by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

1

DispatchFactbookHistory

by The People's Republic of United States of Stalinia. . 7 reads.

Response to Prager U's Churchill Hero Worship

My response to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djW36C3t_dQ

Hahaha, good lord, every time I see this channel's videos in my suggestion box I think to myself are these people having a jape or what?

All these descriptions of Churchill's biography are completely contextless and lack details, mostly because the majority is not very illustrious.

Churchill was initially a Conservative MP and swapped to Liberal party, in the build up to the Liberals taking Govt in early 1900s, and then swapped back Conservative as their popularity increased. He was initially against women's suffrage but changed to support the cause once the movement gained momentum to further his political career, (sort of how Hillary Clinton was against LGBT in 2008 and then suddenly became all for it when support for it was far higher). He used WW-1 service for politics as well Churchill participated for 6 months in an area relatively free of action and then found an opportunity to leave his post. Using this service to further himself politically afterwards. The Galipoli failure, while not only his to shoulder, still was a partial blame and that is inarguable.

The details of his service can be found here:
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Winston-Churchill-in-the-Trenches

However this is not even the least of Churchill's WW 1 career.

It is well known that the ill-fated Lusitania carried military supplies, this was officially denied, however as both wreck-dives and private documents note, this was the truth.

For almost two years by the time of the sinking, the British government had been using the (neutral) American flag on its ships, deliberately planning for a genuine American ship to be sunk in error by German submarines and an American entry into the war. The Germans had captured documents to this effect and had presented them to the US government as proof,but the Wilson regime summarily rejected them. Also, at the time, submarines were to operate by "cruiser rules"; when faced with unarmed ships, even unarmed enemy ships, they were supposed to surface, stop said ships, search them, and if nothing contraband was found, to let them go. If something was found then the ship was a "prize of war" and was to be taken to port. Obviously, this was hardly a practical approach for a submarine, but the British (who ignored these rules where their own subs were concerned) worked very hard to make it not just difficult but impossible for the Germans.

One approach was to order all ships, when faced with a surfaced submarine, to try and ram then instead of stopping to be searched. Another, and far more criminal, order was the Q ship programme. These were alleged civilian ships, crewed by naval personnel in civilian clothes, and with camouflaged gun emplacements on deck. Once a German submarine ordered a Q ship to stop, it would pretend to comply, and when the submarine came close, the gun emplacements would open fire on the sub.

Faced with these acts, German submarine commanders naturally preferred to attack right away with torpedoes, in the belief that the risk to their vessels was too great to obey the outmoded cruiser rules. This was what the Churchill plan also wanted, but they needed a big disaster to try and inflame neutral (ie American) opinion against the German submarine offensive.

The Lusitania was perfect to use as a cassus belli; the British government had declared the North Sea a war zone, indeed, the Germans had retaliated by doing the same to the North Atlantic, so it was literally a voyage through a battlefield. Originally funded by the British government for Cunard (the company did not have to pay for the vessel), it was supposed to be converted into an auxiliary cruiser during wartime, and was thus fitted with gun mounts, something well known to the Germans. However no actual guns were ever fitted. During the war, it was used as a (secret) transport for munitions, a fact that its passengers were unaware of - just as they were not advised that it was foolish to travel the Atlantic in wartime - but was known to the Germans.

What is terrible is that the ship was, regardless of this endangering fact, loaded with many civilian passengers. The German Embassy tried to put ads in American papers, but the British successfully pressured most papers not to run the advert. In the end only one such ad made it to print, in Des Moines but it was obviously not enough. These ads, tried to discourage people from engaging passage on the Lusitania and other such ships carrying arms. But to no avail; These passenger ships were sent into waters known to be swarming with U-boats, stripped of military escort and told to proceed slowly (the latter part deemed as a method of 'conserving fuel expenses').

Evidence you ask?

German Ads: “The German government took out large ads in all the New York papers warning potential passengers that the ship was carrying munitions and telling them not to cross the Atlantic on it … Yet the sinking of the Lusitania was used by clever propagandists to portray the Germans as inhuman slaughterers of innocents. Submarine warfare was manufactured into a cause célèbre to push us into war."
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/atlantean_conspiracy/atlantean_conspiracy19.htm

Churchill's Involvement: “British commander Joseph Kenworthy, on duty when the ship was sunk, later revealed that her military escort was withdrawn at the last minute and her captain ordered to enter at reduced speed an area where a German U-boat was known to be operating. It is clear why Germany attacked this ship, and Britain would have done the same if U.S. munitions were being shipped to Germany. ‘The Germans, whose torpedo struck the liner, were the unwitting accomplices or victims of a plot probably concocted by Winston Churchill,’ concluded author Simpson.” -Jim Marrs, “Rule by Secrecy”
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/08/lusitania-world-war-i.html

This most recent German submarine in the area, the U 20 (commander, Kapitanleutnant Walter Schwieger) had been specifically ordered to locate and sink large transport ships. Schwieger's presence was no secret; operating within cruiser rules, he had openly stopped, boarded and sunk several ships already after allowing their crews to take to their lifeboats. So what did Churchill do? The Admiralty radioed the Lusitania that submarines were active off Ireland, and that the Royal Navy would provide the cruiser Juno as escort. Juno actually left port but before it could rendezvous, it was recalled to port by an express order from the Admiralty - and Captain Turner of the Lusitania was not informed that he was no longer to be given an escort. Schwieger himself (his submarine logs survived the war) thought he was attacking an armed auxiliary cruiser, and he was amazed at how speedily it sank, guessing, correctly, that his one torpedo had caused an explosion of munitions in the cargo.

The ship was, in other words, set up to be sunk with US citizens on board.

Whether Churchill actually arranged for the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7, 1915, is still unclear. But a week before the disaster, he wrote to Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade that it was "most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany", which indicated that he was well aware of the fact that German U-boats were active of West Ireland - directlin in the path of the Lusitania. Many highly-placed persons in Britain and America believed that the German sinking of the Lusitania would bring the United States into the war.

So why Churchill? Winston Churchill was then First Lord Of The Admiralty, or, in other words, Minister of the Navy, and any such decision would go through him and by his orders.

...there was a conspiracy deliberately to put the Lusitania at risk in the hope that even an abortive attack on her would bring the United States into the war. Such a conspiracy could not have been put into effect without Winston Churchill's express permission and approval.

In any case, what is certain is that Churchill's policies made the sinking very likely. The Lusitania was a passenger liner loaded with munitions of war; Churchill had given orders to the captains of merchant ships, including liners, to ram German submarines if they encountered them, and the Germans were aware of this.

As Churchill stressed in his memoirs of World War I, embroiling neutral countries in hostilities with the enemy was a crucial part of warfare: "There are many kinds of maneuvres in war, some only of which take place on the battlefield. . . . The maneuvre which brings an ally into the field is as serviceable as that which wins a great battle."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/raico-churchill2.html

General Overview: http://www.english.emory.edu/LostPoets/Lusitaniapapers.html

Prior to his actions in WW1, Churchill was also quite active in British Imperialism

His service in the various countries prior to WW 1 is also not something to be proud of. His personal bravery in battle aside, his actions were equivalent to how Jackson slaughtered the Native Americans.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/01/winston-churchill-british-empire-colonialism

While some may claim that the British Empire brought civilization and eliminated barbaric practices, in reality it just eliminated them from public view. The Indian Caste System continues, the burning of widows still exists, the inhumane practices of many nomadic tribes continue to this day, simply away from common eye and cameras. Their rail-roads and other industry could easily have built without being so inhumane, without places like the Black Hole of Calcutta. India actually increased its railway network many times over after the British left. The British railway was mostly for military purposes in any case.

Churchill after WW 1 is a figure of many faces, as mentioned before, he flip-flopped as he liked, between conservative and liberal, and on an individual basis (womens rights as mentioned before).

However the more important thing he never changed on was his devotion to maintaining the oligarchy that was Britain's government and maintaining the empire's holdings.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

The claim of him wanting to use tear gas and not poison gas is false, the gas used was diphenylaminechloroarsine, or Adamsite, the use of which is internationally banned.

As for the attitude on strikes, it can be summarized as, guilty with explanation:
http://iainthepict.blogspot.com/2011/02/bloody-friday-battle-of-george-square.html

Like other 'heroes' of the West, (Patton, McArthur, etc.), his actions were reactionary in their very nature.

Churchill's true fame and adoration, however, comes from WW 2, to the point where he is erroneously revered as impeccable.

Churchill's "alarm" over Hitler, was that of one empire fearing to be over-taken by another, Churchill's reasoning is based in that alone. When Vyshinksy tried to get a inter-european alliance between Britain, Poland, the USSR and France, to lock in Nazi Germany, The British Government (Churchill included) intentionally pushed their delegation to delay and drag on the process, and robbed it of any power to make decisions (such as making them travel by ship rather than train or plane). Then they sold Czechoslovakia down the river to Poland, Hungary and Germany, and would have sold parts of the Baltic states as well, had the USSR not stepped in with a warning. These arrogant actions finally pushed the Soviets too far and they hastily formed the strategic Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to delay the inevitable war, thus making the Anglo-saxon plan to sic Germany on the USSR, backfire.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/04/the-medals-of-his-defeats/306061/

The actions of Britain during the war itself are also suspicious.

First, you have the 'phony war'. In which French and British armies waited just on west side of the Rhine river without doing anything for 8 months, as German army as busy conquering and repressing Poland. Crazy, really, especially in the light of the fact that Germany's industrial heartland, Rhineland is just to the east of this river. take it over, and you cripple a massive segment of German industry.

But 'allies' didn't do anything - they didn't even do any military operation. They just waited until Germany repressed Poland and ferried over all their military units and prepared and put them into position to attack France. There is no kind of explicable logic for this kind of thing in warfare. The only possibility is that they were expecting and waiting for Nazi Germany to attack USSR.

Second is the delaying of landings in Occupied Europe. Churchill did his best to delay any landing. The D-day landings were intentionally post-poned by Churchill citing, “the inability to do so” and using a failed attempt, (set up to fail) as an example of it. This failed attempt had been to send in Canadian troops onto a heavily defended cliff-side in broad daylight with little support. Calling it a set up would be an understatement.

https://consortiumnews.com/2011/08/18/truth-still-a-casualty-at-dieppe/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/we-were-sitting-ducks-100-year-old-veteran-shares-dieppe-raid-memories-1.3671764

The Dunkirk 'Miracle':
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p375_Lutton.html

https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180224/opinion/Betrayal-at-Dunkirk-Rodolfo-Ragonesi.671549

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/786093/Hitler-Nazi-Germany-Battle-of-Dunkirk-World-War-2-peace-treaty-British-Winston-Churchill

Then there is the Bengal Famine, where Churchill's decisions as Prime Minister starved the Indian people to death for no particular reason, and only gave the Indians even more incentive to join the Japanese in fighting the British Far-Eastern forces, as they did. Many POWs joined the far-right nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose in fighting the British, and only the promise of post-war independence got any Indians to fight for the British cause at all, (similar to the Vietnamese with the French during WW-II).

In an entry for September 1942 in Leo Amery: Diaries (1988), edited John Barnes and David Nicholson, p. 832: "During my talk with Winston he burst out with: 'I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion'." (This quotation is widely cited as written in "a letter to Leo Amery" in "Jolly Good Fellows and Their Nasty Ways" by Vinay Lal from Times of India (15 January 2007))

https://www.npr.org/2015/08/22/433515258/in-wwii-millions-of-indians-fought-for-a-britain-they-abhored

Indeed, when the British military attempted to court martial these returned soldiers after the war, on grounds of treason, the response was the Naval Mutiny of 1946, a total strike by Indian sailors in Bombay, Karachi, and Calcutta. This badly crippled the power of the British naval forces in India, and many Indian military units were no longer seen as trustworthy.

What 'facts' Prager U does state between its opinionated praise and pompous tongue-wagging are so inaccurate or lacking of detail as to be useless. Here are two important examples:

- The map shown at 2:30 is wrong. It depicts the modern map of Germany and not the depiction of their territory circa 1918-1939.

- As mentioned before Poland was invaded first in 1939. The same Poland who had separate alliances and defense pacts with Both Britain AND France. Even disregarding France's (rightful) conflict with Poland over its violations of the pact in years prior, the fresh Britain pact remained un-tainted by any issues. So the statement at 2:57 is utter bullshit.

- The reason Churchill decided to continue the fight with Hitler was to prevent the German Third Reich becoming too powerful. The 2nd front wasn't opened until 1944, and the effectivity of bombing was negligible until 1943, especially since most of it targeted cities, and not industrial productions.

- the map at 5:07 is wrong. By June of 1944 almost 1/2 that territory shown under Nazi control was liberated by the Soviets.

https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21586520-damning-verdict-bombing-campaign-europe-during-second-world-war-costly

https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-WWII-ratio-of-kills-for-the-allied-bombers-versus-the-German-fighters/answer/Henri-Augagneur

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/failurestratbombing.aspx

It is also wonderful how you ommitted the actions of Churchill post-World War 2, such as how HE was the one to initiate the formation of an iron-curtain in Europe, to isolate the USSR... or how he lost his position as Prime Minister and his successor's labor reforms gave Britains economy and living standards a substantial boost... or how his own economic measures meant that Britains population stayed on ration cards 5 years after the USSR, (which suffered far more economically and physically) had already dropped their use.

To be short the wonderfully cherry-picked sh*t show is pathetic, get a grip you bastards, have the decency to call yourself what you are, Prager Pro-Capitalist Conservative Agitational Propaganda, because you aren't a university you're a propaganda network.

PS to those complaining about Obama's removal of Churchill's bust from the White House, let me remind you WHY he did that.

Old Bush put that bust there as a political attempt to be associated with Churchill, he couldn't give a rat's ass about the man and if he thought that putting any other politician's bust would be more politically helpful, he would have done so.

Obama didn't care for Churchill because of personal reasons, not because, "muh socialists/nazis/anti-westerners in the White House" as Neo-cons have attempted to claim.

His Kenyan Grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned for 2 years without trial, under Churchill's watchful eye. Allegations of torture during these 2 years exist. The reason was simple, he resisted the British empire. Now while this may be a lawful imprisonment (and that is doubtful), The British empire was undeniable imperialist, and subjugated peoples against their will. Whilst nothing is without good sides, the over-all result and reasoning for the British imperialism was to basically ransack these countries of resources and that's what they did. It still continues but in the more subtler vassal-state system of today.

Obama is no innocent soul but his removal of the bust is simply his own personal one.

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

Some other Churchill things:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/01/winston-churchill-british-empire-colonialism

RawReport