Revisiting History: The Unlikely Campaign to Vilify Winston Churchill

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, mokwit said:

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

Manpower and materiel. Quite so.

 

The Wehrmacht killed 6 Russians for every German  soldier killed, but you can't win war on points like that.

[Hummin]

Churchill was a product of time, and English, not so different Than Trump is a product of our time, and an American.

 

Still consider Churchill an intelligent man, and maybe the right man for the time. 

 

 

[mokwit]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Churchill was a product of time, and English, not so different Than Trump is a product of our time, and an American.

 

Still consider Churchill an intelligent man, and maybe the right man for the time. 

 

 

People think of Churchill and his inspiration but he chewed butt to get things done. He'd ask how long something would take and then tell them people would be dying for every day they delayed and gave them less time.

[theblether]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

Manpower and materiel. Quite so.

 

The Wehrmacht killed 6 Russians for every German  soldier killed, but you can't win war on points like that.

 

Germany had a standing army of 10 million at the end of the war. A total of 17 million had been in the Wehrmacht as some point during the war. 

 

I met German soldiers who fought on the Eastern Front. My impression was that the conditions traumatised them, the Russians were utterly relentless and that combined with the horrendous weather and death toll, left these men unable to function. One guy told me that his commander instructed that they run to the British lines rather than be taken prisoner as they fell back to Berlin. That's exactly what they did and he was eternally grateful to the Brits for their humane treatment. 

 

That particular guy was around sixty-five years old when I met him. Not an old man, and able top recount his experiences. 

[Cameroni]

26 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

Germany had a standing army of 10 million at the end of the war. A total of 17 million had been in the Wehrmacht as some point during the war. 

 

I met German soldiers who fought on the Eastern Front. My impression was that the conditions traumatised them, the Russians were utterly relentless and that combined with the horrendous weather and death toll, left these men unable to function. One guy told me that his commander instructed that they run to the British lines rather than be taken prisoner as they fell back to Berlin. That's exactly what they did and he was eternally grateful to the Brits for their humane treatment. 

 

That particular guy was around sixty-five years old when I met him. Not an old man, and able top recount his experiences. 

To see what these men accomplished, the things they went through is beyond comprehension. It seems almost superhuman, and one can hardly envisage a generation of today capable of going through what they went through.

Edited September 15 by Cameroni

[theblether]

39 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

To see what these men accomplished, the things they went through is beyond comprehension. It seems almost superhuman, and one can hardly envisage a generation of today capable of going through what they went through.

 

I regard it as one of the ultimate tests of human endurance and survival. People familiar with the death toll of Napoleon's troops as they retreated from Moscow will have an idea of how brutal Russian winters can be to the human body. What made it worse for the Germans was the industrial level of warfare that rained down upon them.  

 

I think only Far East Prisoners of War ( FEPOW ) had a comparable experience for the Allies. 

[candide]

1 hour ago, theblether said:

 

Germany had a standing army of 10 million at the end of the war. A total of 17 million had been in the Wehrmacht as some point during the war. 

 

I met German soldiers who fought on the Eastern Front. My impression was that the conditions traumatised them, the Russians were utterly relentless and that combined with the horrendous weather and death toll, left these men unable to function. One guy told me that his commander instructed that they run to the British lines rather than be taken prisoner as they fell back to Berlin. That's exactly what they did and he was eternally grateful to the Brits for their humane treatment. 

 

That particular guy was around sixty-five years old when I met him. Not an old man, and able top recount his experiences. 

It should be stressed that German soldiers perfectly knew why they had to fear Russian soldiers, considering how many Soviet people they had slaughtered, including civilians.

Actually, during the retreat, the Waffen SS savagely killed anyone who crossed their way, including by crucification, in order to make sure that German soldiers would not be tempted to desert.

[placeholder]

On 9/14/2024 at 7:54 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

 

What you fail to mention is that Britain was facing the Japanese in Burma and didn't want supplies to fall into their hands. It wasn't  so much about keeping supplies from the British but rather keeping supplies from the Japanese. Was Churchill callous about the Indians. Absolutely. But was he purposely engaged in a war of extermination against them? Absolutely not. Posterity revealed that he made the wrong call.

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What you fail to mention is that Britain was facing the Japanese in Burma and didn't want supplies to fall into their hands. It wasn't  so much about keeping supplies from the British but rather keeping supplies from the Japanese. Was Churchill callous about the Indians. Absolutely. But was he purposely engaged in a war of extermination against them? Absolutely not. Posterity revealed that he made the wrong call.

 

Well this is in the link about the Bengal famine, the British adopted a scorched earth policy to try and ensure the enemy had no food. They contributed significantly to the famine on various levels.

 

In terms of purpose, did Churchilll know there was famine? Yes, he did, he was informed by his own colonial administration who pleaded with him to release supplies stored in front of the Indians' noses. Churchill, for a long time, refused. Did this contribute the death toll, of course, and Churchill would have been aware that was the case.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well this is in the link about the Bengal famine, the British adopted a scorched earth policy to try and ensure the enemy had no food. They contributed significantly to the famine on various levels.

 

In terms of purpose, did Churchilll know there was famine? Yes, he did, he was informed by his own colonial administration who pleaded with him to release supplies stored in front of the Indians' noses. Churchill, for a long time, refused. Did this contribute the death toll, of course, and Churchill would have been aware that was the case.

And, I believe that this is the first time you mentioned here why the policy was instituted. Have I got that wrong?

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

And, I believe that this is the first time you mentioned here why the policy was instituted. Have I got that wrong?

Here's what you previously wrote "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."

[Cameroni]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And, I believe that this is the first time you mentioned here why the policy was instituted. Have I got that wrong?

 

Indeed, I had put the full link with causes in a post above, so people can read up if they so wish.

 

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

Edited September 15 by Cameroni

[Hummin]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well this is in the link about the Bengal famine, the British adopted a scorched earth policy to try and ensure the enemy had no food. They contributed significantly to the famine on various levels.

 

In terms of purpose, did Churchilll know there was famine? Yes, he did, he was informed by his own colonial administration who pleaded with him to release supplies stored in front of the Indians' noses. Churchill, for a long time, refused. Did this contribute the death toll, of course, and Churchill would have been aware that was the case.

How many lives did the Bitish empire have on their hands? 100 millions? Some says 100 million Indians alone in 40 years. 

 

Nothing we really learned at school, 

[placeholder]

On 9/13/2024 at 7:34 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Thanks mokwit, good to see some dynamic perspective. Nobody would dispute that the initial German attack was executed extremely well and was highly successful. Of course this reinforces the point, despite these massive numbers of kills the Germans did in terms of planes and tanks the Russians were still able to field sufficient numbers to defeat the Wehrmacht. How could they do that? Because they learnt to adapt to German tactics and strategy, and to copy them to the letter, but most of all because as you said their production of planes and tanks to replace the losses was incredible. Particularly so if we factor in that the Russians had to transplant entire factories eastwards.

 

The Soviets produced over 100,000 (!!!) armoured vehicles over the course of the war. It is truly an incredible feat. This is why I am saying, they did not really need Lend Lease.

 

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

 

 

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.^[61][62]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#:~:text=In total%2C the U.S. deliveries,4%2C719 were Bell P-39}

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.^[61][62]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#:~:text=In total%2C the U.S. deliveries,4%2C719 were Bell P-39}

 

Yes, 7000 tanks. The Russians built 100,000 armoured vehcles themselves.

 

Lend lease was mostly useful for the railways and truck transports. But for the actual battlefield the Russias did a great job to make their own weapons.

Edited September 15 by Cameroni

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Indeed, I had put the full link with causes in a post above, so people can read up if they so wish.

 

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

Who do you think you're kidding? Your take on it never mentioned UK strategic concerns. Just that the British were keeping the supplies for themselves. 

[placeholder]

On 9/13/2024 at 11:48 PM, G_Money said:

Churchill, Britains finest statesman under scrutiny of the modern day liberal POS.

It's interesting to learn that Tucker Carlson is a modern day liberal. Or maybe this is just a Pavlovian response from you? Do you understand that this claim was made by Darryl Cooper, an extremely right wing person. during the interview with Tucker Carlson? Do you understand that Tucker Carlson showered Cooper with praise?

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Who do you think you're kidding? Your take on it never mentioned UK strategic concerns. Just that the British were keeping the supplies for themselves. 

 

Okay, let's look at how Churchill's men contributed to the Bengal famine in detail. It's an interesting story.

 

Anticipating a Japanese invasion of British India via the eastern border of Bengal, the British military launched a pre-emptive, two-pronged scorched-earth initiative in eastern and coastal Bengal. Its goal was to deny the expected invaders access to food supplies, transport and other resources.

 

First, a "denial of rice" policy was carried out in three southern districts along the coast of the Bay of Bengal – Bakarganj (or Barisal), Midnapore and Khulna – that were expected to have surpluses of rice. John Herbert, the governor of Bengal, issued an urgent[115] directive in late March 1942 immediately requiring stocks of paddy (unmilled rice) deemed surplus, and other food items, to be removed or destroyed in these districts

 

The second prong, a "boat denial" policy, was designed to deny Bengali transport to any invading Japanese army. It applied to districts readily accessible via the Bay of Bengal and the larger rivers that flow into it. Implemented on 1 May after an initial registration period,[121] the policy authorised the Army to confiscate, relocate or destroy any boats large enough to carry more than ten people, and allowed them to requisition other means of transport such as bicycles, bullock carts, and elephants.[122] Under this policy, the Army confiscated approximately 45,000 rural boats,[123] severely disrupting river-borne movement of labour, supplies and food.

 

Beginning as early as December 1942, high-ranking government officials and military officers (including John Herbert, the Governor of Bengal; Viceroy Linlithgow; Leo Amery the Secretary of State for India; General Claude Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of British forces in India,[217] and Admiral Louis Mountbatten, Supreme Commander of South-East Asia[218]) began requesting food imports for India through government and military channels, but for months these requests were either rejected or reduced to a fraction of the original amount by Churchill's War Cabinet.

 

The colony was also not permitted to spend its own sterling reserves, or even use its own ships, to import food.

 

When Viscount Archibald Wavell replaced Linlithgow as Viceroy in the latter half of 1943, he too began a series of exasperated demands to the War Cabinet for very large quantities of grain.[227] His requests were again repeatedly denied, causing him to decry the current crisis as "one of the greatest disasters that has befallen any people under British rule, and [the] damage to our reputation both among Indians and foreigners in India is incalculable"

 

Similarly, Madhusree Mukerjee makes a stark accusation: "The War Cabinet's shipping assignments made in August 1943, shortly after Amery had pleaded for famine relief, show Australian wheat flour travelling to Ceylon, the Middle East, and Southern Africa – everywhere in the Indian Ocean but to India. Those assignments show a will to punish."

 

in late 1943, entire boatloads of girls for sale were reported in ports of East Bengal.[310] Girls were also prostituted to soldiers, with boys acting as pimps.[311] Families sent their young girls to wealthy landowners overnight in exchange for very small amounts of money or rice

 

An unknown number of children, some tens of thousands, were orphaned.[316] Many others were abandoned, sometimes by the roadside or at orphanages,[317] or sold for as much as two maunds (one maund was roughly equal to 37 kilograms (82 lb)),[318] or as little as one seer (1 kilogram (2.2 lb))[319] of unhusked rice, or for trifling amounts of cash. Sometimes they were purchased as household servants, where they would "grow up as little better than domestic slaves".[320] They were also purchased by sexual predators. Altogether, according to Greenough, the victimisation and exploitation of these women and children was an immense social cost of the famine.

 

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

 

 

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Yes, 7000 tanks. The Russians built 100,000 armoured vehcles themselves.

 

Lend lease was mostly useful for the railways and truck transports. But for the actual battlefield the Russias did a great job to make their own weapons.

More falsehoods from you.

Under Lend-Lease, the United States provided more than one-third of all the explosives used by the Soviet Union during the war. The United States and the British Commonwealth provided 55 percent of all the aluminum the Soviet Union used during the war and more than 80 percent of the copper.

Lend-Lease also sent aviation fuel equivalent to 57 percent of what the Soviet Union itself produced. Much of the American fuel was added to lower-grade Soviet fuel to produce the high-octane fuel needed by modern military aircraft.

https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html

[Cameroni]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's interesting to learn that Tucker Carlson is a modern day liberal. Or maybe this is just a Pavlovian response from you? Do you understand that this claim was made by Darryl Cooper, an extremely right wing person. during the interview with Tucker Carlson? Do you understand that Tucker Carlson showered Cooper with praise?

 

 To be fair Tucker Carlson started out as a liberal and intellectual in the US.

[placeholder]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

Okay, let's look at how Churchill's men contributed to the Bengal famine in detail. It's an interesting story.

 

Anticipating a Japanese invasion of British India via the eastern border of Bengal, the British military launched a pre-emptive, two-pronged scorched-earth initiative in eastern and coastal Bengal. Its goal was to deny the expected invaders access to food supplies, transport and other resources.

 

First, a "denial of rice" policy was carried out in three southern districts along the coast of the Bay of Bengal – Bakarganj (or Barisal), Midnapore and Khulna – that were expected to have surpluses of rice. John Herbert, the governor of Bengal, issued an urgent[115] directive in late March 1942 immediately requiring stocks of paddy (unmilled rice) deemed surplus, and other food items, to be removed or destroyed in these districts

 

The second prong, a "boat denial" policy, was designed to deny Bengali transport to any invading Japanese army. It applied to districts readily accessible via the Bay of Bengal and the larger rivers that flow into it. Implemented on 1 May after an initial registration period,[121] the policy authorised the Army to confiscate, relocate or destroy any boats large enough to carry more than ten people, and allowed them to requisition other means of transport such as bicycles, bullock carts, and elephants.[122] Under this policy, the Army confiscated approximately 45,000 rural boats,[123] severely disrupting river-borne movement of labour, supplies and food.

 

Beginning as early as December 1942, high-ranking government officials and military officers (including John Herbert, the Governor of Bengal; Viceroy Linlithgow; Leo Amery the Secretary of State for India; General Claude Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of British forces in India,[217] and Admiral Louis Mountbatten, Supreme Commander of South-East Asia[218]) began requesting food imports for India through government and military channels, but for months these requests were either rejected or reduced to a fraction of the original amount by Churchill's War Cabinet.

 

The colony was also not permitted to spend its own sterling reserves, or even use its own ships, to import food.

 

When Viscount Archibald Wavell replaced Linlithgow as Viceroy in the latter half of 1943, he too began a series of exasperated demands to the War Cabinet for very large quantities of grain.[227] His requests were again repeatedly denied, causing him to decry the current crisis as "one of the greatest disasters that has befallen any people under British rule, and [the] damage to our reputation both among Indians and foreigners in India is incalculable"

 

Similarly, Madhusree Mukerjee makes a stark accusation: "The War Cabinet's shipping assignments made in August 1943, shortly after Amery had pleaded for famine relief, show Australian wheat flour travelling to Ceylon, the Middle East, and Southern Africa – everywhere in the Indian Ocean but to India. Those assignments show a will to punish."

 

in late 1943, entire boatloads of girls for sale were reported in ports of East Bengal.[310] Girls were also prostituted to soldiers, with boys acting as pimps.[311] Families sent their young girls to wealthy landowners overnight in exchange for very small amounts of money or rice

 

An unknown number of children, some tens of thousands, were orphaned.[316] Many others were abandoned, sometimes by the roadside or at orphanages,[317] or sold for as much as two maunds (one maund was roughly equal to 37 kilograms (82 lb)),[318] or as little as one seer (1 kilogram (2.2 lb))[319] of unhusked rice, or for trifling amounts of cash. Sometimes they were purchased as household servants, where they would "grow up as little better than domestic slaves".[320] They were also purchased by sexual predators. Altogether, according to Greenough, the victimisation and exploitation of these women and children was an immense social cost of the famine.

 

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

 

 

I never denied that it was awful. I just pointed out that until this post you characterized the famine as being due to the British wanting to keep the supplies for themselves.  Never did you mention the strategic reasoning behind it.

[Cameroni]

Just now, placeholder said:

I never denied that it was awful. I just pointed out that until this post you characterized the famine as being due to the British wanting to keep the supplies for themselves.  

 

The famine was not exacerbated because the "British" wanted to keep the food for themselves, in fact the British administration of Bengal repeatedly and desperately asked the War Cabinet for food supplies. It was Churchill, who repeatedly refused these requests, contributing greatly to the death toll.

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

 To be fair Tucker Carlson started out as a liberal and intellectual in the US.

Even if that was true, which it isn't, how would it be fair to mention that?

Fox News host Tucker Carlson did indeed list membership in groups called the Dan White Society and the Jesse Helms Foundation in his college yearbook, officials with the school have confirmed.

An image began circulating on Twitter Wednesday of a page from Carlson's senior yearbook from Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. As a 22-year-old in 1991, Carlson listed the two groups among his extracurricular activities -- one named for the San Francisco politician who killed gay S.F. Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone in 1978, the other for the virulently homophobic U.S. senator from North Carolina.

https://www.advocate.com/media/2021/4/22/tucker-carlson-once-lauded-harvey-milks-killer-and-antigay-senator

Edited September 15 by placeholder

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The famine was not exacerbated because the "British" wanted to keep the food for themselves, in fact the British administration of Bengal repeatedly and desperately asked the War Cabinet for food supplies. It was Churchill, who repeatedly refused these requests, contributing greatly to the death toll.

So what? You never mentioned until I called you on  the strategic reasons for Churchill's decision. Once again, here's what you wrote:  "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, according to you, not just Churchill but British actions.

[placeholder]

24 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Yes, 7000 tanks. The Russians built 100,000 armoured vehcles themselves.

 

Lend lease was mostly useful for the railways and truck transports. But for the actual battlefield the Russias did a great job to make their own weapons.

Another point you failed to mention is that Lend-Lease aid came at a crucial juncture for the Soviets. It was during the period when they were moving their industrial capacity east. 

[BangkokReady]

As long as they come to the conclusion that all rulers of the past did really bad things, and not just single out White people, while pretending that non-White people never did anything wrong.

[placeholder]

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

 

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

Really? If Churchll had agreed to a peace treaty or truce with  Hitler, most of the soldiers and materiel that was being held in reserve in the West and being consumed in the fighting in North Africa, could have gone to the Russian War effort. Without the British navy that was so effective in stifling supplies from  coming in to Germany, HItler would have been able to wage a much more effective war against the Russians

[Chomper Higgot]

These Nazis, they aren’t half sore losers.

 

I mean get over it already.

[placeholder]

Just now, BangkokReady said:

 

Sorry.  I have no idea what you're talking about.  Maybe you have the wrong person?  Or you're lying because you don't like a fact that I pointed out to you at some point?  Either way, you're not making any sense.

I confused you with BangkokHank who made a post claiming that the Holocaust never happened. My apologies. You never said any such thing.

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Even if that was true, which it isn't, how would it be fair to mention that?

Fox News host Tucker Carlson did indeed list membership in groups called the Dan White Society and the Jesse Helms Foundation in his college yearbook, officials with the school have confirmed.

An image began circulating on Twitter Wednesday of a page from Carlson's senior yearbook from Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. As a 22-year-old in 1991, Carlson listed the two groups among his extracurricular activities -- one named for the San Francisco politician who killed gay S.F. Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone in 1978, the other for the virulently homophobic U.S. senator from North Carolina.

https://www.advocate.com/media/2021/4/22/tucker-carlson-once-lauded-harvey-milks-killer-and-antigay-senator

Very interesting character.

 

He is the elder son of Lisa McNear (née Lombardi; 1945–2011), an artist from San Francisco,[60] and Dick Carlson (1941–), a former "gonzo reporter"[58][61][62] who became the director of Voice of America, president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the U.S. ambassador to the Seychelles

 

Carlson's maternal great-great-great-grandfather was Henry Miller, the "Cattle King".[71] Carlson's maternal great-great-grandfather Cesar Lombardi immigrated to New York from Switzerland in 1860.[72][73] Carlson is also a distant relative of Massachusetts politicians Ebenezer R. Hoar and George M. Brooks.

 

In 1979, Carlson's father married Patricia Caroline Swanson, an heiress to Swanson Enterprises, daughter of Gilbert Carl Swanson and niece of Senator J. William Fulbright.

 

Carlson was briefly enrolled at Collège du Léman, a boarding school in the canton of Geneva in French-speaking Switzerland, but said he was "kicked out"

 

Among liberals, Carlson's piece received praise, with Democratic consultant Bob Shrum calling it "vivid". 

 

 John F. Harris of Politico would later remark on how Carlson was "viewed ... as an important voice of the intelligentsia" during this period

 

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