Literally the paragraph below your quote:

> Yet Mr Roberts does not gloss over the many examples of terrible judgment that littered Churchill’s career before (and even after) becoming prime minister, errors which created a widespread perception that, while brilliant, energetic and matchlessly eloquent, he was also unreliable, excessively passionate, even dangerous. The charge sheet is long: his opposition to votes for women (later regretted); as First Lord of the Admiralty during the first world war, pressing on with the Dardanelles operation long after it should have been abandoned; sending the brutal Black and Tans into Ireland as war secretary; re-joining the Gold Standard as chancellor of the exchequer in the 1920s; backing the awful Edward VIII during the abdication crisis (also later regretted); vainly resisting Indian self-government (Churchill held conventional Victorian views about the superiority and obligations of the “white races” that he never truly recanted). And so on.

So I'd say yes, it does address it.

Given Churchill's racism, for instance, the quote ("His biography demonstrates its subject’s greatness but manages to make him lovable, too") seems a bit off, no? A biography that presents Churchill as "lovable" clearly does not give these things the weight they deserve.

I don't think racists are fundamentally unlovable. Perhaps we just disagree.

If they were, we'd have very few admirable historical figures. Character flaws (as judged by modern standards) have to seen in light of the times the person existed.

Would you say the same about Hitler? Churchill's racism wasn't just some quiant character flaw. It influenced his political position and affected the lives of millions of people.

Even Roy Jenkins (former old Labour cabinet minister) superb biography of Churchill concludes he was the greatest Prime Minister of the 20th century. He draws that conclusion even after pointing out Churchill's many flaws and mistakes. What human isn't flawed? Roosevelt, de Gaulle, Ghandi, all had flaws and racism too.

Absolutely. The greater the man, the greater the flaws. Yet we still need heroes from history to look up to, and we can't judge solely by modern standards.

By analogy consider the contemporaneous movie The Wizard of Oz (1939). It's enjoyable and arguably morally-improving to watch. We are the better for it. Yet a great deal of immorality existed behind the scenes:

https://www.ranker.com/list/wizard-of-oz-behind-the-scenes-s...

Sometimes "great heroes" do bad things even by their time standards. It makes no one service to pretend it is not so and automatically assume everything bad was normal at the time. It was not and their bad decisions had opposition.

We dont need lies about history, even when that lie is by omitting ugly stuff about people we want to see as heroes. Such framing leads to dangerous worldview and dangerous implications about current times too. It makes us less capable to deal with actual real world complexity. Even heroes should be questioned and mythical heroes are exactly that - myths.

We need truth about historical personalities, not hero worship.

Upvote for mentioning Jenkins's biography.