Winston Churchill

[Conor]

Horrible scumbag of a human. What was his actual, practical role in WW2(honest question)? Was he making key strategic decisions that lead to defeating Germany? He certainly didn't 'beat the Nazis' out of the goodness of his own heart anyway, which is how he seems to be portrayed by a lot of the British. He is evil British Imperialism concentrate as far as I'm concerned, so it's not hard to see why lots of British can't accept he was a cretin, they are still proud of that element of their country's past.

 

[sammsky1]

Churchill taking a pasting on Twitter for past 18 hours with only far right wing and racist thugs providing him some air cover.

I’m glad Churchill’s statue had a little scribble over it yesterday, as a whole new generation of Brit’s and beyond have found out what a despicable human being he was. Which was the whole point.

Only another 20 years or so for the BrExit lot to die, and then Churchill place in history can be properly concluded and reflected including by those involved in BLM movement.

 

[Drainy]

If that's the case we should imprison Cheney and Bush first before we talk about Churchil

Whataboutism.

Also they are American. I guess Churchill was also American, but I mean the UK doesn't control the US Executive branch

 

[Cassidy]

If that's the case we should imprison Cheney and Bush first before we talk about Churchil

Neither are celebrated as British historical heroes

 

[Sky1981]

Whataboutism.

Also they are American. I guess Churchill was also American, but I mean the UK doesn't control the US Executive branch

Tony Blair was still alive by the way. Let's start from him.

It's not about whataboutims. If you're so adamant Churchil is guilty and you want his statue demolished, why not ask for something which is still relevant, imprison tony Blair for going to Iraq

 

[11101]

Just playing devils advo [some people love this shit lol] but by what metric are you authoritatively stating that it is a universal fact Hitler was worse than Churchill.

Churchill was indirectly responsible for 3 million deaths in India by refusing to divert food shipments from the war effort, and the proportion of blame he should take for those deaths is debatable. Had he never existed would the outcome have been different? Probably not by much.

Hitler was the chief protagonist in a party that actively rounded people up and exterminated them. 11 million by the time he was stopped, and there were a few hundred million falling under his criteria for eventual extermination. Then you had his views on gay people, black people and other ethnicities who he was (at the time) content to enslave and sterilise instead. Had he won, the world would be unrecogniseable.

It's just stupid to try and argue they were equals.

 

[Drainy]

Tony Blair was still alive by the way. Let's start from him.

It's not about whataboutims. If you're so adamant Churchil is guilty and you want his statue demolished, why not ask for something which is still relevant, imprison tony Blair for going to Iraq

If you had said Blair I would have given my opinion of him.

He should be investigated and potentially prosecuted. He should certainly not be celebrated.

You will note that I did not express a view on Churchill in this thread so far. In the other thread I said that his racism was beyond the norm at the time and his actions in the bengal famine were disgusting and I can imagine the frustration that British Indian people feel seeing him hero worshipped. However the point still remains that he was vital to saving the world from Nazism.

He's a grey character and overall we should have a negative view of him, while understanding the vital role he played in ww2.

It's inevitable that the statue will come down one day, and they will be right to do so.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

Churchill taking a pasting on Twitter for past 18 hours with only far right wing and racist thugs providing him some air cover.

I’m glad Churchill’s statue had a little scribble over it yesterday, as a whole new generation of Brit’s and beyond have found out what a despicable human being he was. Which was the whole point.

Only another 20 years or so for the BrExit lot to die, and then Churchill place in history can be properly concluded and reflected including by those involved in BLM movement.

Do you not think there should be at least some respect shown for his role in the war. Horrible human or not, he’s played a big role in winning a war against one of the greatest evils the world has ever known and perhaps with a weaker leader that would not have been the case.

Cleary many of his other views have rightly been criticised but I also can’t help but think it’s slightly moronic to go back through history and judge every person by today’s moral standards.

 

[oates]

Only another 20 years or so for the BrExit lot to die,

...and again

Yes, I'll probably be dead in at least that time but when will you understand that we're not all rabid fanatical xenophobes who can't change or have to lay out their anti-racist, anti-Nazi League credentials to have or express an opinion that matters?

 

[Mogget]

Whatever people's views of Churchill, it's a moronic hill for any movement to wage war on. Slave trader statues are all well and good, but cenotaphs and Churchill are not winning any hearts and minds and are never going to. And anyone who thinks otherwise is, at best, delusional.

Which sort of sums where this country is right now, doesn't it?

Why is it so difficult to have an actual conversation about this country's racist and imperialist past?

 

[sammsky1]

Do you not think there should be at least some respect shown for his role in the war. Horrible human or not, he’s played a big role in winning a war against one of the greatest evils the world has ever known and perhaps with a weaker leader that would not have been the case.

Cleary many of his other views have rightly been criticised but I also can’t help but think it’s slightly moronic to go back through history and judge every person by today’s moral standards.

There is no danger of Churchill not being credited for his achievement of killing lots of Germans or ‘role in the war’. It is the only thing that is taught and revered in UK’s remembrance of him.

mainstream politics and cultural propaganda has totally whitewashed Churchill life story, to the extent that so many people are commenting ‘I never knew that about him’ in past 24 hours.

Lastly you can believe what you wish. Others now have better information to come to their own conclusions

 

[sammsky1]

...and again

Yes, I'll probably be dead in at least that time but when will you understand that we're not all rabid fanatical xenophobes who can't change or have to lay out their anti-racist, anti-Nazi League credentials to have or express an opinion that matters?

you didn’t vote pro Brexit!

 

[oates]

you didn’t vote pro Brexit!

No I didn't. Not all of us did.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

Churchill was indirectly responsible for 3 million deaths in India by refusing to divert food shipments from the war effort, and the proportion of blame he should take for those deaths is debatable. Had he never existed would the outcome have been different? Probably not by much.

Hitler was the chief protagonist in a party that actively rounded people up and exterminated them. 11 million by the time he was stopped, and there were a few hundred million falling under his criteria for eventual extermination. Then you had his views on gay people, black people and other ethnicities who he was (at the time) content to enslave and sterilise instead. Had he won, the world would be unrecogniseable.

It's just stupid to try and argue they were equals.

I'm sober now, so let's do this properly this time.

First of all, my posts were genuinely me playing devils advocate. Personally don't like that shit, but after a bottle of bourbon I was in the mood. But please do explain your first paragraph sir. How or what is debateable.

 

[MrPooni]

I'm sorry to break it to you guys but some of us have held a grudge against Churchill for a long time and no amount of pearl clutching and gammon rage is going to change that but by all means keep telling on yourselves by walking in lockstep with ol' Tommy and his boys.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Brilliant.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Same energy.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Absolute thundercnut of a man who I wish was never born at all.

 

[sammsky1]

No I didn't. Not all of us did.

I didn’t say all did in my post! I said ‘those’.

 

[oates]

I didn’t say all did in my post! I said ‘those’.

Oh those! Yeah, the sheep. Who you need to blame are the very rich men and their big businesses who have funded the whole jamboree.

It's always the Rich feckers who are the root cause of us losing our shit.

 

[McGrathsipan]

Churchill literally got away with murder.
Racist pig.

 

[oates]

I wonder, if it hadn't been Churchill, would it have been someone else doing just as much harm?

 

[ivaldo]

I'm sorry to break it to you guys but some of us have held a grudge against Churchill for a long time and no amount of pearl clutching and gammon rage is going to change that but by all means keep telling on yourselves by walking in lockstep with ol' Tommy and his boys.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Same energy.

I say 'brilliant' and you compare me to Tommy Robinson. Wow. You really are a horrible little cretin aren't you? We even got 'pearl clutching' and 'gammon rage' thrown in there!

 

[Buchan]

Cleary many of his other views have rightly been criticised but I also can’t help but think it’s slightly moronic to go back through history and judge every person by today’s moral standards.

I’ve posted about this revisionist cancel-culture phenomenon before and how ridiculous and dangerous it is in general. However, there’s a massive difference between, for example, finding a comedy sketch from the 1990s wholly offensive by today’s standards and attempting to justify the deliberate displacement and starvation of an ethnic group because it was a different time back then.

Churchill isn’t being accused of possessing an edgy sense of humour here, for goodness sake. He was responsible for and oversaw a heinous policy which directly lead to the deaths and suffering of millions of people purely because he saw them as inferior to his own people, and for that very specific reason, he should be sufficiently condemned.

 

[MrPooni]

I say 'brilliant' and you compare me to Tommy Robinson. Wow. You really are a horrible little cretin aren't you? We even got 'pearl clutching' and 'gammon rage' thrown in there!

"Parklife!"

 

[11101]

I'm sober now, so let's do this properly this time.

First of all, my posts were genuinely me playing devils advocate. Personally don't like that shit, but after a bottle of bourbon I was in the mood. But please do explain your first paragraph sir. How would it not have differed much.

None of these had anything to do with Churchill:
Multiple natural events that placed pressure on the food supply
Japan invaded Burma and half a million people flooded back to India, all needing food and supplies
Japan bombed supply routes in India and attacked merchant shipping so food deliveries were severely disrupted

For the rest, the worry was that as Bengal was the new front to the Japanese after Burma fell, if it was well stocked that food would end up in Japanese hands. It was expected at the time that we would not be able to hold them off for long. Such strategies were also being employed by both the Russians and the Germans on the Eastern front, it was not unique to Britain.

In addition, we had no idea what the outcome was going to be in Europe. In 1942/43 the war was very much still in the balance and with the very real threat of annihilation and a Nazi Europe every available resource was being directed towards that, from food to ships, which inevitably took them away from others who needed them. Now Churchill should be condemned for making these decisions easily because he viewed the Bengalis as a lesser people, but I don't think it would have been much different with anybody else in charge. It's horrible however you look at it, but backed into a corner the way we were at that time, there was no easy answer and the war effort and our own people were always going to get priority.

 

[Grinner]

I’ve posted about this revisionist cancel-culture phenomenon before and how ridiculous and dangerous it is in general. However, there’s a massive difference between, for example, finding a comedy sketch from the 1990s wholly offensive by today’s standards and attempting to justify the deliberate replacement and starvation of an ethnic group because it was a different time back then.

Churchill isn’t being accused of possessing an edgy sense of humour here, for goodness sake. He was responsible for and oversaw a heinous policy which directly lead to the deaths and suffering of millions of people purely because he saw them as inferior to his own people, and for that very specific reason, he should be sufficiently condemned.

Well it's not like history books don't mention most of that. Are kids today taught to hero-worship him? I very much doubt it.

 

[ivaldo]

"Parklife!"

And that's Bingo!

 

[Buchan]

Well it's not like history books don't mention most of that. Are kids today taught to hero-worship him? I very much doubt it.

I don’t think so either. However, with recent developments around the world regarding the removal of statues of those with disgusting pasts, it’s entirely reasonable for Churchill to be part of that conversation.

King Leopold II in Belgium is another one. I’ll be amazed if celebratory relics of him in Belgian cities last much longer considering his disgraceful actions in Africa at the turn of the 20th century.

 

[Grinner]

I don’t think so either. However, with recent developments around the world regarding the removal of statues of those with disgusting pasts, it’s entirely reasonable for Churchill to be part of that conversation.

King Leopold II in Belgium is another one. I’ll be amazed if celebratory relics of him in Belgian cities last much longer considering his disgraceful actions in Africa at the turn of the 20th century.

It's a tough one. I mean you have to pretty much get rid of everything since everybody was flawed. I think energy is better expended on other things that would have more tangible benefits.

 

[Jim Beam]

Had a brilliant dog though, there is even a quite strong resemblance.

 

[R.N7]

The V sign was the original dab.

 

[horsechoker]

I welcome the discussion on Churchill's history.

National heroes tend to be viewed by their victories rather than their atrocities. As they say, the winners write history. British people live in a country which benefited from his leadership during the biggest war of all time. I think for that he deserves to be praised but we shouldn't shy away from discussing the bad things he did. I would welcome a broader education on Churchill into the national curriculum. You'll find very few great leaders who don't have something shady in their past. Politics is a dirty game and those who lead during peaceful times are seldom remembered (Does your average Brit know who Clement Atlee is?)

 

[Grinner]

I welcome the discussion on Churchill's history.

National heroes tend to be viewed by their victories rather than their atrocities. As they say, the winners write history. British people live in a country which benefited from his leadership during the biggest war of all time. I think for that he deserves to be praised but we shouldn't shy away from discussing the bad things he did. I would welcome a broader education on Churchill into the national curriculum. You'll find very few great leaders who don't have something shady in their past. Politics is a dirty game and those who lead during peaceful times are seldom remembered (Does your average Brit know who Clement Atlee is?)

Saving Britain saved the world too. How would the US have taken on Germany without the UK from which to launch the assault? There's a very good chance the US would have sought a treaty with Germany.

 

[MrPooni]

And that's Bingo!

To quote a popular fictional antifa icon "I can do this all day"

Churchill wouldn't be a fan. Strong "Thanos was right" vibes from that tubby old racist.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Well it's not like history books don't mention most of that. Are kids today taught to hero-worship him? I very much doubt it.

Kids learning WWII are presented with a version of Churchill which magnifies his achievements and ignores his failings - so the answer to your question is basically 'yes'.

 

[Penna]

Do you think that the Churchill statue should be taken down and replaced by a national memorial?

No, I don't think so - maybe that's because I'm an oldie (I even remember his extremely impressive state funeral being on TV). I do understand that the world is a very different place now, and legacies of all public figures are subject to scrutiny, which is as it should be. Statues of slave-traders in the UK or anywhere else are a different thing, as they were all about making money for themselves from human misery. Churchill for all his flaws embodied the "bulldog spirit" during the war years, which helped to keep people going - he was a figurehead. He believed himself that his whole life had been a preparation for his wartime leadership.

As an aside, my gran didn't like him at all and always referred to him as a warmonger, so people did see through the public image.

 

[Grinner]

Kids learning WWII are presented with a version of Churchill which magnifies his achievements and ignores his failings - so the answer to your question is basically 'yes'.

How do you know this?

 

[ivaldo]

To quote a popular fictional antifa icon "I can do this all day"

Churchill wouldn't be a fan. Strong "Thanos was right" vibes from that tubby old racist.

I can perfectly believe you can stereotype and make racially charged comments all day. You've now gone a whole post without misusing a buzzword though, so you better get back on that horse!

 

[11101]

No, I don't think so - maybe that's because I'm an oldie (I even remember his extremely impressive state funeral being on TV). I do understand that the world is a very different place now, and legacies of all public figures are subject to scrutiny, which is as it should be. Statues of slave-traders in the UK or anywhere else are a different thing, as they were all about making money for themselves from human misery. Churchill for all his flaws embodied the "bulldog spirit" during the war years, which helped to keep people going - he was a figurehead. He believed himself that his whole life had been a preparation for his wartime leadership.

As an aside, my gran didn't like him at all and always referred to him as a warmonger, so people did see through the public image.

That might well have been a view formed out of Chamberlain's belief in appeasement and negotiation with Hitler. Churchill came to power because he went completely and vocally against that, and to be fair, it wasn't working. He was a warmonger but i think history shows in this case it was justified.

 

[esmufc07]

Constantly parroting that Churchill saved Britain does a disservice to those who actually fought and died in the war. Great orator and probably the right man for the right time but outside of that he was a massive cnut and an even bigger racist. That so many don’t know about so many of his views and actions is a sad indictment of the British educational system and how we teach our history.

 

[Joga Bonito]

The crimes of Winston Churchill: https://medium.com/@write_12958/the-crimes-of-winston-churchill-c5e3ecb229b3

14 min read

Spoiler

Churchill was a genocidal maniac. He is fawned over in Britain and held up as a hero of the nation — voted ‘Greatest Briton’ of all time. Below is the real history of Churchill. The history of a white supremacist whose hatred for Indians led to four million starving to death. The man who loathed Irish people so much he conceived different ways to terrorise them. A racist thug who waged war on black people across Africa and in Britain. This is the trial of Winston Churchill, the enemy of all humanity.

Afghanistan:
Churchill found his love for war during the time he spent in Afghanistan. While there he said “all who resist will be killed without quarter” because the Pashtuns need “recognise the superiority of race”. He believed the Pashtuns needed to be dealt with, he would reminisce in his writings about how he partook in the burning villages and peoples homes.

Churchill would also write of how “every tribesman caught was speared or cut down at once”. Proud of the terror he helped inflict on the people of Afghanistan Churchill was well on the road to becoming a genocidal maniac.

Cuba:
Churchill wrote that he was concerned Cuba would turn in to “another black republic” in 1896. By “another” he was referring to Haiti which was the first nation in modern times to abolish slavery. Haiti has been punished for doing so ever since.

Egypt:
“Tell them that if we have any more of their cheek we will set the Jews on them and drive them into the gutter, from which they should never have emerged” — Winston Churchill on how to deal with Egypt in 1951.

Greece:
The British Army under the guidance of Churchill perpetrated a massacre on the streets of Athens in the month of December 1944. 28 protesters were shot dead, a further 128 injured. Who were they? Were they supporters of Nazism? No, they were in fact anti-Nazis.

The British demanded that all guerrilla groups should disarm on the 2nd December 1944. The following day 200,000 people took to the streets, and this is when the British Army on Churchill’s orders turned their guns on the people. Churchill regarded ELAS (Greek People’s Liberation Army) and EAM (National Liberation Front) as “miserable banditti” (these were the very people who ran the Nazis out). His actions in the month of December were purely out of his hatred and paranoia for communism.

The British backed the right-wing government in Greece returned from exile after the very same partisans of the resistance that Churchill ordered the murder of had driven out the Nazi occupiers. Soviet forces were well received in Greece. This deeply worried Churchill. He planned to restore the monarchy in Greece to combat any possible communist influence. The events in December were part of that strategy.

In 1945, Churchill sent Charles Wickham to Athens where he was put in charge of training the Greek security police. Wickham learned his tricks of the trade in British occupied Ireland between 1922–1945 where he was a commander of the colonial RUC which was responsible for countless terror.
In April 1945 Churchill said “the [Nazi] collaborators in Greece in many cases did the best they could to shelter the Greek population from German oppression” and went on to say “the Communists are the main foe”.

Guyana:
Churchill ordered the overthrowing of the democratically elected leader of ‘British Guiana’. He dispatched troops and warships and suspended their constitution all to put a stop to the governments nationalisation plan.

India:

Very few in Britain know about the genocide in Bengal let alone how Churchill engineered it. Churchill’s hatred for Indians led to four million starving to death during the Bengal ‘famine’ of 1943. “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion” he would say.

Bengal had a better than normal harvest during the British enforced famine. The British Army took millions of tons of rice from starving people to ship to the Middle East — where it wasn’t even needed. When the starving people of Bengal asked for food, Churchill said the ‘famine’ was their own fault “for breeding like rabbits”. The Viceroy of India said “Churchill’s attitude towards India and the famine is negligent, hostile and contemptuous”. Even the right wing imperialist Leo Amery who was the British Secretary of State in India said he “didn’t see much difference between his [Churchill] outlook and Hitler’s”. Churchill refused all of the offers to send aid to Bengal, Canada offered 10,000 tons of rice, the U.S 100,000. Churchill was still swilling champaign while he caused four million men, women and children to starve to death in Bengal.

Throughout WW2 India was forced to ‘lend’ Britain money. Churchill moaned about “Indian money lenders” the whole time.

The truth is Churchill never waged war against fascism. He went to war with Germany to defend the British Empire. He moaned “are we to incur hundreds of millions of debt for defending India only to be kicked out by the Indians afterwards”.

In 1945 Churchill said “the Hindus were race protected by their mere pullulation from the doom that is due”. The Bengal famine wasn’t enough for Churchill’s blood lust, he wished his favourite war criminal Arthur Harris could have bombed them.

When India was partitioned in 1947 millions of people died and millions more were displaced. Churchill said that the creation of Pakistan, which has been an imperialist outpost for the British and Americans since its inception, was Britain’s “bit of India”.

Iran:

When Britain seized Iran’s oil industry Churchill proclaimed it was “a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams”. He meddled in Iranian affairs for decades doing his utmost to exclude Iranians from their natural resources. Encouraging the looting of the nation when most lived in severe poverty.
In June 1914 Churchill proposed a bill in the House of Commons that would see the British government become become the major shareholder of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The company would go on to refrain from paying Iran its share of the dividends before paying tax to the British exchequer. Essentially the British were illegally taxing the Iranian government.

When the nationalist government of Mohammad Mosaddegh threatened British ‘interests’ in Iran, Churchill was there, ready to protect them at any cost. Even if that meant desecrating democracy. He helped organise a coup against Mosaddegh in August 1953. He told the CIA operations officer that helped carry out the plan “if i had been but a few years younger, I would have loved nothing better than to have served under your command in this great venture”.
Churchill arranged for the BBC to send coded messages to let the Shah of Iran know that they were overthrowing the democratically elected government. Instead of the BBC ending their Persian language news broadcast with “it is now midnight in London” they under Churchill’s orders said “it is now exactly midnight”.

Churchill went on to privately describe the coup as “the finest operation since the end of the war [WW2]”. Being a proud product of imperialism he had no issue ousting Mosaddegh so Britain could get back to sapping the riches of Iran.

Iraq:

Churchill was appointed ‘Secretary of State for the Colonies’ in 1921. He formed the ‘Middle East Department’ which was responsible for Iraq. Determined to have his beloved empire on the cheap he decided air power could replace ground troops. A strategy of bombing any resistance to British rule was now employed.

Several times in the 1920s various groups in the region now known as Iraq rose up against the British. The air force was then put into action, indiscriminately bombing civilian areas so to subdue the population.

Churchill was also an advocate for the use of mustard and poison gases. Whilst ‘Secretary for War and Air’ he advised that “the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs” should be used “for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes” in order to take control of Iraq.
When Iraqi tribes stood up for themselves, under the direction of Churchill the British unleashed terror on mud, stone and reed villages.
Churchill’s bombing of civilians in ‘Mesopotamia’ (Kurdistan and Iraq) was summed up by war criminal ‘Bomber Harris’:


Ireland:

In 1904 Churchill said “I remain of the opinion that a separate parliament for Ireland would be dangerous and impractical”. Churchill’s ancestry is linked to loyalism to Britain. He is a direct descendent of the ‘Marquis of Londonderry’ who helped put down the 1798 United Irishmen rising. He would live up to his families reputation when it came to suppressing revolutionary forces in Ireland.

The Black and Tans were the brainchild of Churchill, he sent the thugs to Ireland to terrorise at will. Attacking civilians and civilian property they done Churchill proud. Rampaging across the country carrying out reprisals. He went on to describe them as “gallant and honourable officers”.

It was also Churchill who conceived the idea of forming the Auxiliaries who carried out the Croke Park massacre. They fired into the crowd at a Gaelic football match, killing 14. Of course this didn’t fulfill Churchill’s bloodlust to repress a people who he described as “odd” for their refusal “to be English”.
He went on to advocate the use of air power in Ireland against Sinn Fein members in 1920. He suggested to his war advisers that aeroplanes should be dispatched with orders to use “machine-gun fire or bombs” to “scatter and stampede them”.

Churchill was an early advocate for the partitioning of Ireland. During the treaty negotiations he insisted on retaining navy bases in Ireland. In 1938 those bases were handed back to Ireland. However in 1939 Churchill proposed capturing Berehaven base by force.

In 1941 Churchill supported a plan to introduce conscription in the North of Ireland.

Churchill went on to remark”the bloody Irish, what have they ever done for our wars”, reducing Ireland’s merit to what it might provide by way of resources (people) for their imperialist land grabs.

Kenya:

Britain declared a state of emergency in Kenya in 1952 to protect its system of institutionalised racism that they established throughout their colonies so to exploit the indigenous population. Churchill being your archetypical British supremacist believed that Kenya’s fertile highlands should be only for white colonial settlers. He approved the forcible removal of the local population, which he termed “blackamoors”.

At least 150,000 men, women and children were forced into concentration camps. Children’s schools were shut by the British who branded them “training grounds for rebellion”. Rape, castration, cigarettes, electric shocks and fire all used by the British to torture the Kenyan people on Churchill’s watch.

In 1954 during a British cabinet meeting Churchill and his men discussed the forced labour of Kenyan POWs and how to circumvent the constraints of two treaties they were breaching:

The Cowan Plan advocated the use of force and sometimes death against Kenyan POWs who refused to work. Churchill schemed to allow this to continue.

Caroline Elkins book gives a glimpse into the extent that the crimes in Kenya were known in both official and unofficial circles in Britain and how Churchill brushed off the terror the colonial British forces inflicted on the native population. He even ‘punished’ Edwina Mountbatten for mentioning it, “Edwina Mountbatten was conversing about the emergency with India’s prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the then colonial secretary, Oliver Lyttleton. When Lyttleton commented on the “terrible savagery” of Mau Mau… Churchill retaliated, refusing to allow Lord Mountbatten to take his wife with him on an official visit to Turkey”.

Palestine:

In 2012 Churchill was honoured with a statue in Jerusalem for his assistance to Zionism.
He regarded the Arab population Palestine to be a “lower manifestation”. And that the “dog in a manger has the final right to the manger”, by this he meant the Arabs of Palestine.

In 1920 Churchill declared “if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event will have occurred in the history of the world which would from every point of view be beneficial”.

A year later in Jerusalem he told Palestinian leaders that “it is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national centre and a National Home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in this land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated?”.

At the Palestine Royal Commission (Peel) of 1937, Churchill stated that he believed in intention of the Balfour Declaration was to make Palestine an “overwhelmingly Jewish state”.

He went on to also express to the Peel Commission that he does “not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place”.

Four years later he wrote of his desire for a ‘Jewish state’to be established after the second war world. The establishment of the colonial settler state however was done by the British Labour Party under Attlee, who were always there to back their Tory counterparts when it came to British foreign policy.
Russia:

Churchill’s hatred and paranoia about communism saw him suggest that an atomic bomb should be dropped on the Kremlin. He believed this would “handle the balance of power”.

Saudi Arabia:

Prior to 1922 the British were paying Ibn Saud a subsidy of £60,000 a year. Churchill, then Colonial Secretary, raised it to £100,000.

Churchill knew full well of the dangers of wahhabism. He gave a speech to the House of Commons in 1921 where he stated that Ibn Saud’s followers “hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets… [they are] austere, intolerant, well-armed and bloodthirsty”. He was however content to use the House of Saud’s twisted ideology for the benefit of British imperialism.

Churchill went on to write that his “admiration for him [Ibn Saud] was deep, because of his unfailing loyalty to us”. He showered Ibn Saud with money and presents — gifting Ibn Saud a special Rolls-Royce in the mid 1940s.

South Africa:
Thousands were sent to British run concentration camps during the Boer wars. Churchill summed up his time in South Africa by saying “it was great fun galloping about”.

Churchill wrote that his only “irritation” during the Boer war was “that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men”.

It was Churchill who planted the seed to strip voting rights from black people in South Africa. In June 1906, Churchill argued that Afrikaners should be allowed a self-rule which would mean black people would be excluded from voting.

He went on to state to Parliament that “we must be bound by the interpretation which the other party places on it and it is undoubted that the Boers would regard it as a breach of that treaty if the franchise were in the first instance extended to any persons who are not white”.


In conclusion:
There have been a number of attempts to rehabailtate the image of the British Empire in Britain in recent years. Particularly via the medium of cinema. The film Darkest Hour didn’t show you anything about Churchill’s crimes. On the contrary it presented him as a hero. Gary Oldham won an Oscar for his portrayal of one of the most evil, imperialists ever.

British Nationalist groups in Britain hold Churchill up as their posterboy. And so they should. He was a racist to the core. In response to migration from the Caribbean to Britain he said England should “be kept white”. Throughout worl war two his cabinet obsessed over British people viewing American Black GI’s favourably. They were concerned that they would fraternised with white English women. A true believer in white supremacy, Churchill blamed the Native American and Aboriginal Australian people for their genocides. He said he did “not admit that a great wrong has been done to the red Indians and the black people of Australia.”

Winner of the Noble Prize in Literature, Churchill actually plagiarised his most well known speech from an Irish Republican called Robert Emmet who was hanged and then beheaded by the British in 1803. Winston’s famous “we shall fight them on beaches” line was lifted from Emmet’s speech from the dock.
When it came to his own fellow Brits he was less than complimentary and displayed a deep hatred for the working classes. He suggested “100,000 degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilised”. And that for “tramps and wastrels there ought to be proper labour colonies where they could be sent”.

It needs to be put once and for all that Churchill was despicable, racist, war criminal. Some will argue his “sins” are expiated for his actions during the second world war. It is nothing but nonsense to suggest Churchill went out to fight fascism. He lauded Mussolini as a “roman genius”, donated to Nazi war criminal Erich Von Manstien’s criminal defence and sought to desperatly cling on to the British Empire from which Hitler himself took inspiration for his Reich.

What we have to remember is Churchill was not a uniquely villianous British Prime Minister. He was not out of ordinary but in fact a true representation of Britain.

That's horrific. I'd heard about his role in the Bengal famine but the other stuff is news to me. Seems like an utter cnut of the highest order, going by that.