Revisiting History: The Unlikely Campaign to Vilify Winston Churchill

[Cameroni]

14 minutes ago, proton said:

So how has a 67-year-old British prime minister in poor health, 5000 miles away, fighting near-annihilation in a world war, come to be charged with causing such a cataclysmic disaster?

 

Well, it's quite simple, 

 

over half the famine-related deaths occurred in 1944 after the food security crisis had abated, as a result of disease. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill has been criticized for his role in the famine, with critics arguing that his war priorities and the refusal to divert food supplies to Bengal significantly worsened the situation

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

 

14 minutes ago, proton said:

Most famine experts agree that famines can be caused by both nature and human agency, but never by any single individual.

 

What an absolutely mendacious misrepresentation of the facts. Anyone who looks at the Bengal famine will immediately realise that British actions contributed greatly to the final death toll, also Churchill's policy to store food under the Indian's noses but not to give them any, but instead to divert it for use by the British very obviously killed a large number of people. So he does bear responsibility for the Bengal famine to a considerable degree.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

 

Edited Saturday at 12:55 PM by Cameroni

[Tug]

53 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Immediately off topic again. Well done Tug.

I beg to differ,Mr Churchill was a product of his time and social class he was a superb leader inspiring smart pugnacious and intelligent.he was what he was exactly what was needed at the time.much like president zelinsky of Ukraine is today for the Ukrainian people.

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, proton said:

 

Leftists myths again

from https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/masani-bengal-famine/

 

The famine raged for about six months, from the summer of 1943 until the end of that year, and estimates of its victims range from half a million upwards, depending on whether one includes its indirect and long-term effects. Most famine experts agree that famines can be caused by both nature and human agency, but never by any single individual. So how has a 67-year-old British prime minister in poor health, 5000 miles away, fighting near-annihilation in a world war, come to be charged with causing such a cataclysmic disaster?

 

 

Anyone who believes that Churchill was an enthusiast of lethal gas must produce better evidence than we have seen so far—and some acceptable explanation for the many instances when, faced with its possible use, Churchill and his commanders demurred. While he never advocated the first use of lethal gas, Churchill's main aim in both world wars was victory.

Lol, rightwing infighting.

[Cameroni]

Just now, Tug said:

I beg to differ,Mr Churchill was a product of his time and social class he was a superb leader inspiring smart pugnacious and intelligent.he was what he was exactly what was needed at the time.much like president zelinsky of Ukraine is today for the Ukrainian people.

 

He was highly intelligent.

 

He was also a supporter of using mustard gas, bombing women and children and the elderly, and starving millions of Indians.

[jayboy]

17 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

But broadly speaking of course I accept that a large number of jews were killed by the 3000 Germans in the Einsatzkommando and those operating death camps. Clearly they were not killed by accident.

 

This kind of language, almost letter for letter, is often regurgitated by Nazi sympathizers - the pretense of having done serious research, the admission that many Jews died, the refusal to accept respected historians' findings, the pious exclamation that history will judge.These fascist tropes, adapted for the 21st century are well known.Don't accept this junk.

[nauseus]

On 9/11/2024 at 10:37 PM, billd766 said:

Actually without the US supplies of Lease Lend the UK could not have supplied anything like the amount of supplies that the Soviet Union required.

 

The UK was fighting a war against Germany in Europe, Germany and Italy in the Mediterranean and in North Africa, Japan in Burma, India and parts of the Far East with the help of the ANZUK forces, the Indian Forces, South African and East African Forces and as far South as the Falkland Islands, and that was about the time when Japan attacked Hawaii and Pearl Harbour and the US joined in full time.

 

Exactly. While engaged with Germany, Italy and Japan, the British Empire actually peaked in terms of military power and capability. The final all-in cost of WW2 resulted in its eventual decline, however.

[nauseus]

On 9/12/2024 at 1:22 AM, Cameroni said:

Why would Hitler busy himself with what government Britain has? What difference would it make to him?

 

Sure, he did not like democracy, but why would he care what system the UK has, or what gov ernment? There was no underlying animosity in ideological terms between Nazism and British Imperialism that reached the same degree as the animosity between Nazism and Communism. 

 

Germany would have had the colonies in the East, the British would have had their Empire. There's not even geographic competition between the two.

 

This is as bad as a never-ending fart.

[Cameroni]

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Exactly. While engaged with Germany, Italy and Japan, the British Empire actually peaked in terms of military power and capability. The final all-in cost of WW2 resulted in its eventual decline, however.

 

Some peak. 😂

[Chomper Higgot]

57 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Some peak. 😂

Played a pivotal role in crushing your Nazis.

 

That’s a good enough legacy on its own.

[Cameroni]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Played a pivotal role in crushing your Nazis.

 

That’s a good enough legacy on its own.

 

No, Russia played a pivotal role. Britain, at best, played an ancillary role. And a very minor one.

Edited Saturday at 02:13 PM by Cameroni

[placeholder]

 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

I would have much preferred the war had ended after the invasion of Poland.

Because Hitler could definitely be trusted. After all, he was a such a rational actor. What could be more sane than exterminating the Jews, who had done so much to advance German science and industry.

And has been pointed out, when Germany launched its attack on the Benelux nations, Churchill wasn't Prime minister.

 

 

[Cameroni]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

Because Hitler could definitely be trusted. After all, he was a such a rational actor. What could be more sane than exterminating the Jews, who had done so much to advance German science and industry.

And has been pointed out, when Germany launched its attack on the Benelux nations, Churchill wasn't Prime minister.

 

 

 

States cannot be trusted on principle. After all Britain and France had guaranteed Poland. Did they go and fight to liberate Poland? Not really. It would be Russia that liberates Poland.

 

After incorporating Poland Germany should have stopped the war. But of course there was this fear of an invasion by Russia. Russia was the big hope of Britian too, why she would not give up, though she had no real means to fight.

 

As already pointed out Churchill called for a coalition to oppose Germany as early as 1938.

 

Edited Saturday at 02:28 PM by Cameroni

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

States cannot be trusted on principle. After all Britain and France had guaranteed Poland. Did they go and fight to liberate Poland? Not really. It would be Russia that liberates Poland.

 

After incorporating Poland Germany should have stopped the war. But of course there was this fear of an invasion by Russia. Russia was the big hope of Britian too, why she would not give up, though she had no real means to fight.

 

As already pointed out Churchill called for a coalition to oppose Germany as early as 1938.

 

What is this nonsense about the failure of the UK and France to liberate Poland? They declared war on Germany because it had invaded Poland. Are you unaware that France and the UK don't actually share any borders with Poland? How would you expect them to  liberate Poland without going through Germany?

 

As for your claim that Britain had no real means to fight. Are you forgetting that it had a Navy that crippled the Germany navy except for U-boats. And that the Navy was responsible for a highly effective blockade And that, in fact, the British army inflicted so much damage on the Italians in North Africa that Germany had to intervene on Italy's side?

[Cameroni]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What is this nonsense about the failure of the UK and France to liberate Poland? They declared war on Germany because it had invaded Poland. Are you unaware that France and the UK don't actually share any borders with Poland? How would you expect them to  liberate Poland without going through Germany?

 

Nonsense? Well, let's see what Britain and France promised:

 

"In the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_alliance#British_assurance_to_Poland

 

 

And did, Britain valiantly rush to the aid of Poland like a White Knight, and do all in her power to support Polish resistance? No. Rather Britain settled for the famous "Phoney War" and did very little. Then they gallopped off to Norway, failed there. Joined the fight in France, failed there. Then Greece, Another failure. Yugoslavia. Another failure. North Africa, first failure then success....But Poland?

 

Go through this military history of Britain in WWII. You will search in vain for the liberation of Poland.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_Kingdom_during_World_War_II

 

The Navy, oh yes, it had such a powerful Navy, so it could have transported its 700,000 men to Poland no?

Edited Saturday at 03:14 PM by Cameroni

[RayC]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Better keep that gin bottle out of sight.

 

Bit late, I'm afraid. Needed something to deaden the pain but thanks for caring 😉

[Cameroni]

An academic explores the reasons for Churchill's antipathy towards Germany. interestingly it also shows that Churchill was ahead of his time and proposed German reunification, after WWII, but was not taken seriously.

 

https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-186/german-question-churchill/

Edited Sunday at 02:50 AM by Cameroni

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/13/2024 at 5:03 PM, Cameroni said:

 

He did pit Britain against Germany, true, but whether that was really required, given the fact that it was 20 million Russians who gave their lives to defeat the Wehrmacht, not Brits, this is far from certain. Had Churchill accepted the 1940 peace offer, Germany may well have been defeated by Russia in any event, given the vast superiority in tanks and planes the Russians enjoyed.

Do you ever think about what you are saying? If Britain had not existed to host the Americans to launch the invasion of Europe, and the Soviets had won against Germany, who would then rule Europe post war?

It would just have been one awful regime replaced by another awful regime.

Edited Sunday at 02:59 AM by thaibeachlovers

[mokwit]

12 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, Russia played a pivotal role. Britain, at best, played an ancillary role. And a very minor one.

It played a major role by location, being a jumping off point for the industrial might of the US. The Germans referred to the "new" form of warfare they experienced after the Normandy landings as the "material war", they had never been up against so much armaments being fielded, not even in Russia.

 

Prior to the imminent invasion France had been garrisoned by mostly second rate troops, the Germans withdrew Waffen SS and paratroops from the Russian front and shortly after that Army Group Center was annihilated by Operation Bagration.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 03:05 AM by mokwit

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you ever think about what you are saying? If Britain had not existed to host the Americans to launch the invasion of Europe, and the Russians had won against Germany, who would then rule Europe post war?

It would just have been one awful regime replaced by another awful regime.

 

The Americans did not need Britain to launch the invasion of Europe, that could have been done from other sites. By the time that came the war was decided anyway and the Red Army was marching on Berlin.

 

You're right in a way that the involvement of Britain and the US retained Germany in the Western world, for without it Russia would have ruled over all of Germany. So it would be like Poland now basically, assuming Perestroika would have happened anyway.

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, mokwit said:

It played a major role by location, being a jumping off point for the industrial might of the US. The Germans referred to the "new" form of warfare they experienced after the Normandy landings as the "material war", they had never been up against so much armaments being fielded, not even in Russia.

 

 

 

Quite right, and this became apparent already before Hitler's declaration of war on the US, the Americans were shipping massive amounts of material to Britain and escorting convoys. For all intents and purposes they were in the war on Britain's side before the declaration of war.

Edited Sunday at 03:02 AM by Cameroni

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Nonsense? Well, let's see what Britain and France promised:

 

"In the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_alliance#British_assurance_to_Poland

 

 

And did, Britain valiantly rush to the aid of Poland like a White Knight, and do all in her power to support Polish resistance? No. Rather Britain settled for the famous "Phoney War" and did very little. Then they gallopped off to Norway, failed there. Joined the fight in France, failed there. Then Greece, Another failure. Yugoslavia. Another failure. North Africa, first failure then success....But Poland?

 

Go through this military history of Britain in WWII. You will search in vain for the liberation of Poland.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_Kingdom_during_World_War_II

 

The Navy, oh yes, it had such a powerful Navy, so it could have transported its 700,000 men to Poland no?

Honestly, I wonder about your ideas.

The Germans destroyed the British army in France, so how could they have liberated Poland? He did the failed missions in Norway, Crete etc to show the British citizens they were not irrelevant- a morale booster. Churchill botched some of them, but he did them for the right reason. The public needed hope to survive the onslaught. All he had to give them was hope.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The Americans did not need Britain to launch the invasion of Europe, that could have been done from other sites. By the time that came the war was decided anyway and the Red Army was marching on Berlin.

 

You're right in a way that the involvement of Britain and the US retained Germany in the Western world, for without it Russia would have ruled over all of Germany. So it would be like Poland now basically, assuming Perestroika would have happened anyway.

Not just Germany. The Soviets would have taken everything the Germans had, France Belgium etc and likely Italy. Hitler replaced by another monster.

Edited Sunday at 03:11 AM by thaibeachlovers

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Honestly, I wonder about your ideas.

The Germans destroyed the British army in France, so how could they have liberated Poland? He did the failed missions in Norway, Crete etc to show the British citizens they were not irrelevant- a morale booster. Churchill botched some of them, but he did them for the right reason. The public needed hope to survive the onslaught. All he had to give them was hope.

 

Okay, so we agree they did not liberate Poland. 

 

It must have been crushing to see the repeated defeats then, Norway, Denmark, Holland, France, Greece, Crete, Yugoslavia. A lesson to all men to never give up, no matter how bad the failure looks.

[Cameroni]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not just Germany. The Soviets would have taken everything the Germans had, France Belgium etc and likely Italy. Hitler replaced by another monster.

 

The Soviets did take pretty much everything they could. The Americans too looted German castles with abandon. The British returned Volkswagen, which is rather incredible.

[nauseus]

18 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, it's quite simple, 

 

over half the famine-related deaths occurred in 1944 after the food security crisis had abated, as a result of disease. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill has been criticized for his role in the famine, with critics arguing that his war priorities and the refusal to divert food supplies to Bengal significantly worsened the situation

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

 

 

What an absolutely mendacious misrepresentation of the facts. Anyone who looks at the Bengal famine will immediately realise that British actions contributed greatly to the final death toll, also Churchill's policy to store food under the Indian's noses but not to give them any, but instead to divert it for use by the British very obviously killed a large number of people. So he does bear responsibility for the Bengal famine to a considerable degree.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

 

 

 

You haven't mentioned WW2 or the Japanese at all. All you want to do is blame Churchill.

 

If the Japanese had not invaded Burma, so threatening British India and forcing at least 1/2 million Indians to flee back home, then the strain on food supply would have been far less.  

 

 

[nauseus]

18 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Some peak. 😂

 

They won.

[Cameroni]

Just now, nauseus said:

 

 

You haven't mentioned WW2 or the Japanese at all. All you want to do is blame Churchill.

 

If the Japanese had not invaded Burma, so threatening British India and forcing at least 1/2 million Indians to flee back home, then the strain on food supply would have been far less.  

 

 

It's not that I want to blame Churchill. I rather like Churchill, a very intelligent, interesting, flawed and morally complex character. However, one can't look at WWII and absolve Churchill of all involvement. He did play a role which was not always sensible or above reproach. Some of his decisions were mistakes in hindsight.

[Cameroni]

Just now, nauseus said:

 

They won.

They were on the winning side, the Russians really won it.

[mokwit]

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

They were on the winning side, the Russians really won it.

Quite simply the Russians had a greater capacity to absorb the attrition of war and weaponised that. The Germans were bled dry in manpower.

[MarkBR]

21 hours ago, jayboy said:

 

This kind of language, almost letter for letter, is often regurgitated by Nazi sympathizers - the pretense of having done serious research, the admission that many Jews died, the refusal to accept respected historians' findings, the pious exclamation that history will judge.These fascist tropes, adapted for the 21st century are well known.Don't accept this junk.

Horrific language.