Winston Churchill was a monster

[MD]

Winston Churchill: the Imperial Monster » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


As Gandhi’s support increased, Churcill announced:
“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”


In 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused by the imperial policies of the British. In reply to the Secretary of State for India’s telegram requesting food stock to relieve the famine, Churchill wittily replied:
“If food is scarce, why isn’t Gandhi dead yet?”
Up to 3 million people starved to death. Asked in 1944 to explain his refusal to send food aid, Churchill jeered:
“Relief would do no good. Indians breed like rabbits and will outstrip any available food supply.”


In 1920 Churchill advocated the use of chemical weapons on the “uncooperative Arabs” involved in the Iraqi revolution against British rule.
“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. It would spread a lively terror.”


Addressing the Peel Commission (1937) on why Britain was justified in deciding the fate of Palestine, Churchill clearly displayed his white supremacist ideology to justify one of the most brutal genocides and mass displacements of people in history, based on his belief that “the Aryan stock is bound to triumph”:

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do 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.”



Prime Minister Churchill had said earlier:

“I do not want suggestions as to how we can disable the economy and the machinery of war, what I want are suggestions as to how we can roast the German refugees on their escape from Breslau.”

In Dresden he got his wish. Those who perished in the centre of the city could not be traced, as the temperature in the area reached 1600 degree Centigrade. Dresden’s citizens barely had time to reach their shelters and many who sought refuge underground suffocated as oxygen was pulled from the air to feed the flames. Others perished in a blast of white heat strong enough to melt human flesh.

 

[Wirey]

Now that is some revisionist history! The man who stopped Hitler was the monster! Made me laugh!

 

[MD]

Now that is some revisionist history! The man who stopped Hitler was the monster! Made me laugh!

It's revisionist if it disagrees with you. How cute.

He didn't stop Hitler, Stalin did. To be honest, aside from acting as a land base for the Americans to invade Europe I don't see what else Britain really did to contribute to WW2.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's revisionist if it disagrees with you. How cute.

He didn't stop Hitler, Stalin did. To be honest, aside from acting as a land base for the Americans to invade Europe I don't see what else Britain really did to contribute to WW2.

Indeed, and I'd love to see someone argue that Stalin wasn't a monster. The Allies were not without their crimes against humanity, such as terror bombing/fire bombing cities and razing much of Germany and Japan to the ground. Not to mention the post-war treatment of the German people during which millions of Germans starved to death.

But I digress.

 

[lovemuffin]

It would seem that fighting against a monster is insufficient to establish that one is not also a monster, although perhaps we need a scale of monstrosity. A Monster Index, if you will.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's revisionist if it disagrees with you. How cute.

He didn't stop Hitler, Stalin did. To be honest, aside from acting as a land base for the Americans to invade Europe I don't see what else Britain really did to contribute to WW2.

They gave quite a lot of manpower, albeit not all of it from the British Isles. And their role on breaking Axis cryptography and using the acquired information strategically is hard to gauge, but assumed to be quite important.

I don't think it is at all wrong to notice that many among the allies were monsters or at least supported mostrous policies (there is just no excuse to the degree of bloodlust shown in the carpet bombing in Japan), but there is such a thing as going too far or being too biased.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Here is something pretty crazy. Most people in history are ****ty people. Most people in general are pretty ****ty. I bet if we took all of the terrible things that I have said it would be pretty bad. History also has a way of glorifying people. Especially the victorious individuals in history. We also have a way of demonizing the enemies. Especially the enemies that lost. So I doubt the historical contexts of anyone are accurate. I'm sure plenty of our beloved presidents were total asshats. I bet that some of the people we have learned to hate were actually decent people.

A good example of how this is affected our selves is the different views of history about the civil war between the north and the south. I have lived in the south my whole life and of course we have been beat by the "south was wrong and civil war was for slavery" stick my whole life. I didn't care that much because I always felt it was in the past.

However when I met my wife who was from New York she had some very offensive views about the south. There are people that still believe the south to be some terrible redneck place full of racists, dirt roads and outhouses. Anyone who is actually from the south knows that except in a few sparce pockets of places the South is a mostly moderate and modern place. We have the same stores, the same technology, roads ect. This was actually surprising to my wife. She said "I guess I just didn't expect it to be so...civilized.".

I can only hope that she was an exception to the rule up north.

However another thing that was pretty crazy is that the Civil war had very little to do with Slavery. I didn't actually believe this until later in life when it was shown to me in real historical contexts. The civil war was made about slavery as a justification to unite the union. It was not the original or even the main reason that the war was fought. But its how it was recorded. The south was demonized as nothing but racist hillbillies who were in over their head against a civilized and well to do Northern union. This isn't true. Granted I'm glad the civil war was fought and I'm glad the south won but there is evidence supplied that the hardship put on the south directly after the civil war along with the blame of slavery is actually part of what created the incredibly racist south that persisted for many decades to come.

So yeah I'm sure Churchill was probably an asshat and Hitler might have been a nice guy in conversation. IT doesn't change what they did historically

 

[Wirey]

It's revisionist if it disagrees with you. How cute.

He didn't stop Hitler, Stalin did. To be honest, aside from acting as a land base for the Americans to invade Europe I don't see what else Britain really did to contribute to WW2.

It's revisionist because it's revisionist. Plus, talk about an article written to be objective in it's view:

"His fear-mongering views on Islam sound strangely familiar:"

"Churchill raged that Gandhi:

"In 1931 he sneered"

"Churchill jeered"

Like anyone else who is a fan of non-revisionist histories that don't try to apply a modern political slant to past events, I'll continue to get my information from more impartial histories (jeered Wirey). A real historian can put events in the context of the day they occurred, and sift through complexities to discover facts, not dogma. The Russians bled Germany white? You bet, the Russians carried the battle. But where would the Russians have been without Churchill?

Churchill's stand after the fall of France kept Britain in the war, led to the German attack against Russia beginning with an open front in their rear, and made sure Lend Lease existed, without which Stalin would have certainly sued for a separate peace. Hitler's defeat began when Churchill stated:

"We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

This was clear language, later used to dispel Joseph Kennedy's claim that Britain would quit (and therefore Lend Lease shouldn't happen), and one that gave the Russians confidence that the Brits would stand with them. In fact, it may be the single most powerful political statement ever made.

Was Churchill perfect? Of course not, who is? But he is in the rare company of men who may be considered the saviors of a civilization. Namely, ours. I got all this from reading a real history book, Wirey shouted insanely while crushing minorities.

 

[Valjean]

Now that is some revisionist history! The man who stopped Hitler was the monster! Made me laugh!

And Hitler was a vegetarian who loved children and dogs.
How does a good quality or useful act cancel one's bad features?

How is this revisionist? These are known historic facts.

 

[Wirey]

And Hitler was a vegetarian who loved children and dogs.
How does a good quality or useful act cancel one's bad features?

How is this revisionist? These are known historic facts.

It's revisionist because instead of portraying Churchill as a person of his times (remember, when he was in school eugenics were still science), it show him as a jeering, sneering, racist bigot who was out to get brown people. It's a lie perpetrated by an author desperate to get someone to say "hey, yeah, Churchill bad!" Was Churchill a racist? probably, most people of his class were then, and probably are now. Does it change the fact that his actions literally led to the salvation of Western society? Not at all. Unless you wrote the article in the OP.

 

[Valjean]

You're arguing that right and wrong change with historical context. Slavery, genocide, &c were fine in their time, but not today.
Of course Churchill was a product of his times, but that does not make wrong action and bigoted opinions acceptable..

 

[Wirey]

You're arguing that right and wrong change with historical context. Slavery, genocide, &c were fine in their time, but not today.
Of course Churchill was a product of his times, but that does not make wrong action and bigoted opinions acceptable..

Maybe a little, but my point is that from a governmental perspective, his views were mainstream. And the way the article was written does not portray him as such. An example:

President Obama was asked today about his US Citizenship. "I was born in America" Obama jeered darkly at the crowd," and I have a birth certificate." This so-called birth certificate, which no one who matters has ever seen, was discussed as well. "I received it at birth" he said mischievously while leering at white women in the crowd.

That is what the article in the OP is, and that makes it modern day propaganda.

 

[FTNZ]

The process of revising history begins a few months after the events and continues on forever. It's not entirely fair to judge historical figures by the standards of today.

 

[columbus]

Now that is some revisionist history! The man who stopped Hitler was the monster! Made me laugh!

Amazing how much you managed to revise Mazdaian's post by changing one word.

"a monster" became "the monster" and the whole thing became something completely different. Kind of an object lesson in how easy it is to do it.
Tom

 

[Valjean]

The facts are the facts. If you choose to forgive actions because the politics of the day condoned them, that's up to you.
The golden rule was not unknown in Churchill's time, and, in my opinion, "master race" nationalism was just as wrong in the UK as it was in Germany. Why condemn one advocate and praise another?

 

[Wirey]

The facts are the facts. If you choose to forgive actions because the politics of the day condoned them, that's up to you.
The golden rule was not unknown in Churchill's time, and, in my opinion, "master race" nationalism was just as wrong in the UK as it was in Germany. Why condemn one advocate and praise another?

Who advocated squat? I said the article was poorly written propaganda designed to be revisionist history. Churchill's actions led to the defeat of Nazi Germany. I think we can all agree that wasn't a bad outcome to root for. Claiming he was a 'monster' and then proving it with poorly written, deliberately misleading history ("My Father, why hast thou forsaken me?" sulked Jesus, while sexily eyeballing Mary Magdalene) is crap. That's my point. This is poorly written revisionist history.

 

[Wirey]

Indeed, and I'd love to see someone argue that Stalin wasn't a monster. The Allies were not without their crimes against humanity, such as terror bombing/fire bombing cities and razing much of Germany and Japan to the ground. Not to mention the post-war treatment of the German people during which millions of Germans starved to death.

But I digress.

Millions?

Food in occupied Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the article:

The precise effect of the food crisis on German health and mortality has been a matter of some contention. Speaking of the Anglo-American zones, Herbert Hoover reported that in the fall of 1946, starvation produced a 40 percent increase in mortality among Germans over 70. However, John Farquharson cites statistics indicating that the incidence of hunger oedema was low in 1946–1947. According to the British Medical Journal, mortality in the British zone was above its pre-war level until June, 1946, when the death rate fell below that of 1938. Also, once it became clear there would be no rising, as threatened by the Nazis during the war, food controls were relaxed.

More propaganda punditry with no substance. They have books with historical truth in them. Try it!

 

[MD]

Who advocated squat? I said the article was poorly written propaganda designed to be revisionist history. Churchill's actions led to the defeat of Nazi Germany. I think we can all agree that wasn't a bad outcome to root for. Claiming he was a 'monster' and then proving it with poorly written, deliberately misleading history ("My Father, why hast thou forsaken me?" sulked Jesus, while sexily eyeballing Mary Magdalene) is crap. That's my point. This is poorly written revisionist history.

The facts are the facts, just because you don't like your worldview being challenged doesn't mean Churchill didn't orchestrate mass killings and participate in allowing a famine in India which killed 3 million people.

Hitler killed 6 million Jews and it's an atrocity, but Churchill kills 3 million Indians and it's okay?

Sounds like good ol' racism to me.

 

[Augustus]

Hold the front page: Man born in 1847 in outdated views shocker

Churchill is celebrated as he was a great war leader at a very important moment in history. He saw the dangers of the Nazis that many others didn't, and also the dangers of the Communists that many more didn't. He was a great war leader. Given that Britain (and its Empire) were at one point the only ones left fighting Hitler, there is a good chance that he prevented Hitler from winning WW2 pretty early on. For this reason he deserves his place as one of the most important leaders in Western history.

He was not a great peacetime leader and he held many views that are now completely unacceptable, they were common views of the time though. These views shouldn't be ignored but you also can't try to evaluate them using contemporary morality. Almost every great historical leader held views that we would now find contemptible. Anyone have any examples of people who didn't?

 

[Wirey]

The facts are the facts, just because you don't like your worldview being challenged doesn't mean Churchill didn't orchestrate mass killings and participate in allowing a famine in India which killed 3 million people.

Hitler killed 6 million Jews and it's an atrocity, but Churchill kills 3 million Indians and it's okay?

Sounds like good ol' racism to me.

Your article is full of crap and has no real basis as history, only propaganda:

Bengal famine of 1943 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have yet to see a single reliable source, ever, anywhere, claim that Churchill orchestrated the famine. It was a governmental bung up (see Obamacare) and a tragedy, but it was hardly a deliberate act in a region where the Brits were fighting the Japanese and needed a secure rear. Churchill may have had racist attitudes, but he was far from crazy. Screamed Wirey while flogging children.