Diggin' the dirt on Winston Churchill
Aug 11 2008
Hi all,
couldn't find this anywhere else on libcom, so i thought i'd start a thread. i need some pointers to find out about the dark side of this 'Great Leader'. i already know about his opposition to Indian self-rule, but that's about it. i've heard that he was a really nasty bugger, but can't find any sources on teh interwebs.
the audience is mildly liberal, possibly centre-left-leaning. ideally i need this by the end of the day. no pressure, innit 
Aug 11 2008
#2
If you do a search on Churchill on our website you'll come up with quite alot, in particular this two part article 'Churchill and the counter-revolutionary intelligence of the British bourgeoisie'
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/283_churchill.htm
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/284_churchill_part2.html
And this on how Britain, largely via Churchill, invennted terror-bombing in Iraq in the 1920s;
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/265_terror1920.htm
There are some other articles which bring in Churchill's policy of carpet bombing German cities and in particular working class concentrations at the end of world war two and his infamous policy of 'letting the Italians stew in their own juice' after the workers' uprisings of 1943 in the north of Italy, which basically meant allowing the Nazis to crush the movement.
Aug 11 2008
#3
off the top of my head. He supported forced sterilisation of sections of the working class who he considered feeble minded. He sent in troops to break strikes. he published the Birtish Gazette during the General Strike of 1926 and suggest using machine guns against strikers. He supported Mussolini right up to Italy declaring war in 1940.
Aug 11 2008
#4
The only good thing he ever did was nearly kill Peter the Painter. Who according to Phil Ruff went on to be head of the Russian Cheka.
Aug 11 2008
#5
on dropping chemical weapons on Kurds:
"I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."
Sep 8 2008
#6
I think others have covered all the main points; it seems almost a footnote to mention that he was a committed eugenicist, advocating forced sterilisation for the 'feeble minded'.
The myth of Churchillian greatness has penetrated so deeply into British culture that a mental health charity, Rethink, commissioned a statue of Churchill (who of course was a depressive) a few years ago as part of an anti-stigmatisation campaign!
Aug 11 2008
#7
I seem to remember reading something in his memoirs where he justified his government's stance on the Spanish civil war by saying that the alternative would have been an anarchist or communist revolution (his choice of words).
Aug 11 2008
#8
Churchill wrote:
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.
To the Palestine Royal Commission (1937)
Aug 11 2008
#9
I once heard that many underground spanish anti-fascists helped smuggle out downed pilots from france, through spain, and that after the war Churchill gave all of their information to Franco.
Aug 12 2008
#10
Of the audience is liberal-left leaning then i'd go with
On mussolini
"if I had been an Italian, I am sure I would have been entirely with you from the beginning to the end of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism."
and on il duce again in 1940
"I do not deny that he is a very great man but he became a criminal when he attacked England."
And on india
The fact that he oversaw a mixture of scorched earth tactics and terrorising the population into submission in india to prevent them carrying out any form of uprising against britains military weakness during WW2 which left over a million dead in the bengali famine. When asked to prevent food exports leaving the region or send any form of aid his reply was if there is no food ''why hasn't ghandi died yet''.And
when the question of grain being sent to the victims of the Bengal famine came up in a Cabinet meeting, Churchill said that it was indians own fault for " breeding like rabbits and being paid a million a day by us for doing nothing by us about the war.", And according to amery's (the secretary of state for india at the time) memoirs at least, when questioned on growing tensions between muslims and hindus he replied ''Oh, but that is all to the good'"
And obviously as mentioned on this thead his quote regrding atrocities against the kurds
Aug 12 2008
#11
sweet. thanks folks. 
Aug 12 2008
#12
Did this a wee while ago:
Churchill's support of the Kurdish gassings:
Quote:
Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes... (to) spread a lively terror" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job.
Churchill's actions during the general strike:
Quote:
During the General Strike of 1926, Churchill was reported to have suggested that machine guns should be used on the striking miners. Churchill edited the Government's newspaper, the British Gazette*, and during the dispute he argued that "either the country will break the General Strike, or the General Strike will break the country." Furthermore, he was to controversially claim that the Fascism of Benito Mussolini had "rendered a service to the whole world", showing as it had "a way to combat subversive forces" - that is, he considered the regime to be a bulwark against the perceived threat of Communist revolution.*Using paper confiscated from radical publishers, it was a simple slandering machine against the strikers.
(From this)
Oh, further to the pro-fascism bit, a direct quote:
The great Winston wrote:
If I had been an Italian I am sure I should have been whole-heartedly with you in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism... (Italy) has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism.
In his own words, Churchill saw fascism as the ultimate defence against communism. His antipathy to Hitler was not based on great politics or fine motives, but on a rivalry of power. On this point, Churchill also advocated a policy of appeasement to the fascist Franco in Spain (Churchill and Spain The Survival of the Franco Regime, 1940-1945 by Richard Wigg) which directly aided him in consolidating power after his butchery of the Spanish revolutionaries despite international condemnation from around the world.
Finally, from the Wikipedia entry on Dresden:
Quote:
Winston Churchill pressed the Secretary of State for Air, Sir Archibald Sinclair: "I asked [last night] whether Berlin, and no doubt other large cities in east Germany, should not now be considered especially attractive targets. …Pray report to me tomorrow what is going to be done"
This is backed by the Churchill centre here, though they couch it slightly differently it is clear his authority lay at the heart of the action.
Edit - actually, might collate this thread into a blog for future reference...
Aug 12 2008
#13
There ya go, collated with some independent sources. I found an interesting extra as well about him seriously considering gassing the German population in world war two.
Aug 13 2008
#14
Like Rppsevelt and the two democratic regimes they represented, a serious anti-semite. Also involved in building up the Nazis in Germany as a force for deepening the counter-revolution. Supporter of chemical bombing of civilians from the 20s and instigator of the mass bombing of civilians during WWII. Even more murderous was his role in blockading food supplies to civilians in Europe during WWII resulting in mass starvation, particularly of the weak. Wasn't the first to use the phrase "Iron curtain" in relation to Russia.
Read "Human Smoke", 2008, to find our more about this ugly fat pig of a war criminal.
Aug 13 2008
#15
two very recent books:
nicholson baker, human smoke
patrick buchanan (yes, him), churchill, hitler,and the unnecessary war
haven't read them, but they've generated alot of really vitriolic opposition
Aug 14 2008
#16
Ftony, if I may extend your thread slightly...
Churchill, pig that he was (and apologies to pigs everywhere) was only one representative of the British bourgeoisie at that particular period of the decadence of capitalism and the development of full blown imperialism. Let's not forget that Winston Churchill, like the democratic regimes he represented, were also at the cutting edge of anti-fascism.
But Churchill was one of his class. When British bombing of Germany began after the opening of WWII, its aim wasn't the war industry but civilians. Thus at one stage the RAF were dropping bombs on working class areas and then strafing the firemen with machine gun fire as they tried to put out the flames.
The British Air Ministry produced a new policy on bombing, 24,4.41: "It is only possible to obtain satisfactory results by the Blitz attacks on large working class areas and industrial areas in towns." An appendix concluded that "delayed action bombs should make up 10% of the tonnage dropped".
Lord 'Boom' Trenchard, former head of the RAF, said in 1941, that "the percentage of bombs which hit the military targets at which they were aimed is less than one percent". 'Boom' concluded that the answer was to drop more tonnage smack in the middle of Germany where people live and few bombs will be wasted. Charles Portal, head of the RAF, agreed.
Head of Bomber Command, Richard Pierse, gave orders on July 5 1941, for his bombers to "(destroy) the morale of the civilian population as a whole and of the industrial workers in particular".
At the same time, Churchill called for the "largest quantity of bombs (to be) dropped per night" and and the anti-fascist British bourgeoisie started night bombing. Part of the aim of this policy was to deliberately provoke the German bourgeoisie to bomb civilian targets in Britain.
As horrendous as the death toll was from bombing civilians (and the US learned early in the war how easily Japanese towns could be destroyed as the US bourgeoisie wound up their encirclement and provocation of Japanese imperialism) the British policy early in the war of the deliberate starvation of mainland Europe must have cost millions of lives, not least of children and the old, the sick and pregnant women.
All quotes from Human Smoke, mentioned by Newyawka above.
Aug 14 2008
#17
I wouldn't trust Buchanan's political conclusions even a little bit but it might be worth a read.
Anyway, so much for one of the Great Men of bourgeois anti-fascism.
Sep 1 2008
#19
Churchills personality and legacy;
Drunkard, Manic deppressive , turncoat and compulsive gambler.
He was also had an American Mother, whom he loved far more than his English father
Within 18 months after the war started Britain had been;
1) routed from Europe
2) chased all over north Africa
3) sunk all over the North Atlantic
4) bombed all over the home territories.
By 1941 The British Empire, an entity owning a quarter of the planet, had been smashed back into, at best, a losing stalemate by a virtually landlocked central european country.
Churchill knew the war was lost. So he surrendered Britains global supremacy to the Americans so that they may save mainland Britain from the wrath of German National Socialism and perhaps grant newly dispossessed Britain preferred-vassal status.
Churchills great trick was to sell the fall of the British Empire and the following subjugation of its remnants into the U.S. sphere of influence as something other than the complete catastrophic collapse of British sovereignty.
Britain today has;
1)No independant foreign policy
2)no independant defence policy
3)No independant nuclear deterrent
4)No independant economic policy
5)Foreign armies on her soil
Brits today can thank Churchill for all that
Sep 1 2008
#20
newyawka wrote:
two very recent books:
nicholson baker, human smoke
patrick buchanan (yes, him), churchill, hitler,and the unnecessary war
haven't read them, but they've generated alot of really vitriolic opposition
Pat Buchanan fucking nails a lot of it and I dont care if he is a fascist or not
Sep 1 2008
#21
Churchill is Britains' Ataturk .
He's been upgraded from Historical figure to Religious Icon
To merely touch a photograph of him would invite screaming blood-crazed mobs to kill and eat you.
Sep 2 2008
#22
Probably your C
Are we to take it that this is ironic?
Quote:
Britain today has;1)No independant foreign policy
2)no independant defence policy
3)No independant nuclear deterrent
4)No independant economic policy
5)Foreign armies on her soilBrits today can thank Churchill for all that
Sep 2 2008
#23
Probably Your Class Enemy wrote:
Churchills personality and legacy;Drunkard, Manic deppressive , turncoat and compulsive gambler.
He was also had an American Mother, whom he loved far more than his English father
Within 18 months after the war started Britain had been;
1) routed from Europe
2) chased all over north Africa
3) sunk all over the North Atlantic
4) bombed all over the home territories.By 1941 The British Empire, an entity owning a quarter of the planet, had been smashed back into, at best, a losing stalemate by a virtually landlocked central european country.
Churchill knew the war was lost. So he surrendered Britains global supremacy to the Americans so that they may save mainland Britain from the wrath of German National Socialism and perhaps grant newly dispossessed Britain preferred-vassal status.
Churchills great trick was to sell the fall of the British Empire and the following subjugation of its remnants into the U.S. sphere of influence as something other than the complete catastrophic collapse of British sovereignty.
Britain today has;
1)No independant foreign policy
2)no independant defence policy
3)No independant nuclear deterrent
4)No independant economic policy
5)Foreign armies on her soilBrits today can thank Churchill for all that
Are you a nationalist?
Sep 3 2008
#24
Django wrote:
Probably Your Class Enemy wrote:
Churchills personality and legacy;Drunkard, Manic deppressive , turncoat and compulsive gambler.
He was also had an American Mother, whom he loved far more than his English father
Within 18 months after the war started Britain had been;
1) routed from Europe
2) chased all over north Africa
3) sunk all over the North Atlantic
4) bombed all over the home territories.By 1941 The British Empire, an entity owning a quarter of the planet, had been smashed back into, at best, a losing stalemate by a virtually landlocked central european country.
Churchill knew the war was lost. So he surrendered Britains global supremacy to the Americans so that they may save mainland Britain from the wrath of German National Socialism and perhaps grant newly dispossessed Britain preferred-vassal status.
Churchills great trick was to sell the fall of the British Empire and the following subjugation of its remnants into the U.S. sphere of influence as something other than the complete catastrophic collapse of British sovereignty.
Britain today has;
1)No independant foreign policy
2)no independant defence policy
3)No independant nuclear deterrent
4)No independant economic policy
5)Foreign armies on her soilBrits today can thank Churchill for all that
Are you a nationalist?
Not really; but I dont see why that would prevent me from using nationalist logic.
Has Nationalism destroyed more of Imperialism than say Anarchism?
Sep 3 2008
#25
ernie wrote:
Probably your CAre we to take it that this is ironic?
Quote:
Britain today has;1)No independant foreign policy
2)no independant defence policy
3)No independant nuclear deterrent
4)No independant economic policy
5)Foreign armies on her soilBrits today can thank Churchill for all that
If I'm addressing a British Nationalist then there wil be absolutely zero ironic content
Sep 3 2008
#26
Wind-up account
Sep 3 2008
#27
Probably Your Class Enemy wrote:
Has Nationalism destroyed more of Imperialism than say Anarchism?
yes.
Sep 3 2008
#28
Django wrote:
Wind-up account
Meaning?
Sep 3 2008
#29
Sign your posts love LR, perhaps?
Sep 3 2008
#30
weeler wrote:
Sign your posts love LR, perhaps?
I'm not LR whoever the fuck he/she/it is
and why is lateral thinking blasphemous?
His son was a fascist. He sent loads of Australian soldiers needlessly to their deaths in a botched military operation.