The Real Churchill

World War II General WWII Discussion
#1

On February 4th, President Bush eulogized the life of Winston Churchill. The president described Winston Churchill as a “great man” and quickly zeroed in on the mistress that both Bush and Churchill share: war. “He was a prisoner in the Boer War, a controversial strategist in the Great War. He was the rallying voice of the Second World War, and a prophet of the Cold War.” Indeed, there doesn’t seem to have been a war—or an opportunity for war—that Churchill wasn’t associated with during his long career.

Bush also recited Churchill’s famous retort that “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it” adding that “history has been kind to Winston Churchill, as it usually is to those who help save the world,” surely hoping that history will be kind to George W. Bush.

Except this history is a myth. The truth about the real Churchill—the Churchill that few know—is that he was “a man of the state: of the welfare state and of the warfare state” in Professor Ralph Raico’s turn-of-phrase. The truth about Winston Churchill is that he was a menace to liberty, and a disaster for Britain, for Europe, for the United States of America, and for Western Civilization itself.

Not since fictional personages like Hercules and Zeus, have so many myths been attached to one man. As we will see, the Winston Churchill we’re told about is not the Churchill known to honest history, but rather a fictional version of the man and his actions. And these words and actions have produced our mainstream “patriotic political myths” as John Denson calls them, which are merely the victor’s wartime lies and propaganda scripted into the ‘Official History.’ The Churchill mythology is challenged by honest history, and the reality about Churchill involves hard, but necessary truths.

The rest of the article is found by clicking the link:
http://www.mises.org/story/1450

#2

Whenever I read articles by Adam Young I am struck by an image of a petulant child stamping her foot.

#3

Why? Because you disagree with him?

#4

Written by someone who thinks the West should have supported Nazi Germany in its fight against the Soviet Union, and will never forgive Churchill for picking (in their view) the wrong enemy to fight.

#5

The quoted article is complete rubbish. It can’t even get the basic facts right.
This:
|"The war was practically over, but for three days and nights, from February 13 to 15, 1945, British bombs pounded Dresden, killing as many as 135,000 people or more in three days."

is but one of the more extreme examples of the authors inability to seperate fact from fiction.

#6

Why? Because you disagree with him?[/QUOTE]

Whether i agree or disagree with the views expressed in the articles is immaterial, that they are often poorly researched, show a lack of grasp of recorded fact and exhibit an arrogance that belies ability, all add toward that image.

#7

insert post about Churchill here

:slight_smile:

#8

Hmmmmm,

bs.gif

#9

All it is, is yet another modern author releasing a ‘lets debunk British History’ book, like the many others who have tried to trample our history of the past 900 years. You see if they try to debunk say US history, these authors know that there books (Rightly) wouldn’t sell.
Patrick J. Buchanan, the author of Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, is another loop who thinks its Britain’s fault that WW2 happened. I believe that a book is about to be released blaming Britain for the Napoleonic War.
Canadian Axe grinders are also releasing books stating that Britain won the First & second word war by using Commonwealth troops as a sort of human shield. This type of tosh doesn’t only slur the Brave people of this nation, but also those of the commonwealth who served and or died alongside them…!IT’S ALL B*****KS!

Paul

#10

You’re right, the British Empire can do no wrong and Churchill was second only to Jesus…please…Almost every historian acknowledges that Churchill did in fact say these things mentioned in the article.

#11

Perhaps, not quite.

I can’t comment on other Dominion troops in WWI, but my recollection (and I know I’m going to regret this because I can’t think of specific sources) is that on the Western Front Australian troops were often kept at the front longer than others and were used as shock troops in assaults and kept in that role longer than usual, mainly towards the end of the war.

They were, however, being used as assault troops in their own units rather than as ‘a human shield’, which implies pushing them out in front of craven UK troops, which was not the case as the UK and Australian troops usually had their own lines and lines of advance. So it’s bollocks to say that Australians were used to shield UK troops, even if Australians think that they bore a heavier share than UK troops in some sectors at some times. Even if they did, numerically and geographically the UK troops did most of the work, although Australians did some of the best work of Allied troops when, under Monash at le Hamel, they laid the groundwork for Amiens. http://www.firstaif.info/42/level2/battles/hamel.htm

In WWII, so far as Australian troops are concerned, it is also bollocks. Although we had some avoidable and heavy losses in Greece, Crete and Malaya/Singapore thanks to Churchill’s incompetent commitment of land forces without, among other things, adequate air cover contrary to advice from his military advisers, in each instance UK troops endured the same campaigns, losses and results.

It should also be noted that in both wars there was a sense of British community between the Dominions and the UK (perhaps rather a one way street so far as the UK was concerned in reciprocation, but that’s a different issue) which meant that the Dominion men volunteered with great enthusiasm to serve the Crown, while the Dominion governments did all they could to support the common British effort.

Modern re-interpretations in light of different conceptions of national and other identities make the basic mistake of ignoring the thoughts, motives and actions of people at the time in the world in which they lived.

#12

Pal, you’re the only one to keep comparing Hitler and the Holocaust with Winston Churchill. Mavericck didn’t mention this with a single syllable unless I am missing a most crucial point here.

#13

Churchill was also half pissed, or fully pissed (in the English sense of drunk, not the American sense of irritated, although he was somewhat irritated with that bad man, Mr Hitler), for most of the war, as well as usually having afternoon naps at the worst of times during the war.

For a fat drunk who was alseep when it was all happening, don’t you think he did rather well to unite and inspire his people, and to inspire people in America and elsewhere, to continue the fight against the seemingly unstoppable Nazi juggernaut when everyone else, including large slabs of the British political hierarchy, had given up?

Who would have been better?

#14

You are missing the whole point of the articule.
The reason the writer is so angry with Churchill was because he played a major part in bringing about the defeat of Nazi Germany. In the writers view a victorious Hitlers Germany in Eastern Europe would have been better than what did happen. The genocide of the Jews and Slav’s would have been a price worth paying to defeat communism.

The writer is a far-right nut-job

#15

I admit having read only the part of the article posted in this thread. Must have overlooked the link. So I blame it on this and the intricacies of the English language.
Still I doubt the justified criticism and decent intentions of the member I addressed with my post.

#16

When Churchill allied himself to Stalin it was already known that Stalin had killed millions of his own people, murdered millions of Christians and Jews, starved perhaps 10 million Ukranians, had already attacked Poland in 1920, and it was already known that he designs to impose his terror on the whole of Europe. Yet, Churchill still chose Stalin over Hitler. I for one think that Churchill chose the greater of two evils instead of the lesser because of his “germanophobia”.

I never said that Hitler killing 6 million Jews was alright, but I do feel that it pales in comparison to the atrocities committed by Stalin and the catastrophe that Stalin brought upon Europe’s oldest civilizations.

Even Churchill in his drunken stupor, realized this and was quoted as say “we slaughtered the wrong pig!”.

#17

Hitler was far worse than Stalin. Only closet Nazis think otherwise. The ‘choice’ was forced by Hitler and his invasion of Ruissia. Hitler caused it all.

I never said that Hitler killing 6 million Jews was alright, but I do feel that it pales in comparison to the atrocities committed by Stalin and the catastrophe that Stalin brought upon Europe’s oldest civilizations.

The ‘catastrophe’ was brought about by Hitler. If he had not invaded Russia nothing you blame on Stalin would have happened. Hitler is the cause of it all’

Even Churchill in his drunken stupor, realized this and was quoted as say “we slaughtered the wrong pig!”.

You should realise that Churchill knew who the dangerous physcotic murdering thug was- Adolf Hitler-and he definitely killed the right pig.
Adolf Hitler is the root cause of all the death and destruction.
Blame the right pig.

#18

Ace Vantura: B****CKS = Ballocks = Bulls testicles

Mavericck
What Russia did pre-war was as you say worse barbarity than what the Nazis did but it was confined ‘largely’ to their internal borders which was outside anyone elses duristiction. Germany on the other hand Exported their barbarity to other countries and wanted to do the same with Britain (Lists were drawn up) WSC saw the Germans as the immediate threat to the survival of this country & free world. He saw no similar threat coming from Communist Russia, ‘even though he loathed them as much as he did the Nazis; Britain and her commonwealth allies, Soldiers and Civilians were dying at the hands of Germans & Italians, not Russians. When Hitler’s Nazis Invaded Russia in June 1941 WSC naturally allied himself with Stalin, (His famous quote “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil” seemed to liken Stalin’s Communists on a par with Lucifer & hell but Hitler & the Nazis even worse!) he had to fall in with the perceived lesser of the two evils, as did the USA when they joined in December 1941. Oh! and just one more insy winsy thing, WSC was only the leader of a coalition Government who were part of a democracy which in turn ‘with the people of this country, saw the Nazis as the Enemy’.

Paul

#19

Seeing as there has been no response, it seems that I have won the argument.

I’m glad to have ‘enlightened’ you Mavericck

Paul

#20

You are making some good points, but still all your arguments-and claims of Churchill’s motivation are, just like all the other ones, subjective. It is impossible for us to find out now, unless we either time travel or visit him in purgatory, neither of which would be easy to accomplish:mrgreen:.