Churchill's Crimes?

Discussion in 'World War 2' started by Kyt, Jan 21, 2009.

  1. Kyt

    Kyt Άρης

    These two articles are quite provocative but I would be interested in member's reactions and comments.

    MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - Media Lying over Churchill's Crimes

  2. Kyt

    Kyt Άρης

  3. Keith

    Keith New Member

    I am sure that, for some of the time, we have all been duped by the establishment and media.
    However that said, we were fortunate in having this highly motivating leader, warts and all, in our, and the rest of the world's time of peril.
    There is no doubt that if we had trundled along with Chamberlain and his cronies we would all now be under the heel of a fascist regime.
    Neither you nor I would be able to spout our views in the freedom loving society we live in today.
    Europe and the rest of the western world would be firmly in the grip of the Nazi Party. The East, inclusive of China, India, Australia and the Pacific would have fallen to the Japanese war lords.
    It is true that many people still admire the leadership of Hitler, even though they hated his methods.
    Churchill's manipulation of the world powers were carried out with the end being reasonably successful, albeit not to every-one's satisfaction.
    The alternative does not bear considering.
    Whilst I agree in part with what you have said, I am sorry to see the highly volatile situation that is now present in the Indian Sub-Continent and again in the Middle East.

  4. Keith

    Keith New Member

    Churchill's Crimes

    In addition to my last posting, after time to mull over the comments raised by

    It would appear in every unfortunate action that has taken place in the world there has to be a scapegoat and whipping boy, these vary considerably with your point of view and the position you hold in our free society.
    Many leaders have been plunged into situations not of their making to try and stabilise a volatile situation, be it a strike, an uprising or even an all-out war.
    Whilst I respect points of view, different to my own, I do not necessarily have to agree with them.
    I feel sure in this case even though we are all aware of some of the mistakes made by Churchill, he was not completely his own master. there can be no blame laid at his door for starting the Boer War, he did not plan and execute the Easter Uprising in Eire and he fought very hard to to contain the circumstances that created the situation leading up to the 1939/45 conflict.
    Then did his best to prepare us for it.
    I was fortunate to see the coverage of the Sgt.Pilot. R. T. Holmes.
    One phrase jumped out at me by a surviving pilot, " We did our duty for King and country, yes we were afraid, but we had a marvelous leader, Mr Churchill. who instilled in us the pride and sense of duty, which enabled us to face the enemy"
    I lived through it and I know, without fear of contradiction, without him we would have perished.

  5. Kyt

    Kyt Άρης

    Thank you for the comments Keith. Just one point for now - I didn't write the above piece, it was taken from the site I have linked. Though I know of some of the facts mentioned in the article, I don't necessarily agree with the intrepretations.
  6. Adrian Roberts

    Adrian Roberts Active Member

    The authors mentioned, particularly Tariq Ali, are hardly the most unbiased authors around; he has consistently opposed everything the British establishment has ever done.

    Churchill certainly wasn't perfect; he made some horrendous cock-ups, in particular Gallipoli. He probably did know that the Singapore guns were pointing the wrong way - but what was he supposed to do at that late stage? And as for the bombing of Iraq villages - he wasn't in office in the 1920's. But nothing that he did can be described as a Holocaust. In 1940 he was the right man in the right place at the right time. A country at war needs a strong leader, providing his staff can steer him away from his more hare-brained schemes. His CIGS, Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke, was prepared to have head-to-head, table-thumping rows with him - and got away with it. I don't think Hitler's staff would have got away with that - and that is the difference.
  7. liverpool annie

    liverpool annie New Member

    Some interesting documents here ..... plug in Churchill !!

    Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum

    Sir Winston Churchill's exact place in the political history of the 20th century is, and will continue to be, a subject of debate and polemical writing. Where he succeeded, and how much he personally had to do with that success, and where he failed, and why, remain to be established. That he was a political figure of enormous influence and importance, belonging in many ways to an age earlier than the 20th century, and that he fitted uneasily into the constraints of British party politics until his moment came in 1940 are not in doubt. Until recently his reputation during the years from 1940 onward was scarcely questioned. But now historians are beginning to reassess his career in just the same way as Churchill himself tried to revise T. B. Macaulay's account of the Duke of Marlborough by writing a multivolumed Life of his distinguished ancestor (completed in 1938).

    Churchill's record both before 1939 and after 1945 was for the most part undistinguished. But as Anthony Storr writes: "In 1940 Churchill became the hero that he had always dreamed of being. … In that dark time, what England needed was not a shrewd, equable, balanced leader. She needed a prophet, a heroic visionary, a man who could dream dreams of victory when all seemed lost. Winston Churchill was such a man; and his inspirational quality owed its dynamic force to the romantic world of phantasy in which he had his true being."

    The major period of Churchill's political career began when he became prime minister and head of the Ministry of Defense early in World War II. "I felt as if I was walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour," he wrote in the first volume of his account of the war. (This account was later published in six volumes from 1948 to 1953). His finest hour and that of the British people coincided. His leadership, which was expressed in noble speeches and ceaseless personal activity, stated precisely what Britain needed to survive through the years before United States entry into the war.

    The evacuation of Dunkirk and the air defense of the Battle of Britain have become legend, but there were and are controversies over Churchill's policies. It has been argued that Churchill's oversensitivity to the Mediterranean as a theater of war led to mistakes in Crete and North Africa. The value of his resistance to the idea of a second front as the Germans advanced into Russia has also been questioned. And there has been considerable debate over the wisdom of the course he pursued at international conferences (such as those at Yalta in February 1945) which reached agreements responsible in large part for the "cold war" of the 1950s and 1960s. But although criticisms may be made of Churchill's policies, his importance as a symbol of resistance and as an inspiration to victory cannot be challenged.

    Winston Churchill: Biography from

    Churchill was the person who emerged - for better or worse - he was the one who could persuade others to do his bidding through the force of his personality .... I think it was as easy as that !!

    .......... but then theres Poland ....... !


    Edit ... this is OK for a while - then keeps reverting to code ... try
  8. CTNana

    CTNana Active Member

    I haven't finished reading all of the links yet and have probably not assimilated all that I have read but there are two things that immediately strike me -

    The responsibility of office, regardless of seniority, involves making hard decisions. If any of us have to stand up and be counted for each and every one of these, made either personally or as a member of a team, then I suspect that we will nearly all be found wanting. Maybe we should count ourselves lucky that our own misjudgments do not have such great impact.

    I have to confess to being slightly irritated by the writer's style but I will persevere.
  9. war hawk

    war hawk New Member

    Whoever wrote this piece obviously has an axe to grind. Why not just blame Churchill for every evil deed committed during his life. I mean it was war, people die. You could write a similar list for FDR if you really wanted too. Oh and the continual "Zionism" blasts didn't go unnoticed either. And "American imperialism", come off it what "Empire" do we have. We don't collect other peoples countries, we just go in kick @$#, take names, and clean up the country and give it back to those it belongs to and get out of there. And as far as Churchill and Wilsons' 1918-20 war against the Bolsheviks, the only thing that was wrong was they didn't fully commit and actually defeat the Reds with the help of the Whites.
  10. In reading the first article, I see that it's chocked full of left-speak inflammatory words. This type of writing is used to move any historical paradigm in the direction desired by the writer through its clever poisoning of the well of perception. Since so many political viewpoints lack anything approaching a moral high ground, they instead attempt to drag others down so as to elevate themselves in the process.

    With so much great stuff out there to read, I don't even bother with this drivel. When the opportunity presents itself, I fight these people and their nefarious viewpoints with that absolute weapon: truth and facts. Most of these "historians" are not worthy to open their mouths so as to let Sir Winston dump his cigar ash. Sod 'em all! (can I say that?)

    Like I've said before, I detest drive-by history!!


Share This Page