Mason Lecture: Dr. Raymond Callahan, "What Churchill Left Out" 

Excellent lecture that manage to encompass many aspects , personalities and agendas .

This lecture would probably be interesting if only the video sound was adjusted. The speaker can barely be heard and I know it is not my computer, but he never adjusted his mike, and no one told him that he wasn't being heard.

I thought this lecture very balanced and objective. Bravo.

What a lecture! And a unique one! The 'historian' accomplished what I thought was impossible. You made Churchill dull. But how you managed to so- that took so much work! So much effort! Amazing. The history you 'covered' is so exciting. But sadly, not in your hands. And in heaven's name what stopped you from calling Churchill what he was? An out and out racist. Hey, nobody's perfect. Why not simply address the truth of the matter? Lord knows you spent enough of all our time dancing clumsily around the subject. Churchill and India. We should have been on the edge of our seats. What a missed opportunity.

This added quite a lot to my understanding, as a Raj ‘descendant’ !

British troops could not be used in India in the post war period because they said they had joined up to defeat Hitler, not to defend empire.

wish he would have explained the "marshal races" term

This man doesn't seem to understand that the Indian Army as he calls it was in fact an Anglo Indian Army, and an Indian division was made up of as many British troops as Indians.....one Indian brigade, one Gurkha brigade and one British brigade.

This organisation has some very dodgy content.

USAAF Could'nt hav hit a donkys arse wiv a frying pan u should hav lent us Mavric & Goose!

He says memoirs, but clearly the publication of 1948 was deceitful and meant to persuade everyone that WSC was the man for the post-war era, not simply the man given power in the terms he was, he was concerned to oust Attlee and return, and this is generally entirely neglected, the calculation that the Cabinet Minutes would not be available, the indisputably deceitful campaign, not a memoir - he was in politics. His claim he could not recall the succession meeting question to him in any detail was contradicted in 1974, and ethically his traducing of Chamberlain should receive attention, it is simply obviously deceitful.

An overwhelmingly mean spirited hatchet job, as selective with it's focus as the speaker claims Churchill to have been with his. Also the speaker clearly has not bothered to look into the history of India beyond his narrow and loaded definition of it as some sort of chattel of Empire. Had he done so he would have had to consider that India as a nation did not exist prior the British domination (right or wrong) and had been for centuries a collection of hundreds of independent undemocratic monarchies who were mainly, constantly at war with each other, had a social structure that had indentured servitude at its core and manifested extremes of sectarian segregation and agitation. To get this context wrong is to render the whole speech rather pointless and insecure in any of its claims, this is not a considered review it is an unsubstantiated piece of Brit bashing fluff and not even a good one at that.

Michael Koznarsky The house of who???? The king is dead but dont panick cuz Elvis is fine!.... Long live the queen!

Churchills mistakes, 0 thank goodness for the USA (not)

That was absolutely fascinating, one gets bored of the mindless blind praise after a while, there had to be other aspects to the self proclaimed most heroic... loser and liar Britain had ever known. History can easily be twisted when you are the one writing it, just don't expect your narcissistic crap to last very long, it never does. Here for example, our good man may hidden he had a hand in the murder of an 'inconvenient' ally in 1943, the Polish prime minister in exile Gen. Sikorsky whose plane crashed at takeoff from Gibraltar: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mYJ1_RG2xS4.html