83

Winston Churchill: Close, But No Cigar

David Lindsay

Never forget that Piers Morgan was one of extremely few mainstream media figures to see through the Iraq War lies from the start. And thanks to his exchange with Ross Greer, Winston Churchill is back.

In Great Contemporaries, published in 1937, two years after he had called Hitler’s achievements “among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world”, Churchill wrote that: “Those who have met Herr Hitler face to face in public business or on social terms have found a highly competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a disarming smile, and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism.” That passage was not removed from the book’s reprint in 1941. In May 1940, Churchill had been all ready to give Gibraltar, Malta, Suez, Somaliland, Kenya and Uganda to Mussolini, whom he had called “the greatest living legislator”.

All sorts of things about Churchill are simply ignored. Gallipoli. The miners. The Suffragettes. The refusal to bomb the railway lines to Auschwitz. His dishonest and self-serving memoirs. The truth about the catastrophic humiliation at Dunkirk. The other one, at Singapore, for which Australians and New Zealanders have never forgiven Britain. The Lancastria. The men left behind in France. Both the fact and the sheer scale of his 1945 defeat while the War in the Far East was still going on, when Labour won half of his newly divided seat, and an Independent did very well in the other half after Labour and the Liberals had disgracefully refused to field candidates against him. His deselection by his local Conservative Association just before he died. And not least, his carve-up of Eastern Europe with Stalin, so very reminiscent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. He borrowed the phrase “the Iron Curtain” from Goebbels and used it to mean exactly what Goebbels had meant by it. Broken by the War, the Soviet Union had neither the means nor the will to invade Western Europe, still less to cross either the Atlantic or the Pacific.

But the electorate was under no illusions while he was still alive. His image was booed and hissed when it appeared on newsreels. He led the Conservative Party into three General Elections, he lost the first two of them, and he only returned to office on the third occasion with the support of the National Liberals, having lost the popular vote. In the course of that Parliament, he had to be removed by his own party. It comfortably won the subsequent General Election. We have not forgotten the truth about him in the old mining areas. Nor have they in the places that he signed away to Stalin, including the country for whose freedom the War was fought. It was Churchill who coined the nickname “Uncle Joe” for Stalin.

Churchill wanted to transport the Jews to Palestine, since he saw them as not really British. He presided over the famine in Bengal. His views on race shocked his younger colleagues even in the Conservative Party of the 1950s. The famous dipping of the cranes for his coffin occurred only because the London dockers, who despised him, had been paid to do it. The London dockers, who had been as heavily Blitzed as anyone, anywhere.

As for Churchill’s having “saved Britain”, it will be interesting to see whether anyone could continue to hold a serious academic or journalistic position in 10 years’ time and come out with that one. His cult seems to have begun only once he was dead, or at least so old as to have been politically as good as dead. It never translated into votes.

David Lindsay is a freelance journalist and an Independent political activist based in Lanchester, County Durham.

Filed under: 20th Century, historical perspectives, latest, World War II

by

David Lindsay is a freelance journalist and an Independent political activist based in Lanchester, County Durham.

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
mark
Reader
mark

Churchill fought against Germany to preserve the British Empire – all 14 million square miles of it – and failed. It melted away like snow in the warm sun as soon as the war ended. Britain was already bankrupted by the cost of fighting WW1. In the 1920s, 50% of all tax revenue went to pay off the INTEREST on the debts run up to fight WW1. WW2 was the final nail in the coffin of the British Empire. By the time of Dunkirk, Britain was completely bankrupt and had to go cap in hand begging from Roosevelt, who drove a very hard bargain for his support. Britain had to sell off all British assets in North and South America within a fortnight, at bargain basement prices. These assets had been built up over 100 years. The Du Pont Chemical company, for example, was sold off at a 50% discount. The British economy was completely subordinated to the US. Britain was not allowed to export goods to any market where they competed with US producers. The US controlled how much gold and foreign currency Britain was allowed to hold. Britain became a complete vassal state and satellite of the US – and has been ever since.

Roosevelt just bided his time and entered the war when he was ready – and swept the board at minimal real cost to America. Everybody else were losers.

Of course, there was all the usual hogwash about freedom and democracy and civilized standards and all things bright and beautiful. That must have produced a good few belly laughs for the Indians, Arabs, and all the lesser breeds lorded over by Churchill and his ilk.

bevin
Reader
bevin

I’m no fan of Churchill’s but there can be little doubt that, in May 1940, the Tories were slowly reconciling themselves to a peaceful ending of the war in much the same way that the French ruling class had. That would have led, inexorably to a full assault, under greatly enhanced conditions, by Germany against the USSR. The UK and USA would have been enlisted, economically if not militarily-but probably both- in that operation.
Churchill and the patriotic Tories who joined with him, not to defeat Chamberlain but to cut his majority in the Commons (those were days when governments resigned in such circumstances) made a big difference. And world history took a turn for the better.
No need to admire Churchill or anyone else (Bevin is my hero of 1940) but silly to flush out the baby of victory over fascism with the bathwater of revising the myth of the Churchillians.

Incidentally one of the charges Lindsay, who tends to hew to the John Birch Cold War line on this question, makes, to the effect that Churchill was ‘to blame for giving Stalin eastern Europe at Yalta is wrong.
At Yalta both Stalin and Churchill were facing faits accompli: Stalin had to give up the victories of Italian, French and Greek communists because the anglo powers occupied those countries and were not going to allow the partisans to collect the fruits of their victories, over the collaborators. While Churchill had to reconcile himself f(or a few months see Fulton Missouri 1946) to the fact that the Red Army has occupied eastern Europe and was not going to cede it again to the west and its fascist allies. Had Stalin decided otherwise he would have been gone in a minute: the Red Army was justifiably furious at the treatment its soldiers had been given, especially when contrasted with the relative kid glove treatment (personal testimony from an Arnhem prisoner GRHB) British and Americans in German custody received.
The Russians though, might have a reason to complain that Churchill, betraying his fellow Europeans handed over western Europe to the Americans, who have occupied it, in strategic terms, ever since.

Paul
Reader
Paul

Well said! He scotched the very real danger of an ‘accommodation’ with Hitler which the British Establishment were gagging for. Hess thankfully landed on stony Churchillian ground; how different it might have been under Halifax. Even after the war they were still muttering that we had ‘fought on the wrong side’. He did it for outdated somewhat crazy Imperialist reasons no doubt but the fact he did it is really the main point.

Thomas Prentice
Reader
Thomas Prentice

When I was doing a blog, Facebook and twitter, I encountered the most furious, vehement pushback and abuse from Americans when I stated that Churchill was the biggest menace and worst fascist of the 20th Century and used some of the points noted above. Akin to criticizing Washington or Lincoln or mom and apple pie or something. The refusal to bomb railroad lines into Auschwitz is bone chilling and blood curdling. This is a damn good article. Thanks.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

Its hardly surprising he refused to bomb railway lines, if it even happened. They would have been virtually impossible to hit with bombers at the time.

The inuistrial area at Auschwitz, mainly the IG Farben synthetic (Buna) rubber plant was bombed a few times.

Max Gross (@Max_Gross)
Reader

My understanding is that, at the time, bombs fell five miles or more from their intended targets!

sailor1031
Reader
sailor1031

then as now the concept of the “surgical” strike was believed in by some – who had no experience or knowledge of bombing.

paul metcalf
Reader
paul metcalf

How about the city and wall street financed the natiional socialists (before takingg power they never even had leni riefenstahl’s wages)to destroy russia and communism?after the russian’s defeat the the germans would have had enough liebensraum to lieben,the americans would have hoovered up all the really valuable gear and churchill could have sent in cof e missionaries.

Gustavo
Reader
Gustavo

I once knew a man who regretted Churchill immensely. That man joined the British army in 1940, at the age of 17 (having them believe he was 18). He was in the Infantry in North Africa, then somehow got in the military police until the end of the war. While still in the military, he met his wife and married her on the Continent. In 1947 he attempted to go back and live in Britain, but could find no housing for his young family. There was no other option than to to leave Britain again, all the while blaming Labour for having shoved aside such a great and admirable person as Churchill. Churchill would certainly have taken care of those who had done the fighting. The rest of his life (which was rather miserable as you’d expect from someone with such a life experience in his youth) that same man subscribed to the Daily Express, that model of enlightenment, and raised his children according to the standards learned in the military police: the more you beat them up, the better they’ll learn. He was appalled when conscription was abolished in the late fifties, as military service would have been such a good schooling for his male children.

This man was my father. Somehow I don’t think he was an exception. So while there certainly has been no love lost between myself and Churchill, I could tell a friend of mine on the phone from England, where he was on a business trip a few years ago, what would be the outcome of a TV poll he was watching in his hotel room. As it it turned out, others here might remember, the most popular British politician in history, according to brainwashed audiences or to poll management rigging the results, was Winston Churchill.

Paul
Reader
Paul

Your father was no exception I can assure you! He admired Churchill because of his extreme right wing views. His mind was formed in the 1890’s, the period of High Imperialism. He was hated by many for his actions against strikers and his stand against Reform in India. Yet I’m unsurprised by the TV poll result. He had the charisma as well as the ability to work the media along with Beaverbrook’s influence. Not that there was much resistance to the creation of a War Leader but he was superb in that role because he was a ‘Warrior’, one straight out of the 1899’s but nevertheless a serious fighter. The public too were eager to believe in him. The danger was always that the Tory elite, the Establishment, would seek peace with Hitler; they never stopped thinking about that; peace feelers we’re constantly coming out of Berlin, especially as the war in Russia began to fail. The Conservative Party disliked him as much as everybody else but that gave him the independence to ignore Establishment blandishments. The imprisonment of men like Mosely and the insistence the ex King Edward be shunted off to Barbados made it clear he wasn’t prepared to risk any dilution of his ambition to WIN the war! That and the fact his Cabinet was genuinely a Coaltion of equals led Labourites to forgive earlier indiscretions
,

Paul
Reader
Paul

Churchill was despised throughout his life up to 1940 because of his Imperial and racist High Toryism. He was then lauded as War leader by most of the country who did prefer to see Nazism defeated above all else. Once the war finished the British promptly dropped Churchill believing him to be quite unsuited for a role as PM in peace time. He served his purpose for those crucial 4 years then it was ‘Thank you very much, you can go now’. The immediate support the old anti Communist gave Stalin when Germany finally invaded was very significant not least because no other Tory PM would have done it; Halifax or Chamberlain would have been secretly delighted and sat on their hands, just as they had done in Spain. What other leader could have led Britain at that time apart from Tory Appeasers? It seems a bit churlish to deny him honours because of earlier misdeeds.

Paul
Reader
Paul

There was great danger in 1940 that the Nazi sympathisers in the Tory Party of Chamberlain would see Britain stay neutral when Germany invaded the East as Hitler always promised he would. Sympathy for the anti communists ran deep in Royalty and the whole upper class. Ironically it was one of their own, an aristocratic Tory, that did manage to swing opinion against such a terrible outcome and that’s why he is still revered.

vexarb
Reader
vexarb

@Paul. Chamberlain himself did not stay neutral; he declared war before 1940. It depends what you mean by the East “when Germany invaded the East”.

WikiPedia: Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain announced that Britain was at war with Germany in 1939. Chamberlain’s announcement that the country was at war came two days after Hitler’s troops had invaded Poland.

Paul
Reader
Paul

Chamberlain did declare war against Germany when Poland was invaded; he had no means whatsoever of enforcing his Ultimatum that Germany withdraw. Thus the Phony War which meant No War for many months. Chamberlain and Lord Halifax never stopped wishing to find an accommodation with Nazis; they shared Hitler’s hatred of Communism and there is little doubt they would have sought the sidelines in June 1941 when Germany invaded Russia.
By the ‘East’ Hitler meant the Slavic countries from Poland through to Russia.
Interestingly when Hitler invaded Poland he thought it necessary to set up a charade with dead prisoners dressed in Polish uniforms to back his claim that Poland had violated the border first. Contrast with current ‘explanations’ of why America should rule Venezuela – because, as John Bolton said just this week that American oil companies wanted to take over the largest oil reserves of the World. I suppose you could say that’s more honest ….

George cornell
Reader
George cornell

Yes honest in the way that serial murderers finally confess after being found guilty.

Paul
Reader
Paul

Churchill certainly sought ways to bring Italy on the anti-Nazi side not least because Mussolini was afraid of German invasion and preferred an alliance with the West. If the ruse had succeeded it would have made a big difference. Only the obstinacy of the Chamberlain Tories and the near racist opinion of Eden towards Italy saw Mussolini join Hitler.

TFS
Reader
TFS

I unsure if this is true but after WW2, Churchill and his ilk had spirited away some of Germany sick scientists before Russian could get their own hands on them.

It’s my understanding, that Russia withheld British servicemen from repatriation back home after WW2, until the UK returned the German scientists. This didn’t happen and British servicemen went to the gulag. Has anyone else seen this reported or is it ‘fake news’?

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

I don’t think that happened. Basically German scientists went to the Allies on a finders keepers basis. What you ended up with just depended what part of Germany you were invading and where the scientists were.

Antonym
Reader
Antonym

Anybody notice a different Churchill from Dunkirk on-wards?
Few on this blog, but the Brits in 1940 did as did the Nazis. It enraged Hitler.

Paul
Reader
Paul

How did Dunkirk enrage Hitler? There is much to suggest Hitler deliberately held back from attacking the retreating army, much to the consternation of his Generals. It was part of his long lasting bid to negotiate with the Peace Party in Britain; a massacre of the British army might have soured that relationship. Similarly the threat to invade Britain was recognised as bluff, apart from some mocked up landing craft it was to disguise Germany’s massive preparations for the invasion of Russia. For the rest of the war Germany put out peace feelers – especially as the war began to turn against them. One persistent idea was to restore Edward to the throne. In Hitler’s monologues (‘Hitler’s Table Talk’) a recurring theme is how Germany and Britain could/should form a partnership, Britain would retain its Empire while Germany occupied the Slavic lands including Russia. He often expressed admiration for the Empire and particularly how a tiny Administration ruled India. There was a racial connection with the Anglo Saxons; the World would be run by White Men He felt the two countries shared the same basic views – and surely he was right about that!?

Antonym
Reader
Antonym

Good points. What I meant was that from May 1940 onwards British PM (Churchill!) speeches were unmistakeably anti-appeasement; I used Dunkirk as a time marker for that.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

Churchill knew perfectly well Hitler had nothing against the British and had no intention of invading the UK. Churchill basically had to manufacture war where none existed by doing malignant things like bombing civilians in Berlin, resulting in the eventual bombing of civilians in London by the Germans, Churchill’s intended outcome. It played well in the British propaganda efforts in the US.

Paul
Reader
Paul

Churchill knew more than most that Hitler wanted an accord with the British and their Empire and that a significant number of the upper classes preferred an alliance with Germany knowing its intention was to attack the Soviet Union and dismantle Communism. Despite his class loyalties Churchill moved against the British fascists by taking them into Preventative Custody while insisting ex King Edward – a personal friend of Hitler remember!! – be sent under close surveillance to Barbados. Look at the way France accommodated themselves with the Nazis, many in Britain wanted to emulate them, not the masses but the elite, men like ex PM Chamberlain and Lord Halifax who very nearly took over instead of Churchill.

Antonym
Reader
Antonym

Would David Lindsay have done better than Winston Churchill during and after the Battle of Britain? Or BigB? Or Mark?

We all know who inspired bruised UK to overcome. The authors above could have joined Dad’s Army, just nobody would have watch such a bunch of old negative fools later on.

harry stotle
Reader
harry stotle

Classic smear tactic distracting from the question at hand (denialism of Churchills political record).

We are not here to judge BB or Mark.
If I want that sort of commentary (oh, look, a rabbit) I can go to the Guardian.

To recap – we are discussing Britains ability to confront painful aspects of its past. So lets just remind ourselves why Gary Oldman’s portrayal, rousing though it may be might just be a tad biased?

Antonym
Reader
Antonym

The whole article is a smear on Churchill’s WWII record; he also knew what Stalin was up to afterwards – contrary to Roosevelt. Then the Dulles brothers too over and the rest is history.

Churchill’s pre- WW II record might be painful, but not during. How is Britain’s ability to appreciate positive aspects of its past? Seeing the number of EU remainers and globalists around I’d say weak.

Kerry F
Reader
Kerry F

Australian soldiers were slaughtered in Gallipoli with even the Turkish firing at them begging them not to run across the killing fields. But on Churchill’s orders hundreds died in a mere few minutes for “Empire”. If there are positive aspects to Britains past I suggest that you stop looking for them in anything to do with the colonialism, monarchy or war. Hmmm I wonder what’s left after that?

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

Churchill was just as incompetent in world war 2 as he was any other time. the man was an alcoholic, he could barely function mentally. he didn’t even read his own speeches on the radio, they had an actor doing it.

Paul
Reader
Paul

And he spent a lot of the war on holidays to the sun, especially Marrakesh. He was already quite old by 1940. The V signing, cigar chomping boiler suited War Leader was a propaganda construct of course but it doesn’t reference the way his warrior like personality and determination to win made it impossible for the Establishment to cut and run as they fervently wanted to do, share the World with Hitler and finish off Communism in its lair. Appeaser soon became a dirty word as MI5 set about them. There was no other politician in 1940 able to do that, partly because most of them harboured admiration for the anti Communist Front. They would no more have supplied Stalin with military assistance than they did the Spanish Republicans. So Churchill’s immediate and unreserved support for Russia when Germany finally invaded was very significant. The Imperialist High Tory threw our lot in with Russia whereas his colleagues would have sold out with enthusiasm.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

Well its not like it took any particular talent or effort on his part to insist on war at any cost.

As a result of it the country was bankrupted and put in hock to the Americans for decades and the Empire was lost.

But Churchill got his place in history I guess as something other than the degenerate sociopath he actually was.

George cornell
Reader
George cornell

He wrote awfully well for being inebriated all the time, as you say. I say he had one hell of a liver.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

He had a team of ghost writers. He could still write well himself though when not completely intoxicated.

BigB
Reader
BigB

Thanks Antonym.

We can’t change history; but we can put this in perspective. Particularly the specious ‘save dear old Blighty from the Fascist hordes’ narrative. Recent history – uncovered by the likes of Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor (building on Quiggley ans Sutton) – substantiates another narrative. In which, power hungry megalomaniacs – such as the fat fascist Churchill – planned and prepared for WW1 for 30 years. They took the assassination in Sarajevo (by a Black Hand assassin more than likely trained by the British – though I have never been able to confirm this) as a convenient event to precipitate global war …for which they were ready and waiting. In other words, blighty kicked the whole thing off – or the Secret Elite serving AZC self-maximising interests did, at least. Remember the Lusitania, check out Churchill’s part in that propaganda event. Churchill, as a Rothschild puppet, is heavily implicated in the conspiracy causing WW1, bringing America into it, and prolonging the evil – for profit.

The ‘wilderness years’ – warning of a re-arming Germany? Or agitating for war – made inevitable at Versailles – as his AZC buddies financed Fascism and Bolshevism? Not to mention his betrayals and carving up of the Middle East – which has ramifications to this day. So spare me the fabricated pseudo-historic BS that Churchill saved anyone from anything. He sacrificed anyone and everyone to start the World Wars – for profit. If anyone needed saving: it was from men like him.

Close, but no cigar.

https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/category/rothschilds/

Antonym
Reader
Antonym

Predictable source: Jews behind all evil. Nice company you’re voluntary joining: the Nazis and Islamists.
That ALL powerful minority – bollocks!

Eyes wide shut simultaneously to the ideology, numbers & money power of that other group of Semites….

BigB
Reader
BigB

Predictable dog whistling. Did anyone mention Jews? Was Churchill a Jew? Did you visit the Hidden History site to appraise the facts? Are facts racist? No, but you thought you would smear anyone who might try and appraise the evidence gathered there as a racist. BTW: race is a social construction, one frequently employed to cover crimes, such as Churchill’s. As is the Dunkirk Spirit, “we shall fight them on the beaches” rhetorical BS. Just have a look at some of the things he was involved in, and remind me why he is the greatest ever living Britain. Lies. All mendacious lies.

Paul
Reader
Paul

He assured that Britain would fight the fascists whatever the costs to an unconditional surrender. The alternative Tory policy was appeasement and to sit back and watch the epic struggle against Communism from the sidelines, hoping for a German victory. It was touch and go which line the country would take and its hard to see who else but Churchill could have swung it, Halifax nearly took over but he would have given Hitler the green light just as they had done at Munich. The extent of support for Nazis within the British elite was daunting. Do you remember the photo of the young Princess Elizabeth ‘waving’ to her Uncle, Edward? While it was pretty clear the 5 year old was just waving take a look at the Queen Mother who is giving a full blooded Nazi salute. Royalty was just the tip of the iceberg so far as fascist support in Britain is concerned. The Tories held power in 1940 so a Labour PM was out of the question and in any event it’s hard to see Attlee or Cripps as war leaders supported by a Commons majority. Maybe Bevin would have done the job but the Tories would never have countenanced that. In many ways Churchill was a God send and many on the Left saw him as a saviour. Odd maybe but true!

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

It’s a myth that Churchill was even popular during the war. East enders in London used to curse him when he turned up to visit the wrecked streets during the Blitz.

By the way it was also Churchill that caused the Blitz by repeatedly bombing Berlin. Finally the Germans retaliated.

peter
Reader
peter

Does anyone know of a complete book that gives these or similar views of Churchill?

John A
Reader
John A

I suggest you try to track down a copy of ‘The Churchill Legend’ by Frances Nielsen. I got a copy last year from an antiquarian bookseller online. It is worth reading as a counterbalance to all the ridiculous gushing rubbish about Churchill in the MSM and biographies
This article makes reference to it:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/23/the-churchill-legend/

Jen
Reader
Jen

Madhusree Mukerjee, “Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II” (2010)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill%27s_Secret_War
https://www.amazon.com/Churchills-Secret-War-British-Ravaging/dp/0465024815

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

Another good book about the British in India is Victorian Holocausts about the various famines which killed millions and were made much worse by the British authorities.

sailor1031
Reader
sailor1031

read “Churchill’s War” by the much maligned but excellent historian David Irving.

D.RAJA
Reader
D.RAJA

Not to forget that he called M.K.Gandhi a half naked fakir

Antonym
Reader
Antonym

Not too far off. A good act though for a half Christian London educated lawyer.

lynette cracknell chaplin
Reader
lynette cracknell chaplin

I am presently reading Brian Irving’s book on Churchill. He appears to have done much research and doesn’t pull his punches when pointing out the ugly side to Churchill’s character.

lynette cracknell chaplin
Reader
lynette cracknell chaplin

I correct myself, the author is David Irving.

BigB
Reader
BigB

Never a popular man at home, growing up. Not men left in France. Ever the bigot and racist: it was Scotsmen – of the 51st Highland Division and the 1st Royal Scots – that were ordered by Churchill to fight on (side by side with De Gaulle) at Abbeville. The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were decimated at Huchenneville – the darkest day in the regiments history. Some got out at St Valery-en-Caux. The rest were marched to captivity in the concentration camps in Poland. Such is war: but the real sacrifice – an ignominy heaped upon ignominy – was to the propaganda ‘victory’ of Dunkirk and ‘their finest hour’. The sacrifice of the 51st was to the historic narcissism of the national pride – forgotten until relatively recently (too late for most). They didn’t even get a commemorative medal. Churchill’s monstrous ego outshone them.

My Dad served with some of the survivors from 1947 onwards. Churchill was never forgiven and ubiquitously hated throughout Scotland. Due to the Auld Alliance (the Scots and the French united by their hatred of the English) De Gaulle was always popular.

David could have added that Churchill was a eugenicist too – advocating for the lifelong detention and sterilisation of the ‘feeble-minded’ and ‘insane classes’ to prevent them breeding. Thanks to the nationalist glorification of men like Churchill: the feeble-minded and insane-classes are now running the asylum.

https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-152/leading-churchill-myths-churchills-campaign-against-the-feeble-minded-was-deliberately-omitted-by-his-biographers/

Perhaps the best summation, apocryphal or not, was Leopold Amery, Churchill’s own Secretary of State for India who said he “was not quite sane” and he couldn’t “see much difference between [Churchill’s] outlook and Hitler’s.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/churchills-secret-war-by-madhusree-mukerjee-2068698.html

Some man. Some hero.

Michael Leigh
Reader
Michael Leigh

The late W S Churchill who had enough common sense to command the Air Ministry, and the other associated departments of aerial warning systems were tasked in routeing his radio equipted car every night to drive him to the safety of the west country during the German Bombibg of GB from 1939- to-1941, leaving his spouse and children in his Eastern Kent manor house overnight.

Indeed, he was normally in a state of ‘high inebriation’ often drinking 12 petit bottles of champange every day and night, supplied by a friend of mine, Laurie Ross the Head barman at the Ritz Hotel.

But he had develop a good skill at painting rural landscape{s}.

And the world would have been a better place if he had stuck with his paintbrush!

John A
Reader
John A

Churchill was responsible for more misery and deaths in the 20th century than Stalin or Mao, but as he wrote his own history books and was a Tory, he got a free ride in western mainstream media. A more evil person, it is hard to imagine.

mark
Reader
mark

His racism and contempt for the lesser breeds was extraordinary even by the standards of his day, particularly Indians and Arabs.
He pioneered dropping poison gas bombs on Arab villages. Beat Saddam Hussein hands down on that one.
He lost all his money in the Wall Street crash, and after that he was in the pocket of Zionist interests. They bailed him out to the tune of £1 million, and was in their pocket afterwards.
In 1945, even before the war was over, he wanted to turn on Russia and attack Russia, allied with German troops.
Churchill forced through bid cuts in military spending before the war as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He mocked those who criticised him and argued this was dangerous. “Who are we going to fight against – Japan? Ridiculous!” Neville Chamberlain, who was ridiculed for appeasement, accelerated military spending and played a key role in the development of new single engine fighters that won the Battle of Britain.

John
Reader
John

Most of what’s said about Stalin and Mao is made up especially death counts

Antonym
Reader
Antonym

Stalin, Mao & Hitler were the good guys; Churchill was the bad egg. WWII ended badly due to the Zionists.
/sarc off

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

Or Churchill was as bad as them and there are no good guys.

Kerry F
Reader
Kerry F

David Lindsay, Perhaps your research does not go far enough. I have seen references to Churchill secretly plotting the war with the US, as opposed to “saving” Britain. if this were true it wold make more sense of the rest of your allegations. That American corporations funded the Nazis is documented fact. But where is the connection to Churchill?

vexarb
Reader
vexarb

As a boy in South Africa I remember reading, in a Churchill book on history (Of the English Speaking Peoples?), that His Majesty’s big hearted Government was morally obliged to invade the Afrikaaner Republics (Orange Free State and Transvaal) in order to prevent them maltreating immigrant European workers (the UitLanders) in their newly discovered gold and diamond mines. I did not buy that story. That passage in Churchill’s book made a lasting impression on me, for neither did I buy similar stories from later Rothschild prime ministers such as TB.Liar and David Camoron.

“So was it when my life began;
So be it when I shall grow old”

BigB
Reader
BigB

“History will be kind to me: for I intend to write it”

Loverat
Reader
Loverat

I think this is very one-sided account of Churchill’s career.

Just a few points – Churchill’s career in high position and government spanned over 50 years. So over that period and two world wars, there’s bound to be some failures. Gallipoli wasn’t a bad plan – it was badly executed. After this failure he went to the trenches in France.

Britain was weak and unprepared for the second war. At least Churchill was one of the few who saw it coming and fought whereas others were prepared to throw the towel in. Churchil spent a great deal of time outside of Britain during WW11 drumming up support and visiting troops in war-zones.

Britian was weakened by war also so was hardly in a great position post war regarding helping the Poles and a carve up along the lines of spheres of influence in E Europe was probably inevitable.

As for the other points about his treatment of Suffragettes, miners and his attitude and beliefs I always say you can’t judge people of the past by the so called standards of today. Yes, of course you can’t excuse this as there were people then opposing these policies – but you have to take account of the climate and attitudes then – not know.

And if look at what we have today, racists, warmongers and terrorist supporters in government masquerading as liberals.

I think many people would welcome someone with the relative honesty and presence of Churchill. I’m under no illusions at the double-dealing and stuff which went on then – but when compared to today, he was a giant. If you’re going take a negative view on the man, at least balance the points with some of his achievements and compare to what we have now.

vexarb
Reader
vexarb

@Loverat: “Gallipoli wasn’t a bad plan – it was badly executed.”

I think Lt.Colonel Mustafa Kemal AtaTurk may have had something to do with the upset of Churchill’s “not bad” plan at Gallipoli. He upset Churchill again after Sykes-Picot took out their carving knives: Turkey managed to fight off a typically British offer of protection, the sort of “offer you cannot refuse”.

Churchill vs Ataturk at Gallipoli reminds me of a remark about Napoleon vs Wellington in Portugal: “At the time, Napoleon did not realise what he was up against.”

Jen
Reader
Jen

The Allies’ Gallipoli plan not only was badly executed, it was a BAD PLAN, full stop.

The plan began as a naval plan to send British and French battleships through the Dardanelles and the Sea of Marmara to capture Istanbul and tip the Ottomans out of the Great War. This naval plan failed in March 2015.

The Allies then sent in a combined force of soldiers from the British and French empires and landed them on Gallipoli peninsula to wipe out Turkish defence forces so the naval plan could be carried out again. That plan failed too.

Even if Mustafa Kemal had not commanded Turkish forces at Gallipoli, the fighting could still have dragged on for longer than it did. The Turkish forces were defending their own territory and knew it better than the Allied forces did. If the Allies had known anything about the nature of the physical environment of Gallipoli peninsula where their troops were expected to fight, they would have realised that the whole plan was foolhardy.

“Dawn of the Legend: The Failed Plan”
https://www.awm.gov.au/visit/exhibitions/dawn/plan

“The myths of the battle of Gallipoli”
https://www.historyextra.com/period/first-world-war/the-myths-of-the-battle-of-gallipoli/

mark
Reader
mark

I believe Turkish forces at Gallipoli were actually commanded by a German staff officer, Liman von Sanders.
Ataturk was a more junior field officer. Though that’s not to deny his part in a successful defensive battle. Early in the campaign, Australian troops were advancing and the Turks had very little to stop them. Ataturk was in charge of a small group of Turkish soldiers with no ammunition. He told his men the Australians had no way of knowing that, to fix bayonets, lie down, and take aim. The Australians saw Ataturk’s men, stopped advancing and started digging in, till Turkish reinforcements could arrive.

One of the reasons for the failure of the campaign may have been the racism and contempt for the “lesser breed” Turks displayed by Churchill and others. The Turkish army actually fought incredibly well in WW1, despite terrible defeats and setbacks. They went on fighting right to the end, even after their retreating forces were cut to pieces by RAF attacks. The Turkish army did not mutiny or collapse, like the French, the Italians and the Russians. Like the Japanese in WW2, they showed that a white skin is not a prerequisite of courage.

Jen
Reader
Jen

Thanks for the information.

Antonym
Reader
Antonym

Thanks God the Turks were not “racists” too; just ask the Greek, Armenians, Orthodox Christians, Kurds, etc: in short any minorities.

Turkey today is 99.8% Muslim, in 1300 it was 0%.

Loverat
Reader
Loverat

You can point at all sorts of obstacles to any military plan. But the actual idea of knocking Turkey out of the war was not a bad idea in itself. The idea was promoted also because there was pressure for something to be done to stop the slaughter on the Western Front. I think this was something Churchill was very aware of.

Of course the Turks fighting on their own territory will have an advantage in this respect. But what would you have proposed?

To me, there weren’t a wide range of other options to shorten the war at the time. What would you have done in his position?

You could argue all day about this and Churchill’s plan (which went ahead) to invade Italy in 1943. That campaign was slow and costly. But were (as the Americans believed) the allies ready in 1943 to invade France as the main landings? If Churchill had supported that and this had failed, this would have been disastrous.

Churchill has been described as an adventurist by some historians but I think he also demonstrated caution at crucial times.

And at least Gallipoli as costly as it was didn’t significantly risk the outcome of WW1.

Churchill’s achievements/failures need to be considered in the proper context.

rpl
Reader
rpl

BigB further up recommended the site firstworlwarhiddenhistory. I strongly ask anyone to look at it. Gallipoli was set up to fail to keep Russia in WWI, as they were thinking seriously about concluding a separate peace with Germany. In the sense of “look how our soldiers are dying to give you Konstantinople” (while the British Empire never thought about allowing the Russians access to the Mediteranian). The plan was to keep Germans and Russians fighting each other until both were destroyed,for the anglosaxon elite to rule the world.

As for WWII: the british elite had put so much effort into bringing about WWI, that they never contemplated giving Hitler success in the long run. The plan was to cackhandle everything for just so long that Europe could only be saved by the anglosaxon superpower.
By the way, before anyone turns to that argument: No, it were not “the jews” but a very secretive angloamerican elite. Zionists happen to be extremly able fellow travellers.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

Churchill was a war mongering psycho. He did everything possible to start and prolong both world wars.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

Churchill came up with a similarly idiotic plan in World War II, the raid on Dieppe, which was of course a total failure and cost many brave men their lives.

George cornell
Reader
George cornell

Hindsight is 20/15. It’s why people love it so dearly. You can never be criticized. Even shooting fish in a barrel uses up ammo, makes a loud noise and will engage animal rights.There are many things you have to be there for and you can be sure decisions like that were based on the information or misinformation he was given. Dieppe was a disaster for many of my countrymen but blaming Churchill? Not convinced.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

He was drunk out of his mind most of the time and had no real military experience. Unfortunately he was allowed to play out his fantasies with real people’s lives.

Wolfe tone
Reader

Nonsense, Britain was very well prepared for war in ww2……..preparing for war between Germany and Russia that is!

Antonym
Reader
Antonym

Russia and Germany? you mean Stalin and Hitler, a HUGE difference. These two “gentlemen didn’t need anybody’s encouragement to battle anyone or each other considering the size of their Egosor their plans.

Loverat
Reader
Loverat

Britain was in a very dire situation at that time. Russia was fighting Finland and the UK and France were both considering trying to help the Finns. Meanwhile Germany’s actions up to then have been well documented. Hardly the climate for calculating moves to set one enemy against another.

It’s all well challenging history and how its written. But people completely re-writing history on the basis that Churchill represented a cold, calculating establishment 70 years ago might make others less receptive to the much more credible observations they make about today’s events.

That would be a shame.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

Britain wasnt really in a dire situation. Hitler had no intention of invading the UK. Churchill obviously would know that.

Jen
Reader
Jen

I’m sure I remember reading somewhere online (but can’t remember where because it was a long time ago) that Winston Churchill mocked the idea of government investment in radar technology and/or in establishing a radar warning system for Britain in the event of a war, when it was proposed by the Chamberlain government in the mid to late 1930s.

Of course, guess what helped to save Britain’s bacon along with the import of Polish, Czechoslovakian, New Zealander, Australian, Canadian, South African and various other countries’ air force pilots when Hitler gave the order for an air invasion of Britain in 1940?

Aaah, here is an interesting recent blog article:

“The Invention of Radar vs. The Luftwaffe”
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/the-invention-of-radar-vs-the-luftwaffe/

“… The radar effort might have been squashed, and it might have been Winston Churchill’s fault. Churchill’s good friend and science advisor was F.A. Lindemann, a fearless flyer and a professor of physics. Lindemann had his own ideas about dealing with bombers, and he didn’t believe RDF was the way. Detecting them with heat sensors would be better and the way to counter them was either developing aerial mines that floated down on them or steel cables dropped from above that would foul their propellers. Had Churchill been appointed prime minister in the late 1930s rather than 1940, Lindemann may have had more power and thereby scuttled radar in favor of his other schemes …”

Haltonbrat
Reader
Haltonbrat

Who are these terrorist supporters? You mean perhaps the Conservative and Labour Friends of Israel?