Churchill truths.

I endeavour (Misty) to put both sides here.
Views on race  In April last year, Labour candidate Benjamin Whittingham tweeted that Churchill was "a racist and white supremacist".  Sir Nicholas Soames, Churchill's grandson, was outraged. And Whittingham's Conservative opponent Ben Wallace labelled the comments "ignorant" and "incredibly insulting". The tweet was deleted and the Labour Party said: "[It] does not represent the view of the Labour Party. He apologises unreservedly if it has caused any offence." But there have previously been suggestions that Churchill held racist beliefs.
In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission: "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."
Churchill certainly believed in racial hierarchies and eugenics, says John Charmley, author of Churchill: The End of Glory. In Churchill's view, white protestant Christians were at the top, above white Catholics, while Indians were higher than Africans, he adds. "Churchill saw himself and Britain as being the winners in a social Darwinian hierarchy."
"The mitigation would be that he wasn't particularly unique in having these views," says Richard Toye, author of Churchill's Empire, "even though there were many others who didn't hold them."
Soames thinks it is ludicrous to attack Churchill. "You're talking about one of the greatest men the world has ever seen, who was a child of the Edwardian age and spoke the language of [it]."
And Churchill's views on race were incomparable to Hitler's murderous interpretation of racial hierarchy, Toye says. "Although Churchill did think that white people were superior, that didn't mean he necessarily thought it was OK to treat non-white people in an inhumane way."
2. Poison gas Churchill has been criticised for advocating the use of chemical weapons - primarily against Kurds and Afghans.
"I cannot understand this squeamishness about the use of gas," he wrote in a memo during his role as minister for war and air in 1919.
"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he continued.
These quotes have been used by critics such as Noam Chomsky to attack Churchill.
But the controversy is misplaced, says Warren Dockter, a research fellow at the University of Cambridge and the author of Winston Churchill and the Islamic World. "What he was proposing to use in Mesopotamia was lachrymatory gas, which is essentially tear gas, not mustard gas."
Churchill's 1919 memo continued: "The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effect on most of those affected."
In another memo about using gas against Afghans, Dockter says, Churchill questioned why a British soldier could be killed lying wounded on the ground while it was supposedly unfair "to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze - it really is too silly".
But some still criticise the British air attacks used to quell rebellious tribes in the region.
And it's important to note that he was in favour of using mustard gas against Ottoman troops in WW1, says Dockter, although this was at a time when other nations were using it.

Will post a lot more

3. Bengal famine
In 1943, India, then still a British possession, experienced a disastrous famine in the north-eastern region of Bengal - sparked by the Japanese occupation of Burma the year before.
At least three million people are believed to have died - and Churchill's actions, or lack thereof, have been the subject of criticism.
Madhusree Mukerjee, author of Churchill's Secret War, has said that despite refusing to meet India's need for wheat, he continued to insist that it exported rice to fuel the war effort.
"[The War Cabinet] ordered the build-up of a stockpile of wheat for feeding European civilians after they had been liberated. So 170,000 tons of Australian wheat bypassed starving India - destined not for consumption but for storage," she said upon release of the book in 2010.
Churchill even appeared to blame the Indians for the famine, claiming they "breed like rabbits".
"It's one of the worst blots on his record," says Toye. "It clearly is the case that it was difficult for people to get him to take the issue seriously."
"Churchill viewed it as a distraction," he explains. Preoccupied with battling Germany in Europe, Churchill didn't want to be bothered by it when people raised the issue.
"We have this image of Churchill being far-sighted and prophetic," says Charmley. "But what he does tragically in the case of the Bengal famine is show absolutely zero advance [since] the Irish famine 100 years earlier."
It was a horrendous event but it needs to be seen within the context of global war, says Packwood.
"Churchill is running a global war at this point and there are always going to be conflicting priorities and demands," he says. "It's an incredibly complex and evolving situation - and he's not always going to get everything right."
Arthur Herman, author of Gandhi & Churchill, has argued that without Churchill the famine would have been worse. Once he was fully aware of the famine's extent, "Churchill and his cabinet sought every way to alleviate the suffering without undermining the war effort", Herman wrote.
It was a failure of prioritisation, says Toye. It's true that Britain's resources were stretched, he says, but that's no excuse given the relatively small effort it would have taken to alleviate the problem.
Statements about Gandhi
Churchill had strong views on the man now widely respected for his work in advocating self-determination for India.
"It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir… striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice-regal Palace," Churchill said of his anti-colonialist adversary in 1931.
"Gandhi should not be released on the account of a mere threat of fasting," Churchill told the cabinet on another occasion. "We should be rid of a bad man and an enemy of the Empire if he died."
It's unfashionable today to question Gandhi's non-violent political tactics. He is venerated in much the same way as Churchill is in the UK. But for years he was a threat to Churchill's vision for the British Empire.
"He put himself at the head of a movement of irreconcilable imperialist romantics," wrote Boris Johnson in his recent biography of Churchill. "Die-hard defenders of the Raj and of the God-given right of every pink-jowled Englishman to sit on his veranda and… glory in the possession of India."
"Churchill was very much on the far right of British politics over India," says Charmley. "Even to most Conservatives, let alone Liberals and Labour, Churchill's views on India between 1929 and 1939 were quite abhorrent."
He was vociferous in his opposition to Gandhi, says Toye, and didn't want India to make any moves towards self-government to the extent of opposing his own party's leaders and being generally quite hostile to Hinduism.
Churchill's stance was very much that of a late Victorian imperialist, Charmley adds. "[Churchill] was terribly alarmed that giving the Indians home rule was going to lead to the downfall of the British Empire and the end of civilisation."
Younger Tories like Anthony Eden regarded Churchill with great mistrust during the 1930s because of his association with hard-line right-wingers in the party, he says.
"People sometimes question why on Earth did people not listen to Churchill's warnings about Hitler in the late 1930s," says Charmley, "to which the short answer is that he'd used exactly the same language about Gandhi in the early 1930s."

Churchill was a Zionist, born of a jewish mother.........hence he was jewish.

Churchill could not act on his own, he needed the consent of others, the one fact you seem to not understand, if he had not acted as he did you would not be here to disrespect him.

Better employed me thinks attempting to get Blaire his true deserts along with his pals who were responsible for the deaths of the innocents on spurious grounds.

No aurgument there.

Regards.

very true misty, they all need the consent of others........theresa may hasn't "negotiated" brexit single handed , certain key members of her party and advisers were also involved, all she is, is a mouth piece.

David wrote:

very true misty, they all need the consent of others........theresa may hasn't "negotiated" brexit single handed , certain key members of her party and advisers were also involved, all she is, is a mouth piece.

Sadly true as you say David . That fake news thing again maybe, which would have us all believe she along is doing what needs/requires doing type thing to reach a final conclusion as such. End of the day many faceless men types ducking for cover on the Brexit fiasco I suggest .

It is the ones with well known faces with regard to Brexit that one should be worried about, brazen hussies, devoid of any respect for democracy.

If any of them are returned as MPs after another election, ???????.


Regards.

the fiasco which is taking place with our government/mp`s over this "deal" is just their way of making the brexit vote void, and over ruling the vote of the people.........they will not let us leave, at most we will leave in name only, and be in an even worse position as we are in now.


they are all traitors, but nothing will / can be done about it because they have their own civilian army.......THE POLICE who will do exactly as they are told.

the thing is after the next election our powers that be will be under another power and all those that have shown treachery towards the vote and their constituents will have been assured plenty treasures by the eu so therefore they will be riding off into the sunset towards their ivory towers with satchels full to the brim just like blair ,campbell,brown,cameron and the rest of that ilk its the likes of joe bloggs that will have to bite the bullet or take the steel which is all to apparent in London today on a daily basis ,it will soon be that our sons will have to do national service for a eu army that wants to further still broaden its horizons and they already have a available market for troops for the near future with all the boat loads of young males streaming into europes waters ,why else would they give all to them above our home nationals ,make um feel cushty before the deed who knows the real deal but theres plenty food for thought and it is not for the benefit of ordinary folk

Unarmed uprisig?

You are right, oldstrain, regarding who will be the losers, there are far more of us working class to be taken for a ride, and a little from each stealthily taken has been lining the Blairs and others pockets for years.


There must be some dark powers involved when Blaire and his ilk can still walk about free, they should be tried for treason.


I believe we are still paying for Blairs protection.


As you say they will all have made plans for whatever the outcome is.


Be interesting the next few weeks'



Regards.

Bully for us then and stuff the unfortunate syndrome eh.
Have at hand 26 more pages regards Churchill. However I had no intentions of posting them for a couple or more reasons.
I mean how diplomatic can one be when telling a proud father his baby is ugly.

There is no doubt spending time going over details easily available in their original context from the original source to my mind does not benefit anyone or anything.


History depends on those recording it.



How one looks at it is a personal matter.


There has never been a perfect person to my mind other than Jesus on earth, maybe Enoch came close.


If there are several different opinions regarding the actions of a person there can only be one or none right.


At times actions are taken that appear later to be not to the taste of others, not being aware of the facts no one can judge.

Let he who etc;

Regards.

Folks why bother? If you can convert a non beleiver in to a beleiver then fine. History is a persons writings of the past at that time. Recorded as such. Hitler ,Stalin, whatever. Over and done with. Quote all you can research. Does not change minds. Changes their perspective maybe but in my opinion pretty useless. One person to another. Club, society meeting place, door to door, works a helluva a lot better!. No two human beings are the same! Different approaches to different people. To pitch an idea or beleif one must be able to relate to the person. Face to face is ideal. One can read another person most of the time.

always talk of how bad hitler was........has any of our members heard of a man named Genrikh Yagoda ?

very interesting what he did, but yet never mentioned .......

Matters not one iota what anyone did in the past, that cannot be changed.

No one knows the actions of many who will have been far worse than those found out.

What we should in the short term do is limit the damage the present lot are doing to democracy.

I say short term because I can see no long term.

Many say Trump is a fool, but he has the right idea regarding China, you do not get them spouting and threatening, they just sit back, take stock and counter anything that may threaten them.

I bet their technology is far ahead of anyone else and they will sit back let all the others destroy themselves and have a field day picking up the pieces.


Regards.