Winston Churchill: Myth vs Reality

Politics, History, & 'Conspiracy'
User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 11879
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 5464

Winston Churchill: Myth vs Reality

Postby Masato » Wed Nov 12, 2014 12:38 pm

Hey all

Along with all the romantic and heroic post World-War Rhetoric we grew up indoctrinated with, is a portrait of Churchill as a man to be admired and honored... the 'Good Guy' who stood up to the 'Bad Guy' (Hitler). The man who took a stand against fascism, and fought for the freedoms of people everywhere! The writer, the poet... the cigar-smoking renaissance-gentleman...

Right? right??

Well if you have come to a point where war-propaganda doesn't go down as easily as it used to anymore... I encourage to re-examine this historical figure, and consider some facts that you were not likely told:

This is NOT any sort of comprehensive study that I stand behind, I am just attempting to get a ball rolling and explore an idea. Debate all you like, I am no expert only following a trail of crumbs.

No doubt Churchill was an amazing man, lived an extraordinary life, and likely did some great things. My suggestion is that he was raised and groomed by the aristocracy, and whatever he did was done through that unique mentality/ideology & with great help from the shadows...

It is my suspicion that he was put to power by his aristocratic connections, in order to lead WWII in the direction that was planned - and that this plan was a lot deeper than just "Fighting the Nazis".


CONSIDER:

- Churchill was born into the aristocratic family of the Dukes of Marlborough, a branch of the Spencer family. Churchill's father was Lord Randolph Churchill, the third son of John Spencer-Churchill, 7th Duke of Marlborough
(Could this be the same Spencer family that Diana came from? I don't know)

- Before becoming PM, he held positions as Minister of Munitions, Secretary of State for War, Secretary of State for Air, and Secretary of State for the Colonies

- On September 3, 1939, THE DAY that Britain declared war on Germany, Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty and a member of the War Cabinet

- By April, 1940, he became chairman of the Military Coordinating Committee.

- On May 10 1940, he was APPOINTED (not elected) as Prime Minister and Minister of Defense by King George VI.

- The CHURCHILL WHITE PAPER, (aka The British White Paper) announced the British intent to aid the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." in 1922

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1557
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2946

Postby Daglord » Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:36 pm

Winston Churchill's shocking use of chemical weapons
http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons

Image

Secrecy was paramount. Britain's imperial general staff knew there would be outrage if it became known that the government was intending to use its secret stockpile of chemical weapons. But Winston Churchill, then secretary of state for war, brushed aside their concerns. As a long-term advocate of chemical warfare, he was determined to use them against the Russian Bolsheviks. In the summer of 1919, 94 years before the devastating strike in Syria, Churchill planned and executed a sustained chemical attack on northern Russia.

The British were no strangers to the use of chemical weapons. During the third battle of Gaza in 1917, General Edmund Allenby had fired 10,000 cans of asphyxiating gas at enemy positions, to limited effect. But in the final months of the first world war, scientists at the governmental laboratories at Porton in Wiltshire developed a far more devastating weapon: the top secret "M Device", an exploding shell containing a highly toxic gas called diphenylaminechloroarsine. The man in charge of developing it, Major General Charles Foulkes, called it "the most effective chemical weapon ever devised".

Trials at Porton suggested that it was indeed a terrible new weapon. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and instant, crippling fatigue were the most common reactions. The overall head of chemical warfare production, Sir Keith Price, was convinced its use would lead to the rapid collapse of the Bolshevik regime. "If you got home only once with the gas you would find no more Bolshies this side of Vologda."The cabinet was hostile to the use of such weapons, much to Churchill's irritation. He also wanted to use M Devices against the rebellious tribes of northern India. "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he declared in one secret memorandum. He criticised his colleagues for their "squeamishness", declaring that "the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a more merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war."

He ended his memo on a note of ill-placed black humour: "Why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze?" he asked. "It is really too silly."

A staggering 50,000 M Devices were shipped to Russia: British aerial attacks using them began on 27 August 1919, targeting the village of Emtsa, 120 miles south of Archangel. Bolshevik soldiers were seen fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the cloud vomited blood, then collapsed unconscious.

The attacks continued throughout September on many Bolshevik-held villages: Chunova, Vikhtova, Pocha, Chorga, Tavoigor and Zapolki. But the weapons proved less effective than Churchill had hoped, partly because of the damp autumn weather. By September, the attacks were halted then stopped. Two weeks later the remaining weapons were dumped in the White Sea. They remain on the seabed to this day in 40 fathoms of water.

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1557
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2946

Postby Daglord » Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:43 pm

Not his finest hour: The dark side of Winston Churchill
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

Winston Churchill is rightly remembered for leading Britain through her finest hour – but what if he also led the country through her most shameful hour? What if, in addition to rousing a nation to save the world from the Nazis, he fought for a raw white supremacism and a concentration camp network of his own? This question burns through Richard Toye's new history, Churchill's Empire, and is even seeping into the Oval Office.


food for thought.

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 11879
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 5464

Postby Masato » Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:21 pm

Great posts, Daglord.

I even wonder sometimes if he even authored the books he was famous for (won a nobel prize for literature if I remember correctly - don't know the book)... or if he can really take credit for anything.

People like that don't operate on their own imo. He quite obviously had the entire support of the monarchy, aristocracy, banks, and the whole bloody empire. Is it possible he was just paraded around to look good and deliver great speeches as an image to provide moral stability for the people?

Could he have just been an actor? I don't know enough about him to properly entertain the hypothesis, only what I know from other POTUSs/PMs

A big part of politics has always been about showmanship, especially during times of war. Churchill had it in spades.

User avatar
Canuckster
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:24 pm
Reputation: 2537

Postby Canuckster » Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:44 am

henry makow has some fantastic articles on that cocksucker.
People say they all want the truth, but when they are confronted with a truth that disagrees with them, they balk at it as if it were an unwanted zombie apocalypse come to destroy civilization.

User avatar
Luigi
Posts: 2801
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Reputation: 2093

Postby Luigi » Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:28 am

Britain played a very insignificant role in WW2, so I agree his greatness is overstated.
Image

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 11879
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 5464

Postby Masato » Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:07 am

^ you think so?

From my extreme tinfoil perspective, I always had the impression that Britain played a VERY significant role, albeit behind the scenes.

Have you heard of the Balfour Declaration? That shit was made YEARS before WWII, already planning out the invasion of Palestine.

I may well be wrong but my impression of the war was that Britain and the Monarchy had a huge part in designing it (lots of interesting Nazi connections within the royal family), and sat back quietly most of the time make sure things were going to plan.

Also consider the Churchill Papers I noted in the OP. Follow Churchill's military training, they were grooming him into position, right on time. Britain was no mere bystander, I have a hard time believing this

Again, just my impressions, I realize I sit quite far out on the CT fence :)

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 11879
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 5464

Postby Masato » Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:11 am

Canuckster, copy an article or something from Makow for us?

User avatar
Canuckster
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:24 pm
Reputation: 2537

Postby Canuckster » Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:39 pm

Will do
People say they all want the truth, but when they are confronted with a truth that disagrees with them, they balk at it as if it were an unwanted zombie apocalypse come to destroy civilization.

User avatar
Luigi
Posts: 2801
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Reputation: 2093

Postby Luigi » Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:36 pm

Masato wrote:^ you think so?

From my extreme tinfoil perspective, I always had the impression that Britain played a VERY significant role, albeit behind the scenes.

Have you heard of the Balfour Declaration? That shit was made YEARS before WWII, already planning out the invasion of Palestine.

I may well be wrong but my impression of the war was that Britain and the Monarchy had a huge part in designing it (lots of interesting Nazi connections within the royal family), and sat back quietly most of the time make sure things were going to plan.

Also consider the Churchill Papers I noted in the OP. Follow Churchill's military training, they were grooming him into position, right on time. Britain was no mere bystander, I have a hard time believing this

Again, just my impressions, I realize I sit quite far out on the CT fence :)

All that had to do with WW1. Britain did play a big role in that war, both behind the scenes and on the battlefield. By WW2 there was no behind the scenes work necessary because Hitler declared war on everybody he could. Britain weren't bystanders, but they were so very weak compared to Germany, USSR, USA and Japan that they didnt effect the outcome of the war very much. You could argue the biggest contribution they made to the war effort was their guerilla warfare against the Japanese in Burma, which was a very small theatre of war.
Image


Return to “The Grand Chessboard”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests