Winston Churchill latest
Britain tonight is starting a controlled demolition of Winston Churchill by its own. Do the editors of the
Independent read this thread?
Let's annotate this article a bit with the new found knowledge in this thread.
Not his finest hour: The dark side of Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill is rightly remembered for leading Britain through her finest hour
The boys from the Independent probably mean the destruction of Nazi-Germany and the sucking into Europe of 'periferal whites' such as Kozaks and Americans, the same Germany that Britain declared war upon, a nation that had only benevolent intentions towards Britain, including protecting it's empire. Nevermind...
– but what if he also led the country through her most shameful hour? What if, in addition to rousing a nation to save the world from the Nazis, he fought for a raw white supremacism and a concentration camp network of his own? This question burns through Richard Toye's new history, Churchill's Empire, and is even seeping into the Oval Office.
George W Bush left a bust of Churchill near his desk in the White House, in an attempt to associate himself with the war leader's heroic stand against fascism. Barack Obama had it returned to Britain. It's not hard to guess why: his Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and was tortured on Churchill's watch, for resisting Churchill's empire.
...
As soon as he could, Churchill charged off to take his part in "a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples". In the Swat valley, now part of Pakistan, he experienced, fleetingly, a crack of doubt. He realised that the local population was fighting back because of "the presence of British troops in lands the local people considered their own," just as Britain would if she were invaded. But Churchill soon suppressed this thought, deciding instead they were merely deranged jihadists whose violence was explained by a "strong aboriginal propensity to kill".
He gladly took part in raids that laid waste to whole valleys, destroying houses and burning crops. He then sped off to help reconquer the Sudan, where he bragged that he personally shot at least three "savages".
We remember that Jewish paid Churchill insisted on starting a world war including the participation of Americans and Soviets because the Germans wanted the German town of Danzig back that was stolen from them by the allies after the Germans were defeated in WW1, another war organized by Britain and France to curtail the rising German power and for nothing else. Before that out noble 'liberator' had a good time shooting 'darkies' and other 'pickaninees'. And not to forget my ancestors the Boers in South-Africa, after gold was discovered there.
The young Churchill charged through imperial atrocities, defending each in turn. When concentration camps were built in South Africa, for white Boers, he said they produced "the minimum of suffering". The death toll was almost 28,000, and when at least 115,000 black Africans were likewise swept into British camps, where 14,000 died, he wrote only of his "irritation that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men". Later, he boasted of his experiences there: "That was before war degenerated. It was great fun galloping about."
A lot of people like Lloyd George, Chamberlain and many others have said that Churchill was a little bit too fond of war. We can safely conclude that our noble fat drunkard was an outright sadist.
Then as an MP he demanded a rolling programme of more conquests, based on his belief that "the Aryan stock is bound to triumph". There seems to have been an odd cognitive dissonance in his view of the "natives". In some of his private correspondence, he appears to really believe they are helpless children who will "willingly, naturally, gratefully include themselves within the golden circle of an ancient crown"... and when the Kurds rebelled against British rule, he said: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes...[It] would spread a lively terror."
Despite this reference to 'Aryan stock' Churchill saw no obstacle in saturation bombing of all major German cities, in a war he had helped declaring. Give the man money and he will bomb his mother. It will not be for long if many people around the globe will start to wonder whether perhaps the wrong party won the war.
Of course, it's easy to dismiss any criticism of these actions as anachronistic. Didn't everybody think that way then? One of the most striking findings of Toye's research is that they really didn't: even at the time, Churchill was seen as at the most brutal and brutish end of the British imperialist spectrum. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin was warned by Cabinet colleagues not to appoint him because his views were so antedeluvian. Even his startled doctor, Lord Moran, said of other races: "Winston thinks only of the colour of their skin."
More colorful details from our finest liberator:
Many of his colleagues thought Churchill was driven by a deep loathing of democracy for anyone other than the British and a tiny clique of supposedly superior races. This was clearest in his attitude to India. When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back." As the resistance swelled, he announced: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." This hatred killed. To give just one, major, example, in 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused – as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved – by the imperial policies of the British. Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for "breeding like rabbits". At other times, he said the plague was "merrily" culling the population.
Skeletal, half-dead people were streaming into the cities and dying on the streets, but Churchill – to the astonishment of his staff – had only jeers for them. This rather undermines the claims that Churchill's imperialism was motivated only by an altruistic desire to elevate the putatively lower races.
Of course we remember the naval blockade that Britain organized after WW1 in order to bring Germany to it's knees and the resulting famine lead to 1 million deaths in Germany.
Many of the wounds Churchill inflicted have still not healed: you can find them on the front pages any day of the week. He is the man who invented Iraq, locking together three conflicting peoples behind arbitrary borders that have been bleeding ever since... Rule Britannia would inexorably produce a Cruel Britannia.
So how can the two be reconciled? Was Churchill's moral opposition to Nazism a charade, masking the fact he was merely trying to defend the British Empire from a rival?
Bingo, that was the motivation of the British, not just Churchill but others like Eden, Cooper and most of all Vansittart.
The US civil rights leader Richard B. Moore, quoted by Toye, said it was "a rare and fortunate coincidence" that at that moment "the vital interests of the British Empire [coincided] with those of the great overwhelming majority of mankind". But this might be too soft in its praise. If Churchill had only been interested in saving the Empire, he could probably have cut a deal with Hitler.
That was what the majority of the British establishment wanted but a very vocal minority around Churchill (Focus), financed by Jews, wanted war with Germany. But the Independent will never Name the Jew so their endeavour to understand this sorry part of history will be futile.
No: he had a deeper repugnance for Nazism than that. He may have been a thug, but he knew a greater thug when he saw one – and we may owe our freedom today to this wrinkle in history.
Greater thug? Because of the 'holocaust', right? Subtract that from the equation and the morality of the entire enterprise will be reversed, maybe not 180 degrees, but 150.
This, in turn, led to the great irony of Churchill's life. In resisting the Nazis, he produced some of the richest prose-poetry in defence of freedom and democracy ever written.
Yeah, yeah, 'freedom and demokressie', the sort of democracy that will lead to a direction the population does not want to go. Some democracy. Britain is not a democracy, neither is America. Listen to what these British veterans have to say about the outcome of WW2:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Britain-fought-say-unknown-warriors-WWII.html
