Revisiting History: The Unlikely Campaign to Vilify Winston Churchill

[Cameroni]

  On 9/14/2024 at 12:40 PM, 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?

Expand  

 

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

 

  On 9/14/2024 at 12:40 PM, proton said:

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

Expand  

 

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

 

[Tug]

  On 9/14/2024 at 11:55 AM, nauseus said:

 

Immediately off topic again. Well done Tug.

Expand  

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]

  On 9/14/2024 at 12:40 PM, 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.

Expand  

Lol, rightwing infighting.

[Cameroni]

  On 9/14/2024 at 12:54 PM, 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.

Expand  

 

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]

  On 9/14/2024 at 12:37 PM, 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.

Expand  

 

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 3:37 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.

Expand  

 

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 9/11/2024 at 6:22 PM, 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.

Expand  

 

This is as bad as a never-ending fart.

[Cameroni]

  On 9/14/2024 at 1:01 PM, 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.

Expand  

 

Some peak. 😂

[Chomper Higgot]

  On 9/14/2024 at 1:10 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Some peak. 😂

Expand  

Played a pivotal role in crushing your Nazis.

 

That’s a good enough legacy on its own.

[Cameroni]

  On 9/14/2024 at 2:08 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Played a pivotal role in crushing your Nazis.

 

That’s a good enough legacy on its own.

Expand  

 

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

[placeholder]

 

  On 9/14/2024 at 12:38 PM, Cameroni said:

 

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

Expand  

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]

  On 9/14/2024 at 2:21 PM, 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.

 

 

Expand  

 

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.

 

[placeholder]

  On 9/14/2024 at 2:28 PM, 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.

 

Expand  

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]

  On 9/14/2024 at 2:53 PM, 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?

 

Expand  

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?

[RayC]

  On 9/14/2024 at 12:26 PM, nauseus said:

 

Better keep that gin bottle out of sight.

Expand  

 

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/

[thaibeachlovers]

  On 9/13/2024 at 5:03 AM, 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.

Expand  

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.

[mokwit]

  On 9/14/2024 at 2:13 PM, Cameroni said:

 

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

Expand  

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.

 

 

[Cameroni]

  On 9/15/2024 at 2:57 AM, 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.

Expand  

 

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]

  On 9/15/2024 at 3:00 AM, 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.

 

 

Expand  

 

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.

[thaibeachlovers]

  On 9/14/2024 at 3:12 PM, 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?

Expand  

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]

  On 9/15/2024 at 3:01 AM, 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.

Expand  

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

[Cameroni]

  On 9/15/2024 at 3:06 AM, 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.

Expand  

 

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]

  On 9/15/2024 at 3:09 AM, 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.

Expand  

 

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]

  On 9/14/2024 at 12:54 PM, 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

 

Expand  

 

 

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]

  On 9/14/2024 at 1:10 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Some peak. 😂

Expand  

 

They won.

[Cameroni]

  On 9/15/2024 at 7:39 AM, 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.  

 

 

Expand  

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]

  On 9/15/2024 at 7:41 AM, nauseus said:

 

They won.

Expand  

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

[mokwit]

  On 9/15/2024 at 7:42 AM, Cameroni said:

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

Expand  

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]

  On 9/14/2024 at 12:58 PM, 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.

Expand  

Horrific language.