92542941193484126&rui=110725580&app_test_id=0&sd=20130914> > > -- 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.
