86 of 89 people found the following review helpful
Fantastic series but be careful when ordering.....,
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: The Andrew Marr Collection: History Of Modern Britain (Series 1) & The Making Of Modern Britain (Series 2) (DVD)
This is a great series and should be used in all school curriculums of modern history. It will inspire you, whet your appetite to find out more. It will dispel a few myths (like Churchill wasn't such a great leader in his earlier years) and make you aware of little known facts (i.e. Air Chief Keith Parks of the RAF and mastermind of us winning the Battle of Britain, was actually New Zealand born). Buy it, be entertained and educated at the same time.
Beware of one thing though. This collection pack includes both 'History of Modern Britain' and the 'Making of Modern Britain' DVDs. When I ordered the pack, it said 'series 1-2 of 'History of Modern Britain' and I therefore ordered ' Making of Modern Britain' thinking it was a separate DVD. I'm returning the latter to Amazon and hopefully they'll refund me in full.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 28 Oct 2010 10:56:33 BDT
The Unknown says:
Actually, Hugh Dowding was the main mastermind behind our victory in the Battle of Britain, but Keith Park certainly deserves a great deal of credit also.
Posted on 15 Dec 2010 21:04:45 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Dec 2010 21:19:47 GMT
'The Unknown' is correct, in that Hugh Dowding was Commander in Chief (i.e. the highest position in the Royal Air Force) and is largely credited as the mastermind behind delivering Britain to safety during the Battle of Britain.
After all, it was Dowding who stipulated through strategic estimation, the very minimum number of aircraft required to defend the British Isles. This estimation was vindicated by events that subsequently unfolded during the Battle of Britain. Many were despatched (and many more requested, which were denied by Dowding) to aid France in 1939 against the German invasion, and the RAF played a substantial role in ensuring the successful retreat at Dunkirk, largely unknown to the troops at the time of retreat.
This is not to remove credit from Keith Park, who also played a substantial role. But I personally consider his birthplace a triviality, and besides New Zealand was strongly tied to Britain and her Empire. By comparison, Churchill was technically half-American, but does this really matter?
I also disagree with the claim that Churchill "wasn't such a great leader in his earlier years". From what I've read and seen of Churchill, the man was always a great leader - taking risks, trying new ideas, supporting the underdog, rebellious to the point of political ruin (notably his stance on India). But like all of us, Churchill naturally made mistakes, but he bounced back considerably well considering his monumental political and public set-backs, especially regarding 'The Gallipoli Campaign' (otherwise known as 'The Dardanelles Campaign' of the First World War) of which he was largely scapegoated for its ultimate failure.
In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2011 12:01:36 GMT
A Viewer are you agreeing with Dave and Marr on the claim of Churchill not being a great leader? Because from what Dave wrote he said that was a myth that was dispelled in the programme. So either you agree with them, or the point wasn't made very clearly in the review.
Thankfully the labelling on this listing is now much clearer and it is now obvious that this is a box set of both series, so people shouldn't make the same mistake in future.
In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2011 14:27:14 GMT
Last edited by the author on 8 Mar 2011 14:31:44 GMT
You asked :"A Viewer are you agreeing with Dave and Marr on the claim of Churchill not being a great leader? Because from what Dave wrote he said that was a myth that was dispelled in the programme. So either you agree with them, or the point wasn't made very clearly in the review."
Right, having read 'Dave Clews' review again, I can now see how the point he made might have been misconstrued by the reader, and therefore the point is not clearly made.
When I first read his review I took it that he was saying that the programme debunked Churchill as not being a good leader in his early years. *If* this is what is being said then no, I do not agree with him (and the programme), as I think Churchill always had the natural qualities of a leader, despite making mistakes, something we all do.
Conversely, *if* Mr. Clews is saying that the programme debunks the claim that Chruchill was not a good leader in his youth then of course I support such a debunk because, as I said previously, I think Churchill was always a good leader, and claims to the contrary are simply incorrect.
Please note I have not actually watched 'The Andrew Marr Collection: History Of Modern Britain', and my views of Sir Winston Churchill are based on what I have read and on other programmes I have watched.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›