The REAL Churchill

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

When I read this I was shocked about how little I really knew about Churchill.

Some of the Choicest bits of the article include:

The Empire was at the center of his view of the world. Even as late as 1947, Churchill opposed Indian independence. When Lord Irwin urged him to bring his views on India up-to-date by talking to some Indians Churchill replied "I am quite satisfied with my views on India, and I don't want them disturbed by any bloody Indians." So much for democracy.

Churchill was instrumental in establishing the illegal starvation blockade of Germany. The blockade depended on scattering mines, and classified as contraband food for civilians. But, throughout his career, international law and the conventions created to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to Churchill. One of the consequences of the hunger blockade was that, while it killed 750,000 German civilians by hunger and malnutrition, the youth who survived went on to become the most fanatical Nazis.

It was Neville Chamberlain who began the rearmament of Britain after the Munich Crisis, the arms which Churchill would not have had during the Battle of Britain, including the first deployment of radar, which Churchill mocked while in opposition in the 1930s.

Moreover, as a British historian noted: "For the record, it is worth recalling that in the 1930s Churchill did not oppose the appeasement of either Italy or Japan."

Churchill threw British support to the Communist Partisan leader Tito. What a victory for Tito would mean was no secret to Churchill. When an aide pointed out that Tito intended to transform Yugoslavia into a Communist dictatorship on the Stalinist model, Churchill retorted: "Do you intend to live there?"

(emphasis mine)

Churchill even brainstormed dropping tens of thousands of anthrax "super bombs" on the civilian population of Germany, and ordered detailed planning for a chemical attack on six major cities, estimating that millions would die immediately "by inhalation," with millions more succumbing later.

In 1919, as Colonial Secretary Churchill advocated the use of chemical weapons on the "uncooperative Arabs" in the puppet state of Iraq. "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas," he declared. "I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes." Some year’s later, gassing human beings to death would make other men infamous.

An example of Churchill's racial views are his comments made in 1937: "I do not admit 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, has come in and taken their place."

(Gee does this sounds like someone familiar?)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Churchill was born in the 19th century and exhibited all of the traits of a 19th century Victorian gentleman, for good and for bad. Chamberlain's "rearmament" was in fact largely in response to demands from Churchill's wing of Parliament, and considering that Chamberlain brought Churchill into his cabinet once the war began, was partly handled by Churchill before he began to run the government. Tito never aligned with the WARPAC and was very popular in his country while he lived as a nationalist who refused to align with either side in the Cold War; supporting him can be called cynical but nothing more.

But what all of this ignores is the critical fact that without Churchill's moral support, the rhetorical example and firm stance he took, Britain would have very likely caved against Hitler in 1940. Then the Nazis could have concentrated their full resources against the USSR, which certainly would have gotten millions more people killed even when the USSR pulled it out. Unquestionably Churchill's principled stand saved those millions of lives; and it seems to me that idiotic sniping like this is just from people who can't stand the fact such a flawed and victorian individual still had the moral courage to stand up to such evil.

[Ma Deuce]

The author made some errors: For example, how did the US involvment in WWI prolong it? the Allies were on the brink of defeat by the time the Americans joined. Did the author want the Germans to win? .

Or what about this?

Of course, Churchill supported the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which resulted in the deaths of another 200,000 civilians. When Truman fabricated the myth of the "500,000 American lives saved" to justify his mass murder, Churchill felt the need to top his lie: the atomic bombings had saved 1,200,000 lives, including 1,000,000 Americans. It was all just another of Churchill's fantasies.

I wonder if the author considered how many casualties the other alternatives for defeating Japan would have entailed. When I think about what invading Japan, or worse yet, blockading the island and "starving them out", the number of 1.2 million lives way too low. The most conservative estimates for American casualties from invading Japan would have been 750,000, plus several million Japanese dead.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Churchill was born in the 19th century and exhibited all of the traits of a 19th century Victorian gentleman, for good and for bad.

If we take the underlying principle of your arguement it excuses everyone not of our timeperiod who has commited any sort of atrocity.

Tito never aligned with the WARPAC and was very popular in his country while he lived as a nationalist who refused to align with either side in the Cold War; supporting him can be called cynical but nothing more.

Which wasn't known at the time. Churchill COLDLY dismissed the consequences of putting a brutal tyrant in power.

But what all of this ignores is the critical fact that without Churchill's moral support, the rhetorical example and firm stance he took, Britain would have very likely caved against Hitler in 1940.

Which only appears as a bad thing in retrospect when you know all of Hitler's atrocities. At the time WWII was viewed as just another European War, Churchill's stand against Hitler was based on his support of the British Empire and his hatred for Germany, not his his high moral standards.

Then the Nazis could have concentrated their full resources against the USSR, which certainly would have gotten millions more people killed even when the USSR pulled it out.

Your point? Its not as if Churchill was motivated by pity for the Soviets you have to keep in mind that in 1940 the Soviets and Germans had a non-agression pact. Either way, the Soviets were going to attack in 1943 so a blood bath was going to happen regardless of what Churchill did.

Unquestionably Churchill's principled stand saved those millions of lives

Unintenional on his part, he was a racist and didn't care about the "dirty whites" anyway, which included the Slavs.

and it seems to me that idiotic sniping like this is just from people who can't stand the fact such a flawed and victorian individual still had the moral courage to stand up to such evil

Funny, I thought it was using historical statements and facts to reveal his true motivations and morals.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The author made some errors:

Yup

For example, how did the US involvment in WWI prolong it? the Allies were on the brink of defeat by the time the Americans joined. Did the author want the Germans to win? .

This isn't one of them. Keep in mind the Germany of WWI was not the horrible Germany of WWII. If the US had not entered the War the European Powers would have been forced to sign an equitable peace with Germany (thus preventing WWII, or at the very least the holocaust). WWI really had nothing to do with the US, it dragged on due to our entry, and the world was also worse off due to our entry.

<snip Japan A-Bomb>

Stuidity on his part here. [/quote]

[Guardsman Bass]

"a man of the state: of the welfare state

Didn't Churchill OPPOSE the welfare state(thus the reason he was tossed out in the elections after WWII)?

In 1925, he wrote, "The story of the human race is war." This is untrue, but Churchill lacked any grasp of the fundamentals of true, classical liberalism. The story of the human race is increasing peaceful cooperation and the efforts by some to stop it through war

Gotta love the author's moralizing in the middle of the article- it really helps us learn.

[Andrew J.]

The author made some errors: For example, how did the US involvment in WWI prolong it? the Allies were on the brink of defeat by the time the Americans joined. Did the author want the Germans to win? .

Whacko libertarians (like tha author of this article and BlkbrryTheGreat) have always opposed US entry into WWI. It's part of their fantasy that the United States was traditionally a peaceful, noninterfering nation before Wilson got us all involved in geopolitics.

[Sea Skimmer]

Churchill was instrumental in establishing the illegal starvation blockade of Germany. The blockade depended on scattering mines, and classified as contraband food for civilians. But, throughout his career, international law and the conventions created to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to Churchill. One of the consequences of the hunger blockade was that, while it killed 750,000 German civilians by hunger and malnutrition, the youth who survived went on to become the most fanatical Nazis.

What a load of bullshit, the British only implemented a full blockade after Germany launched its first unrestricted submarine campaign in 1915, which sank among other things the Lusitanian. And when they did go through with that blockade it wasn't enforced by mines, it was enforced by surface warships obeying the laws of cruise warfare.

It was Neville Chamberlain who began the rearmament of Britain after the Munich Crisis, the arms which Churchill would not have had during the Battle of Britain, including the first deployment of radar, which Churchill mocked while in opposition in the 1930s.

More stupidity. Churchill wasn't in a position to order rearmament though he did support it, and the early radar systems where incredibly inaccurate to the point of being useless. When that was improved on Churchill fully supported it.

Churchill threw British support to the Communist Partisan leader Tito. What a victory for Tito would mean was no secret to Churchill. When an aide pointed out that Tito intended to transform Yugoslavia into a Communist dictatorship on the Stalinist model, Churchill retorted: "Do you intend to live there?"

Tito did such minor things as tie up dozens of axis divisions during WW2 and kept his nation out of the Soviet circle post war. Leaving him on a limb would have just brought somthing worse.

Churchill even brainstormed dropping tens of thousands of anthrax "super bombs" on the civilian population of Germany, and ordered detailed planning for a chemical attack on six major cities, estimating that millions would die immediately "by inhalation," with millions more succumbing later.

The Allies had all sorts of plans for using biological, chemical and radiological weapons on the Germans should they strike first with such weapons, and had rather large stockpiles ready to go. Doing anything less would have been insane.

In 1919, as Colonial Secretary Churchill advocated the use of chemical weapons on the "uncooperative Arabs" in the puppet state of Iraq. "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas," he declared. "I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes." Some year’s later, gassing human beings to death would make other men infamous.

Gas wasn't seen as being evil back then, after The Great War people really saw no difference between dieing from gas or bullets and bombs, which is what the British used in the end. Dead is dead.

[TheDarkling]

Churchill was instrumental in establishing the illegal starvation blockade of Germany. The blockade depended on scattering mines, and classified as contraband food for civilians. But, throughout his career, international law and the conventions created to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to Churchill. One of the consequences of the hunger blockade was that, while it killed 750,000 German civilians by hunger and malnutrition, the youth who survived went on to become the most fanatical Nazis.

I don't really see the problem, we were trying to stop the Germans and starving the population into revolting was legitimate not to mention the less people alive is less people to put in uniform or in a factory.

Churchill even brainstormed dropping tens of thousands of anthrax "super bombs" on the civilian population of Germany, and ordered detailed planning for a chemical attack on six major cities, estimating that millions would die immediately "by inhalation," with millions more succumbing later.

We were bombing civilians anyway, why not go for broke. This was not a turkey shoot modern war, this was a war where the winner took all.

[Symmetry]

The author made some errors: For example, how did the US involvment in WWI prolong it? the Allies were on the brink of defeat by the time the Americans joined. Did the author want the Germans to win? .

In retrospect, it might very well have been better for Germany to have won WWI, given that WWII was pretty much a direct consequence of the peace treaty. More to the point, the IMHO the Germans had the moral high ground in their conduct in the war, even if they were a dictatorial republic.

[Sea Skimmer]

In retrospect, it might very well have been better for Germany to have won WWI, given that WWII was pretty much a direct consequence of the peace treaty. More to the point, the IMHO the Germans had the moral high ground in their conduct in the war, even if they were a dictatorial republic.

If the Germans had won WW1 then we'd just end up with the French and Russians and British bitter for revenge with the result of another massive war popping up down the line. That's simply inevitable unless the winner wins so absolutely that there nation is torn apart and either rebuild as the victor sees fit or is simply destroyed. That happened at the end of WW2, it's not too likely to happen at any convincible end to WW1 with Germany as the victor.

[TheDarkling]

If the Germans had won WW1 then we'd just end up with the French and Russians and British bitter for revenge with the result of another massive war popping up down the line. That's simply inevitable unless the winner wins so absolutely that there nation is torn apart and either rebuild as the victor sees fit or is simply destroyed. That happened at the end of WW2, it's not too likely to happen at any convincible end to WW1 with Germany as the victor.

I'm not so sure, one of the big things with the Germans was that they didn't think they had lost (which gave rise to the myth about the enemy within) and thus weren't willing to accept what they got from the peace (which wasn't all that harsh). On the other had the French were soundly beaten in the Franco Prussian war and there response was to suck it up, pay off the indemnity (they paid off the same amount in 6 months after their defeat that it took the Germans 10 years to shuffle from American banks to French hands) and go about getting an ally so as to prevent it happening again. If Germany does win here it is likely to be a resounding defeat of France, Russia goes communist and Britain sits off to the side and comes to a non loss treaty (although the channel ports will be lost British territory is likely to remain intact).

With all that said though I don’t see Germany winning the war even without US intervention nor do I think it would be a good thing if they did.

[Ubiquitous]

As a big Churchill fan, I'd have to ask the motives of the person who wrote this anti-Churchill BS. Most of it is either blatently false, taken out of context, or just failing to take into the account the nature of the time [e.g., the point about the plans to bio-weapon Germany].

It pains me when some people have nothing better to do than snipe a great man.

[Montcalm]

What was the difference between Nazis and the British Empire?

The Nazis were honest enough to admit they are racist.


joke

[Guardsman Bass]

Chris Matthews described Churchill as the "man who save[d] the honor of the 20th century." Rather than this great accolade, Winston Churchill must be ranked with Karl Marx, Woodrow Wilson, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt as one of the destroyers of the values and greatness of Western civilization.

This is a rather choicy bit. I'm curious, though, as to why he considers HERBERT HOOVER as a great destroyer of Western Civilization? The man wanted to raises taxes to balance the budget in the middle of the depression, for God's sake. As for Lenin, well, he never really was part of Western Civilization, per se.Same goes for Stalin; although both were followers of Marxism, neither followed its exact precepts.[/i]

[Guardsman Bass]

sorry if that sounds stupid, but I never considered the Lenin/Stalin as memebers of Western Society- and I don't think they considered themselves as such.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

I can just see it now, 100 years from now, liberals condeming Iceberg* as a filthy savage, because he wasn't a vegan, and didn't support Primate and AI rights. (Forgetting, that our contemperary primates haven't beeen "uplifted"yet, and there are no self aware AI's yet.)
This is the stupid logic of "temperocentrism," which implys that people always knew the same amount, and it affected their moral code. (If he wanted to eat meat, why didn't he just eat cloned beefiod meatmass 127a, instead of eating,[stomach does flipflops while speaking] flesh! [BARFFF])
This let's present day folk sneer at dark ages folk, for believing the Earth was flat.
Illiterate peasonts that haven't been further than 50 miles from their place of birth were SOOO worldly, wise and well educated.
So too, you have the benifit of 20/20 hindsight, an education, and the internet.
Yet for all our modern marvels, there is still slavery with state sanction to this day (Sudan)


*Iceberg was chosen as an example,(Hamel would do as well) because he is a hardcore lefty/liberal, and considers himself enlightened.
He and his ilk will never know how badly his desendants will think of him, using the same flawed temperocentric viewpoint.
Our desendants will think badly of almost all of us.

Many of our so called "enlightened" policies wouldn't be possible without our present day tech base, and the produtivity our machines grant us. There wasn't always as much to share as there is now. Which meant that either ALL semi starved, or some starved, most just got along, and a few got fat.
The fat ones made improvements, increasing the amount of food in total.
Poor people in America still get fat. This seemingly impossible condition shows just how much technology has changed the world.
People only starve now because of bad political desicions, not too small a pie to share.

[Hamel]

Greetings

[Ma Deuce]

It's part of their fantasy that the United States was traditionally a peaceful, noninterfering nation before Wilson got us all involved in geopolitics.

Then perhaps someone should educate them on the Spanish American war...

[Darth Wong]

BlkBerry does this a lot; don't get your panties in a knot. He posted a similar article about Abraham Lincoln a long time ago, trying to prove that Lincoln was fascist, evil, corrupt, yadda yadda yadda.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Yeah, he's sort of our resident tinfoiler.

[Andrew J.]

It's part of their fantasy that the United States was traditionally a peaceful, noninterfering nation before Wilson got us all involved in geopolitics.

Then perhaps someone should educate them on the Spanish American war...

Not to mention centuries of warfare against Indians, the Mexican-American war, and meddling all over South and Central America under Teddy Roosevelt.

[Lucius Licinius Lucullus]

If the US had not entered the War the European Powers would have been forced to sign an equitable peace with Germany (thus preventing WWII, or at the very least the holocaust). WWI really had nothing to do with the US, it dragged on due to our entry, and the world was also worse off due to our entry.

This is so wrong on so many levels that I dont even know wheter to laugh or cry at your ignorance.

First, World War II was a consequense of the Versaille treaty, not the Great War.

Second, American entry into the Great War really did not change as much as many yanks wants to believe, the Kaiseroffensive had already failed by the time American troops began to make an impact (yes I know a marine brigade/division or whatever is said to have stemmed the tide at a critical position in a wood, but there were other formations available then the American one). Once the Kaiseroffensive had failed, Germany had NO hope of winning the war on their terms. American troops did shorten the war, but even if the USA had not entered the war, the Entente troops would slowly had pressed into Belgium and Germany proper. For the real war winner on the Battlefield was a strange contraption of metal, tracks and wheels, not more meat for the grinder.

Third, and even if the Entente would have been to weak to press the Imperial German army of French soil, the Royal Navy did keep up the pressure and was slowly starving the German populace into submission. Thus had the Entente not been strong enough to finish the war on the battlefield, the Dolchstoss legend would have been true.

Fourth, in 1918 Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire was in shambles and quickly disintigrating, had Germany not sued for armistace when it did, Italian troops might very well have poured into Bavaria over the Austrian alps or been transferred to the Western front and thus giving the Entente the needed manpower to push out the Germans.

[TheDarkling]

First, World War II was a consequense of the Versaille treaty, not the Great War.

In that the treaty wasn't harsh enough (or if the US had helped enforce it but since that wasn't happening the treaty needed to be harsher so that it was easier to enforce) maybe so it would be more accurate to say Wilsonian interference caused WWII.

[Lucius Licinius Lucullus]

First, World War II was a consequense of the Versaille treaty, not the Great War.

In that the treaty wasn't harsh enough (or if the US had helped enforce it but since that wasn't happening the treaty needed to be harsher so that it was easier to enforce) maybe so it would be more accurate to say Wilsonian interference caused WWII.

I´d rather say that it was to harsh. Even the British believed this, wich is one of the reasons behind the policy of appeasment.
Lloyd George went with Clemencaus harsher line because he thought that Woodrow Wilsons draft was to leniant. And we all know the consequenses of that line.