Mohandas Gandhi

On the Raj, Tharoor offers a half-truth, which, “like half a brick, is always more forcible as an argument than a whole one. It carries better.”

If we allow our monuments and memorials and place-names to be torn down because of our present-day views, it speaks to a pathetic lack of confidence in ourselves.

Rather than advancing segregation in South Africa, Churchill strove hard for justice, arrayed against the broad prejudices of his time. Part 1: 1902-09

Before Covid-19 leaves our native shores, is there anything that might be learned from Churchillian leadership about our best response to it?

Both Churchill and Chamberlain understood that Nazi Germany was a time bomb. But whereas Chamberlain imagined that it could be defused by diplomacy, Churchill believed that it could only be defused by force, or the threat of force. When the diplomacy of appeasement failed Chamberlain was compelled to accept—albeit with the profound reluctance of a man who loathed war—that no other response was possible. In the final analysis the British Empire, which was already in decline, had to be sacrificed so that Britain itself could live.

“Only Churchill carries that absolutely required criterion: indispensability,” wrote Dr. Krauthammer. “Without Churchill the world today would be unrecognizable.”

So deeply implanted is the belief that Churchill was a white supremacist that certain students and faculties accept it without demur.

A recent film, Viceroy's House, narrates the story of the massacre in India following its independence and partition. While absolving the man most responsible—Louis Mountbatten—it charged Winston Churchill and his military secretary Hastings Ismay with the deaths of millions.