The Anti-Socialist Crimes of ‘Sir’ Winston Churchill – the Short Course


In response to the general lack of public education regarding this matter, and seven years in to a devastating rightwing Tory rule of the UK, I felt that a quick access guide to many of the ‘crimes’ of Winston Churchill be gathered in one place for research purposes. As the Tories continue to privatize the NHS and dismantle the Welfare State, and after being found ‘Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity’ by the UN in 2016, their resorting to invoking the spectre of Winston Churchill has seen at least three big budget movies made since 2010, all purporting to represent various aspects of his life, but all perpetuating myth after myth, and none covering any of the historical ‘crimes’ or ‘morally reprehensible’ acts that this man has been directly or indirectly involved in. The central myth to be demolished is that Winston Churchill was not a great leader either during wartime or peace, and that his racist and anti-Socialist opinions were responsible for inflicting suffering and death upon millions of people in the UK and abroad. Furthermore, as a natural holder of fascistic opinions, Winston Churchill is on record as an admirer and supporter of Adolf Hitler – a fact that does not sit well with those who perpetuate his myth as ‘anti-fascist warrior’. Winston Churchill was hated by the British working class, and was often driven from bombed-out parts of London which he had visited to film short propaganda films about ‘how we can take it!’ Of course, although the British working class died in their tens of thousands during the ‘Blitz’ (1940-1941), Churchill lived unconcerned in a luxury bomb shelter under Whitehall, smoking Cuban cigars and eating caviar whilst the ordinary British people starved.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that amongst a certain type of ‘White’ person enthused with bourgeois attitudes and opinions, Winston Churchill is nothing but an unquestioned ‘hero’ and champion of ‘Human Rights’, and virtually no evidence to the contrary will sway this interpretation. This is because the middle-class image of Churchill is ‘religious’ in nature, and constitutes a type of hagiography premised entirely upon ‘faith’, and not at all upon ‘fact’. If an interpretation of Churchill’s life was fact-based, he would be generally perceived in a very different light. Although the ‘unelected’ leader of Britain during WWII, he did none of the fighting and did not experience any of the suffering. As a consequence, Churchillian apologists (which has included many members of the British Labour Party), have attempted over the years to ascribe all kinds of fanciful notions to Winston Churchill, whilst ignoring his bigotry and racism. Boris Johnson, for instance, laughably tries to convince his readership that Churchill founded the Welfare State in the UK – however, the actual facts reveal that whenever British workers went on strike, or came together to protest – Churchill immediately deployed the British Army as a means to prevent a ‘Socialist’ Revolution! The British working class should work to expose Churchill’s anti-Socialist attitudes and support all non-White people in their condemnation of his racist attitudes.

On the 21.6.2019, I acquired a copy of the 2001 book by Roy Jenkins entitled ‘Churchill’, and published by MacMillan. Whereas the original draft of this text was compiled from many disparate sources (much – but not all – internet or social media-related), I have decided to use the well-researched (and peer reviewed) information conveyed in the above biography to serve as a solid ‘back-bone’ or sound historical ‘foundation’ to this article. (Churchill became an ardent anti-Socialist following his by-election defeat in Manchester in April, 1908 – blaming his defeat on an increase in the Labour vote throughout the area. Churchill, from that date onwards, would dedicate an ever increasing portion of his rhetroic toward this new avenue of anti-Socialist reaction!) Roy Jenkins has achieved a remarkable feat. On the one-hand he states that Churchill was a remarkable war leader in the UK, whilst on the other admitting that if it had not been for the role he played (as British Prime Minister) from 1939-1941 (within the context of the national and international conditions that prevailed), Churchill would probably have been remembered as just another ordinary (and typical) Tory backbencher, or ‘nearly man’ as I would call him. More to the point, Roy Jenkins demonstrates just how ‘dishonest’ Winston Churchill was in his writings, particularly in relation to his stories regarding his own supposed bravery under fire. As matters transpired, Hitler attacked the Soviet Union on the 22.6.1941, and the UK and the USSR became Allies when the US was still ‘neutral’ and many Americans were advocating the abandoning of the UK and the forming of a ‘separate peace’ with Nazi Germany. I would contend that Churchill performed (very well) a staged managed role granted to him by a class-ridden British political system which had privileged him his entire life. He was nothing more than a manufactured ‘figure-head’ much loved by his own class, whilst being either hated or ignored by the far more numerous working class that he had power over, which he treated with a general attitude of indifference or disdain. This man who left Harrow with no qualifications and liked to dress-up in military uniforms he was not entitled to wear (during WWII he chose to wear the uniform of a RAF air commodore) – was given the credit for the sacrifice and suffering experienced and endured by the British working class between 1939 and 1941, in a war started by his own class, which was encouraged by people like himself, who liked to expressed glowing opinions about Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime throughout the 1930s! 

A Chronology of Churchill’s Racist, Xenophobic and Anti-Socialist Attitudes

Churchill Speaks About the ‘Evils’ of Socialism in the UK and North Korea (1950)

1874: Winston Churchill’s father – Lord Randolph – married his American spouse – (Churchill’s mother – Jessie Jerome) on April 15th, 1874. The grandiose deception that has become Winston Churchill’s life would begin with his birth on November 30th, 1874. Although born into British aristocracy, and linked to the ‘Duke of Marlborough’ title, neither Churchil nor his father were in-line to inherit. However, Winston Churchill was born in the Duke of Marlborough family ancestral home (i.e. ‘Blenheim Palace’) in Woodstock (Oxford) entirely by accident. He was not born their by either design or entitlement as many of his biographers would like to imply. Roy Jenkins – in his 2001 (MacMillan) book entitled ‘Churchill’, (Page 5) suggests that Churchill’s claim to ‘aristocracy’ is subtly inferior to that of Cavendish, Russell, Cecil and Stanly, etc. Indeed, Winston Churchill was born at Blenheim Palace because his mother (Lady Randolph) – who was around seven to eight months pregnant at the time – suffered a fall whilst out walking with a hunting party. She then rode home in a bumpy carriage and just six days later, gave birth to her son Winston Churchill (who arrived in the world two months premature).

1880: Winston Churchill’s younger brother – Jack – was born in Dublin at the beginning of this year. It has long been rumoured that Lord Randolph was not his natural father, and that Churchill’s mother had had an affair with Dublin-based Colonel John Strange Jocelyn (the fifth Earl of Roden). Indeed, ‘Lady Randolph’ was estranged from her husband for much of the 1880s and had numerous admirers including the Marquis de Breteuil, Lord Dunraven, the French novelist Paul Bourget and even King Milan of Serbia!  See – Roy Jenkins – in his 2001 (MacMillan) book entitled ‘Churchill’, (Pages 7-8). Although perhaps a modern or even progressive woman in her own right, her rather ‘liberated’ attitude toward personal relationships certainly did not ‘fit-in’ to the notions of the staid Victorian values that dominated (and regulated) the middle and upper classes of the time, and appears to contradict Winston Churchill’s belief in what he assumed to be the moral superiority of his class.

1885: Racist attitudes during the British imperialist era were fairly common throughout the country, even more so for Winston Churchill’s class. His fsther – Lord Randolph Churchill – was Secretary of State for India during the seven months heading into late 1885. In November, 1885, Lord Randolph (unsucessfully) contended Birmingham’s Central division during the General Election. During that time he criticised his opponent – John Bright – for daring to share a platform with what he (Lord Randolph) described as being ‘three Bengali baboos’. However, during July, 1886, Lord Randolph was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons. Queen Victoria recorded in her journal (dated 25.7.1886) that she did not like this appointment at all because Lord Randolph ‘…is so mad and odd and has also bad health.’ See – Roy Jenkins – in his 2001 (MacMillan) book entitled ‘Churchill’, (Page 15).

1892: Churchill attended Harrow School from 1888 to 1892. Despite being a member of the British aristocracy, and having no expense spared on his education at this elitist ‘public’ school, he continuously failed to achieve any academic standing whatsoever. Those of his class who admire him today, try desperately to extract some kind of hidden meaning from his obvious lack of intellectual ability, and yet the reality is that he languished in the lower half of all categories that measured academic achievement. See – Roy Jenkins – in his 2001 (MacMillan) book entitled ‘Churchill’, (Pages 18-20). Ironically, Churchill, who benefitted from all the excesses of his class with regard to education, was continuously of the opinion that the ‘working class’ should not have a similar access to education, or be able to better themselves academically. It was an established tradition that sons of the aristocracy who failed to academically shine should go into the priesthood, or the military and so it was decided that Churchill – who possessed no academic merit whatsoever – should apply for Sandhurst Military College for an eventual career in the 4th Queen’s Own Hussars cavalry regiment. He failed the entrance exam twice, before finally passing on the third attempt after yet more ‘special’ assistance in his learning. Hardly the educational accruement expected of a supposed ‘great man of destiny’… 

1898: In an attempt to make money (and fame) as a war correspondent, Winston Churchill maneuvered his way to a placement (as a civilian) to the 21st Lancers, stationed at Abbasiya Barracks, situated in Cairo, Egypt. He joined the regiment on its 1,400 mile march southward to engage the Sudanese. Churchill confided in his mother that he had a very low opinion of the officers and men to whom he was attached. He was accompanied by Captain Douglas Haig and Captain Rawlinson – both of which would become not only highly ranked (and decorated) members of the British Army – but serve as vitally important figures during WW1. Roy Jenkins – in his 2001 (MacMillan) book entitled ‘Churchill’, (Pages 40-41) – states that in his opinion, Churchill’s description of his own battle experience on September 1st, 1898 is unlikely to be true. The just over 300 men (and horses) of the 21st Lancers performed a cavalry charge not far from the city of Omdurman (the capitail of the enemy leader Khalifa Abdullahi). This action was later described by the 7th Marquess of Anglesey (in 1982) – in the 5th volume of his definitive History of British Cavalry – as ‘most futile and inefficient’, similar in its military pointlessness to the ‘Charge of the Light Brigade’ which happened 44 years previously (in 1854). This British Force (armed with the maxim gun) attacked a lightly armed tribal force of Dervish warriors. The Dervish lost a total of 23 killed, whilst the 21st Lancers lost 21 killed and 50 wounded – with 119 horses also being killed! What was Churchill doing whilst this military disaster was unfolding? According to his own account, this charge was a resounding military success, with him stood in the middle of the action letting off shots from his pistol! His estimates vary of the number of Dervish he believed to have personally dispatched, ranging from 2, 5 or even 7!  Needless to say, whilst stood amongst this carnage, neither Churchill (nor his horse) suffered any injury whatsoever…

1899: In the July bye-election in Oldham (Manchester) Winston Churchill failed in his first attempt to win a seat in the British Parliament. This was particularly stinging for him as he thought himself to be quite famous following his self-confessed antics during his stint in South Africa as a ‘journalist’ and (occasional combatant) during certain aspects of the British Sudan Campaign (1881-1889). It is interesting to note that before the rise of the Labour Party, working class (cotton mill) areas such as Oldham were often held by Tory MPs who made half-hearted promises of reform in theory, but rarely carried them out in practice. See – Roy Jenkins – in his 2001 (MacMillan) book entitled ‘Churchill’, (Pages 45-50).

1899: In his book entitled ‘The River War’, Winston Churchill discusses Islam in the following terms – ‘How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia [rabies] in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.’

1899: On October 14th, 1899, (Winston Churchill suggests the incorrect date of the 11th of October), Churchill left the UK to journalistically cover certain aspects of the Boer War in South Africa for the British Morning Post Newspaper (with interest also shown by the Daily Mail – a situation attracting a ridiculously large fee). Again, this was motivated by the need for him to make money whilst trying to cement a reputation of being a good and popular writer. Using his family connections, Churchill secured his attachment (as a civilian reporter) to the Lancashire Hussars operating north of Durban (in British controlled Natal territory). Travelling continuously north from Pietermaritzburg to Estcourt, Churchill encountered Captain Aylmer Haldine (whom he had previously met on the North-West Frontier of India). British troops had become ‘trapped’ a hundred miles further north in ‘Ladysmith’, with the terrain between Estcourt and Ladysmith being firmly controlled by Boer forces. The plan was for the British to take an armoured train full of supplies from Estcourt to Ladysmith and relieve the encircled British forces. However, the train had travelled only 14 miles before coming under a sustained Boer attack. Although the train (and half its carriages) managed to return to Estcourt, many British soldiers were taken prisoner (including Winston Churchill, who claimed to the Boers that he was a serving officer (in the British Army). Following his imprisonment, Churchill immediately began a duplicitous campaign which involved him petitioning the Boer Authorities to be released on the grounds that he was a ‘civilian’ being illegally held in a military prison, whilst simultaneously contacting the British Authorities requesting that he be officially recognised as a ‘serving’ officer in the British Army.  See – Roy Jenkins – in his 2001 (MacMillan) book entitled ‘Churchill’, (Pages 52-54).

1899: On November 15th, Winston Churchill was taken prison apparently by a lone (mounted) Boer soldier involved in the attack on the British armoured train 14 miles north of Estcourt. Years later, Churchill would claim that this Boer soldier was none other than General Louis Botha – the future (pro-British) leader of South Africa. Even Lord Randolph – Winton Churchill’s father – states that this is nothing more than pure imagination. General Louis Botha did meet Churchill three years later in London, but at the time of this battle (in 1899), he was in-charge of Boer troops movements in the general vicinity and never took part in the action within which Churchill was captured. See – Roy Jenkins – in his 2001 (MacMillan) book entitled ‘Churchill’, (Pages 53-54).

1899: Around December 12th, Winston Churchill escaped from the State Middle School (in Pretoria) on his own. This was the Boer prison where British Army officers were held. He had entered into an ornate plan to escape with Captain Haldane (and others) from the camp – but at the last moment had abandoned his colleagues to their fate. His solitary escape jeopardised the chances of those still left behind to make their own escape. The Boer Authorities wrote that Churchill was a very dangerous man who should not be released (regardless of his status), whilst for decades afterwards, (Captain) Aylmer Haldine would accuse Churchill of betraying the other British men held captive, and of stealing (and benefitting) from his (Haldine’s) escape plan! According to Haldine, Churchill lacked the ‘moral courage’ to admit his opportunism. See – Roy Jenkins – in his 2001 (MacMillan) book entitled ‘Churchill’, (Pages 55-60).

1900: Winston Churchill enters Parliament as a Conservative, but jumps ship and temporarily joins the Liberal Party in 1904. However, as the Liberal Party lost influence and votes, Churchill soon returned to the Tories. This duplicity has led a number of commentators to suggest Churchill possessed no scruples or principles.

1901-1902: Any serious (aspiring) Tory political must seek to establish a firm bedrock of corruption as early as possible in his life, and Churchill was certainly no exception to this rule. At this time he was no longer satisfied with ‘lying’ in his memoirs, but wanted to spread outward into the world of Tory sleeze by becoming a ‘Freemason’. Freemasonry may well represent the ‘core’ of Churchill’s anti-Socialist ethos – so much so that Roy Jenkins misses out this part of Churchill’s ‘official’ dalliance with corruption – entirely in his 2001 biography! Indeed, Churchill was initiated into Studholme Lodge (now United Studholme Alliance Lodge) No. 1591 on 24th May 1901, where upon completed his second degree nearly two months later on 19th July – and was then made a Master Mason on 5th March 1902. This association with ‘evil’ would cost the British and international working-class dearly!

Churchill: Anti-Socialist Freemason!

1905: Winston Churchill wrote a biography of his father (Lord Randolph) which Roy Jenkins – in his 2001 (MacMillan) book entitled ‘Churchill’, (Pages 5-6) – describes as being both ‘highly readible’ and ‘hagiographic’ in nature. Churchill describes his American father-in-law – Leonard Jerome – as being the ‘founder’ and ‘editor’ of the New York Times. Roy Jenkins explains this Churchillian dishonesty as arising out of a sense of family piety. Although it is true that Leonard Jerome did at one time invest money in the New York Times, he did not found this newspaper, and never worked as its editor.

1905: Whilst Churchill was a Tory (and just prior to his temporary defection to the Liberals in 1904) the Tories devised a policy of the mass use of indentured Chinese labour in the British-owned Rand Gold Mines in South Africa. Many people called this despicable what it was ‘Chinese Slavery’ – but when pressed on this matter Churchill commented: ‘It cannot in the opinion of His Majesty’s government be classified as slavery in the extreme acceptance of the word without some risk of terminological in exactitude’. Nonetheless the conditions under which, by the time of the change of government, 47,619 Chinese (nearly a third of the total mining workforce) had been brought to the Transvaal were, even bearing in mind the contemporary conditions in British coal mines or Lancashire cotton mills, distinctly shocking. They were required to work ten hours a day for six days a week. There was at first no minimum wage, then one of two shillings a day (not, pace Lloyd George, one shilling). They lived in compounds around the mines which they were forbidden to leave without rarely given forty-eight-hour passes. They were not allowed to engage in business, own any property, or seek access to any court of law. They were liable to special punishment for fourteen specified offences. And in practice although not in strict theory it was made impossible for them to be accompanied by their families. What differentiated the system from slavery was that they were not bought or sold, and that they could return to China provided they could raise £17 (the equivalent of thirty weeks’ wages) for the return passage. See – Roy Jenkins: Churchill, MacMillan, (2001), Pages 111-112

1906: Lord Portsmouth had secured a confession from the British Statesman Alfred Milner – who was the High Commissioner for South Africa and Governor of the Cape Colony from 1897-1905 – that whilst in power he had authorised the routine flogging of Chinese labourers, and that even this ‘punishment’ lay outside of the otherwise ‘harsh’ colonial legislation as decreed by the British Government. As this coincided with the ‘Chinese Slavery’ scandal at the time, the ruling Liberal Party felt compelled to respond in a manner that played-down the entire affair. The radical MP William Byles (representing Salford North), suggested a Parliamentary motion of harsh censure be placed upon Milner. The problem was that Milner – who has been compared to Enoch Powell – was extremely popular amongst the middle and upper classes who appreciated his particular blend of racism and draconian action. Winston Churchill was given the task of writing (and delivering) a speech which would kill the motion and put the matter to rest. This he did with great success, when he suggested that the very successful Milner was a broken man with no friends or future prospects! Churchill suggested that flogging the Chinese outside the law was probably not the best way to proceed, whilst simultaneously removing (through the use of generating a false sympathy) any threat of punishing Milner (even mildly) for the illegal brutality with which he had treated the Chinese labourers in South Africa!  Ironically, Alfred Milner (who thought he had done nothing wrong against what he considered to be an inferior race), took offense at Churchill’s defense! See – Roy Jenkins, Churchill, MacMillan, (2001), Pages 118-119. 

1908: In his 2017 book entitled ‘Druids in the South West?’ (Bossiney) – Paul White – comments (on Page 6) that he was ‘intrigued’ by a photograph he discovered of Winston Churchill be ‘initiated’ as a druid! Of course, even the oldest of these so-called ‘druid’ societies dates back no further than a few hundred years, and certainly possesses no genuine historical links with the genuine druids encountered (and eventually ‘destroyed’) by the occupying Roman forces. The Romans proved once and for all that the ‘imagined’ magical powers of the druids were no match logic and reason (brutally) applied to the art of war! The bourgeoisie still ‘imagines’ it possesses these powers and so ‘invents’ semi-religious fetish groups to satisfy their delusions. Many such middle-class follies were premised upon hedonism and on occasion, even devil worship!  

1908: In his 2017 book entitled ‘Druids in the South West?’ (Bossiney) – Paul White – comments (on Page 6) that he was ‘intrigued’ by a photograph he discovered of Winston Churchill be ‘initiated’ as a druid! Of course, even the oldest of these so-called ‘druid’ societies dates back no further than a few hundred years, and certainly possesses no genuine historical links with the genuine druids encountered (and eventually ‘destroyed’) by the occupying Roman forces. The Romans proved once and for all that the ‘imagined’ magical powers of the druids were no match logic and reason (brutally) applied to the art of war! The bourgeoisie still ‘imagines’ it possesses these powers and so ‘invents’ semi-religious fetish groups to satisfy their delusions. Many such middle-class follies were premised upon hedonism and on occasion, even devil worship!  

1908: This was the year that Churchill’s implicit anti-working-class sentiment sprouted into the open, and became an explicit ‘anti-Socialism’. Being of minor aristocracy, Churchill was imbued with all the usual (bourgeois) arrogance, ignorance, prejudice, natural racism and misogyny that is typical of his class. Following promotion to a Cabinet post in the (Liberal) Asquith Government, Churchill had to follow the convention of the day and stand for re-election in a by-election (a practice discontinued in 1926). He was soundly defeated by 429 votes, and ousted by his Tory opponent Sir William Joynson-Hicks. Despite this set-back, Churchill was parachuted into another Liberal ‘safe-seat’ in Dundee, Scotland, where he was duly re-elected on May 9th, 1908. Churchill (a natural Tory) did not blame his fellow noble for the defeat, by chose instead to lay the blame on the rise of ‘Socialism’ in the area, and the growing popularity of the Labour Party. The fact that his victory in this ‘safe’ Dundee seat involved him receiving a percentage of votes nearly three-points lower than he received in Manchester – with the 56% who voted against him ‘split’ evenly between the Tories and Labour – was a bitter pill for him to swallow.  Following his re-election, however, Churchill made the first speech (in what would become his habit of opposing Socialism). Churchill stated that ‘Translated into concrete terms, Socialist society is a set of disagreeable individuals who obtained a majority for their caucus at some recent elections, and whose officials now look upon humanity through innumerable grilles and pigeon holes and over innumerable counters, and say to them “tickets please”’. Of course, none of this made any logical sense, but Churchill continued on with his upper-class (and inverted) angst saying:

‘Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up povertly.  Socialists would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely by reconciling them with public right. Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference.’

Churchill here, seems to be confusing a just re-distribution of wealth, with the right to go fox-hunting on horseback with hounds! See – Roy Jenkins, Churchill, MacMillan, (2001) Page 132.

1910: British Home Secretary Winston Churchill, inspired by eugenics theories of Sir Francis Galton, urges that some 100,000 “degenerate British citizens” be sterilized or interned in Labour (Concentration) Camps. A fact recorded in the 2003 book entitled ‘The Holocaust Chronicle – A History in Words and Pictures’ by Publications International Ltd, Page 33 (Footnote).

1910-1911: As Home Secretary, Winston Churchill ordered the British Army into Wales to contain and crush strike action carried-out by the miners of the Tonypandy and Rhondda areas of South Wales. This was a local dispute between mining unions and mine managers over working conditions, but on November 8th, 1910, Winston Churchill ordered the British Army into Wales as a means to ‘support’ the police. Records suggest that around 500 minors were injured as a consequence of this military action. Although strike action in he area did not end until around August, 1911, Churchill’s decision to use the British Army to interfere in an industrial dispute was in opposition to the democratic process and in violation to the right to strike. Churchill’s intervention was ideologically led and designed to prevent the Welsh miners winning in their strike against the mine managers. Instead of winning better working conditions, the miners were arrested and tried as common criminals.

1913: The Mental Deficiency Act was passed into Law by the British Parliament in 1913. This Act was designed to remove all undesirable people termed ‘mental defects’ from the mainstream prison and work-house populations. The thinking behind this was that those suffering from ‘mental defects’ did not respond to punishment in the expected (or normal manner), and that the presence of such people amongst the general population tended to undermined the efforts required by the agents of the British State in its efforts at ‘maintaining’ the supposed ‘natural order’ of society (it cannot be much of a ‘natural order’ if such contrivance is required to maintain it). This Act was premised upon Winston Churchill’s suggestion to the British Parliament during February, 1911 – within which he opined that all ‘mental defects’ (thought to number around 150,000 in the UK at the time), should be forcibly rounded-up and indefinitely detained in specially established ‘Mental Defects Colonies’ – where they were to be subjected to a barbaric regime of hard and relentless ‘forced-labour’. Today, it is understood that this type of authoritarian regime often makes the symptoms of the many types of psychological, emotional and psychiatric illnesses far worse. To be a ‘mentally defective’ according to Churchill – should include anyone homeless, drunk, abandoned, neglected or unschoolable. Whereas so-called ‘idiots’ and ‘imbeciles’ were terms used by the British government (in the wording of the 1886 ‘Idiots Act’) to describe people suffering from any number of what is recognised today as ‘cognitive disabilities’, the list suggested by Churchill, however, ignores any attempt at ‘defining’ or even genuinely ‘assisting’ people with disabilities – but is rather concerned with targeting the working-class poor of Britain (hence Churchill’s rather ‘Hitleresque’ answer to subject them to ‘enforced-labour’, as only the working-class actually ‘works’) who are suffering from the different debilitating stages of inherent capitalist inequality. This is typical of the fascistic thinking of Tory ideology – which practices the time-honoured strategy of ‘blaming the victim’. See: Jonathan Levi & Emma French – Inside Broadmoor, Blink, (2019). 

1914: As First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill vocally calls for the full mobilisation of the British Military to launch an immediate attack upon Imperial Germany.

1914: Winston Churchill served as ‘First Lord of the Admiralty’ from 1911 – 1914. He was forced to resign and leave government in 1915 following the disastrous Dardanelles Campaign (which he had personally endorsed). Churchill was instrumental in founding the ‘Royal Navy Air Service’ (RNAS), with its innovative ‘Royal Naval Division’ of ground troops, reinforced by armour-plated Rolls-Royce cars fitted with Maxim Machine Guns. These essentially untrained formation of 5000 British troops saw action at the beginning of WWI in Northern France, and in Antwerp in Belgium as the highly trained Imperial German Army swept into the area. The RNAS, and particularly the ‘Royal Naval Division’ were treated by Churchill as his own private army. Under Churchill’s direct command, the ‘Royal Naval Division’ lost around 2,500 men in the fall of Belgium. Prior to this, In October, 1914, Churchill had suggested that he resign from the Admiralty and be immediately granted a high military rank (Kitchener was prepared to offer him ‘Lieutenant-General’), but Prime Minister Asquith rejected this request on the grounds that Churchill was merely an ex-lieutenant of Hussars with no formal military experience at this level. Even if he were to hold the rank of ‘Lieutenant-General’, many more men (under his command) would have out-ranked him, whilst possessing years of service and experienceThis was considered inappropriate, and as matters transpired, Churchill’s handling of the military and political situation turned-out to be highly deficient. See – Roy Jenkins’ biography of ‘Churchill’ Macmillan, (2001), Pages 248-253. 

1915: During February, Greece had hesitantly (and nervously) ‘agreed’ in principle at least, for the British navy to use the Aegean island of Lemnos for anchorage. Churchill astonished many of his Government colleagues by suggesting that the island be annexed by the British with the appointment of a British Governor! This idea was rejected as being absurd at the time, and it is one incident among many that eventually led to Churchill being dismissed from the Admiralty (following the unfolding disaster of the Dardanelles Campaign) – with Churchill’s demotion confirmed on May 26th, 1915. See – Roy Jenkins’ biography of ‘Churchill’ Macmillan, (2001), Pages 267-277.

1915-1916: Winston Churchill championed the cause of an invasion of Gallipoli (as part of the Dardanelles Campaign), situated in Northern Turkey by British and Allied troops. After around 10 months of fighting, this disastrous campaign left at least 160,000 British troops and 30,000 French dead for no discernible gain. Initially, Churchill envisioned this as a Naval campaign involving ships and marines under his direct control as First Lord of the Admiralty. Churchill felt that he could heroically break the stalemate in the trenches of Western France, shorten the war, and redeem himself after the disaster at Antwerp. In less than six months, however, Winston Churchill had been responsible for tens of thousands of deaths caused by two military disasters (Antwerp and the Dardanelles) all of his own making! Rather disturbingly, Churchill had attempted to misuse his position of First Lord of the Admiralty by securing his own private military force which operated ‘outside’ jurisdiction of the War Office and the Prime Minister, and which only took orders from directly from him. This was the Royal Navy Air Service (RNAS) that existed between 1914-1918, and which fought bravely in many (and diverse) theatres, but which was dominated by Churchill between 1914-1916, who used its marine and armoured car components as military units in his own personal fiefdom. Churchill was dismissed from the Admiralty and resigned from government in October, 1915. See – Roy Jenkins’ biography of ‘Churchill’ Macmillan, (2001), Pages 258-288. 

August 30th, 1918: Lenin spoke at the Hammer and Sickle Michelson Arms Factory situated in south Moscow. As Lenin left the building and before he entered his car, the disaffected Socialist Revolutionary named Fanny Kaplan called to him. After Lenin turned towards her, she fired three shots with a Browning pistol. One bullet passed through Lenin’s coat, the other two struck him: one passing through his neck, puncturing part of his left lung, and stopping near his right collarbone; the other lodging in his left shoulder. She was acting on British orders to kill Lenin – and was executed on September 3rd, 1918 for her crime. At this time, Winston Churchill was Minister for Munitions but held significant influence in Britain’s wartime national government. He favoured a military invasion of Russia and the over-throw of the Bolsheviks. He also preferred to make Boris Savinkov – an anarchist-terrorist member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party – the new leader once Lenin was dead. Most politicians of the day (including Woodrow Wilson in the US) did not favour this idea, despite a military alliance of 14 countries eventually invading Russia under British and US leadership. All these armies would be eventually defeated by the Red Army by 1921.

1918: President Woodrow Wilson was officially opposed to military intervention against the Bolshevik government in Revolutionary Russia at the time of the Lenin assassination attempt. He did not want to facilitate an increase in power of the British and French empires. Furthermore, as a democrat, he did not favour the return of the Czarist monarchy. In March 1918, he sent a telegram to the Bolshevik government, through the American consulate in Moscow which stated: “The whole heart of the people of the United States is with the people of Russia in the attempt to free themselves for ever from an autocratic government and to become the masters of their own destiny.’ This US position would change over the coming months through political pressure applied by Winston Churchill.

1918-1919: ‘The dominant theme of Churchill’s War Secretaryshp was…his dedicated attempt at strangling near birth the Bolshevik regime in Russia. In this unsuccessful enterprise he showed no comprehension of the war-weariness of Britain. His pulsating energy made him rarely weary, and almost never of war. This separated him from the sentiment not only of the British people but also of the war-winning Prime Minister. Lloyd George knew that there was no heart for an anti-Bolshevik crusade. Nor was this surprising in the immediate after math of a war which had killed 750,000 British soldiers (and still more Russian, Germain and French ones) and which was being closely followed by a virulent influenza epidemic which was almost equally devastating. But such factors were irrelevant to Churchill. He regarded the Lenin regime as a disaster for Russia and a menace to the world. He used the most extravagant language about it. In The Aftermath, the last volume of The World Crisis, published after ten years of opportunity for calming down, he wrote of ‘Not a wounded Russia only, but a poisoned Russia, an infected Russia, a plague-bearing Russia; a Russia of armed hordes smiting not only with bayonet and with cannon, but accompanied and preceded by swarms of typhus-bearing vermin which slew the bodies of men, and political doctrines which destroyed the health and even the soul of nations.’ Roy Jenkins: Churchill, Macmillan, (2001), Page 350 

1918-1921: Winston Churchill (as firstly Minister for Munitions and then Secretary for War from January 10th, 1919) was responsible for Britain (and 13 other countries) invading Revolutionary Russia and attempting to kill Lenin and crush Bolshevism. Under Churchill’s orders, the British Army massacred unarmed Bolshevik prisoners at Baku in late 1918.

1919: Aliens Restriction Act (Amendment) Act 1919. In January 1919, Winston Churchill was appointed Secretary of State for War and Secretary of State for Air. Although responsible for the demobilisation of the enlarged wartime British Army serving in France, his influence in all aspects of domestic British government was substantial. He used his authority to order the British Army to break strikes and quell all working-class protest and descent. He also ordered the British Army to clear-out around 20,000 British Chinese men who had fought with the British Army during WWI as labourers. At bayonet point, these men were rounded-up and deported on ships back to China.

!919: Beaten in this first campaign, the Entente, after having crushed the Soviets in Bavaria, Hungary, Estonia and Latvia, launched a new campaign in the autumn of 1919, enlisting, besides their own White troops, the armies of the small states bordering on Russia. Winston Churchill, then British Secretary for War, referred to this attempt as “the campaign of fourteen states.” (Joseph Stalin – A Short Biography, Various Editors, Foreign Language Press, 1947, Page 64)

1918-1921: ‘It was horribly reminiscent of Churchill’s Dardanelles illusions, the belief that will and optimism were more important than an adequacy of resources for the task envisaged. The idea that three-quarters of the enormous Russian territories were under effective Allied or counter-revolutionary control was a figment which Churchill’s imagination made him put into the mouth of Foch. There were about 30,000 Allied troops, nearly half of them British, under General Ironside in the Arctic ports of Archangel and Murmansk. There were another 30,000 under the White Russian General Deniken in the south, and perhaps most formidably there were the troops of the Siberian Provisional Government, under the equally White Admiral Kolchak, with its headquarters at Omsk. They had a sort of control over the trans-Siberian railway, but the forces available to the Admiral were somewhat heterogeneous, There were some French, some Americans and some Japanese, as well as two British battalions, that had somehow or other got there from Hong Kong (still more bizarrely, one of them was under the command of Colonel John Ward, Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent). Kalchek’s main military resources, however, were 70,000 Czech troops who were vaguely on their way home to Prague from Vladivostok. It was not, in retrospect at any rate, a formidable array with which to overcome Leon Trotsky’s revolutionary army, particularly as the latter was operating on interior lines of communication against a scattered opposition. But Churchill determined to put his faith and some considerable part of his reputation in backing these disparate elements. It did neither him nor them any good, and ended up in complete withdrawal and defeat. The result was a fairly quiet debacle, from which he escaped without disaster, but with his reputation far from enhanced. Foy many it reinforced the Antwerp-Dardanelles view that he was a rash military adventurer. It also had some important consequences for his political orientation.’

Roy Jenkins: Churchill, MacMillan, (2001), Page 351

1919: On January 31st, 1919, between 10,000 – 12,000 British troops were deployed by Secretary for War Winston Churchill throughout the City of Glasgow, as a means to contain and crush a working class strike and protest over long working hours. Churchill was already orchestrating military action within Revolutionary Russia, and was paranoid that a ‘Bolshevik’ Revolution was about to happen in the UK. When Scottish police failed to disperse the strikers – Churchill ordered in the British Army. This has become known as ‘Bloody Friday’ in Scotland, and the ‘Battle of George Square’ – although it must be stressed that at no time were the workers ‘armed’. An unspecified number were wounded by this action, before the British Army was ordered to withdrew.

1919: As Colonial Secretary – Winston Churchill advocated the use poisonous gas in Iraq. ‘I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas, I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes.’

1919-1921 Irish War of Independence. Winston Churchill was responsible for the recruitment and deployment of the so-called ‘Black and Tans’ – a paramilitary police force recruited almost exclusively from ex-soldiers from the British mainland. As Irish Independence was a popular cause throughout Ireland, very few Irishmen joined this ‘British’ police force. Churchill ensured (through lack of adequate control) that the ‘Black and Tans’ carried-out their work in a particularly brutal and murderous fashion. Churchill turned a blind eye to the antics of widespread vigilante attacks against ordinary Irish citizens – quite often in their homes and involving other family members. As these former British soldiers were well-trained, heavily armed and ill-disciplined (as Churchill intended), the true extent of their murdering and maiming remains unknown. With Eire’s independence, the ‘Black and Tans’ were dissolved in 1922.

1922: Admirer of Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. Churchill was of the opinion that as Revolutionary Russia developed into the USSR in late 1922, the fascist dictator Mussolini offered Western Europe a rightwing alternative to Socialism in general, and Bolshevism in particular.

1924: As Chancellor of the Exchequer, Winston Churchill, irrespective of the UK’s inflation rate, returned the UK to the ‘gold standard’. This has ongoing and devastating economics repercussions which led directly to the Wall Street Crash of 1929, and the subsequent ‘Great Depression’ across the Western world. Winston Churchill has also been implicated in the ‘Zinoviev Letter’ affair – which brought down the ‘first’ Labour Party Government. This was a fake letter published by the rightwing Daily Mail newspaper in the UK, falsely suggesting that the Labour Party was an extension of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

1926-1929: The young Tory MP Robert (later ‘Lord’) Boothby was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill. During the 1960’s, Lord Boothby became acquainted with the criminal Kray twins operating out of the East End of London. Ronnie Kray was a homosexual who preferred middle and upper-class men, whilst Lord Boothby liked working class boys. Boothby provided West End young men for Ronnie Kray, whilst Ronnie Kray would provide young working-class boys for Lord Boothby (who liked his victims to defecate upon him).

1931: Winston Churchill attacks Mahatma Gandhi’s anti-colonial activities – ‘It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir… striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice-regal Palace.’

1935: Winston Churchill publishes his book entitled ‘Great Contemporaries’, within which he states: ‘(Adolf Hitler is) a genius born of the miseries of Germany. We may yet live to see Hitler a gentlier figure in a happier age.’

1936: Winston Churchill condemns the Battle of Cable Street in East London, where hundreds of thousands of British working class Socialist people clashed with around 10,000 British fascists led by Oswald Mosley.

1936-1939: Winston Churchill criticises the British people who volunteer to travel of Spain and fight for the democratically elected, ‘Socialist’ Republican Government – against the Nazi German-backed fascist insurgency of General Franco.

1937: Winston Churchill re-publishes his ‘Great Contemporaries’, reiterating his admiration for Adolf Hitler – condemning the British working class for its opposition to fascism. In the same year, Churchill publishes his book entitled ‘Step by Step’, within which he states ‘One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.’

1937: Winston Churchill’s statement to the Palestine Royal Commission reads: ‘I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly-wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.’

Former King Edward Inspects Nazi SS Troops – 1937

1938: Winston Churchill takes measures to exclude returning British Veterans of the Spanish Civil War from mainstream society. Many lose their jobs, are excluded from Union Membership, and are permanently ‘banned’ from serving in the British Armed Forces even during times of war (and when ‘Conscription’ was in force). Churchill view this draconian action as an ‘anti-Communist’ move.

1939: Winston Churchill has Oxford graduate and British Communist Party Member – Tom Wintringham (1898-1949) – removed from his post as head of the ‘People’s Army’ – a voluntary military force in the UK consisted of Spanish Civil War Veterans prepared to defend the British Mainland from Nazi German invasion. Churchill has the organisation re-named the ‘Home Guard’, and falsely claims it to be his own invention.

1939: As Britain is under threat (and following the tradition of ancient Greece and Rome), the democratic system is ‘suspended’ for the duration of hostilities with Nazi Germany. Governance of the UK is ‘shared’ by the three leading parties, Labour, Liberals and Tories. Winston Churchill is chosen to lead the three parties as an elder statesman. Until 1945, he delivers rousing speeches written by a team of speech-writers dishonestly presented as ‘his own work’.

1940: On May 8th, Winston Churchill ordered the Royal Navy to transport around 800 Royal Marines to Iceland with the intention of ‘invading’ that sovereign nation. The British troops landed with no opposition and were confronted by a bemused Icelandic population. Iceland had declared its ‘Independence’ from Denmark on April 16th, 1940, and was immediately recognised and supported by a still neutral USA. This was a blatant act of British imperialist aggression committed around a month before the British defeat at Dunkirk. In a bizarre twist, Churchill handed Iceland to the Americans in 1941 –  marking a US presence that did not end until 2006.

1940: During the Dunkirk Evacuation of the defeated British Expeditionary Force (BEF) from France (which happened between May 26th – June 4th, 1940), Adolf Hitler (for no discernible reason) calls a ‘halt’ to the Nazi German advance. This break in the fighting allowed the greater part of the BEF to be rescued and returned to the UK (although other British formations remained and were captured). As successive British Governments have refused to release the files dealing with this time, it has been speculated that Winston Churchill brokered a deal with Hitler along the lines that the UK would align itself with Nazi Germany in any future attack upon the USSR.

1940: During the Dunkirk Evacuation, Churchill perpetuated the propaganda that France and Britain stood ‘arm in arm’ as they faced the Nazi German menace. Churchill encouraged the French Army to heroically ‘defend’ the Dunkirk beaches whilst the British Forces were transported back to the UK, following which the French Army would then also be evacuated. However, as soon as it became clear that the majority of British Forces had left France from Dunkirk, Churchill ‘cancelled’ the order to rescue the French. The fact is that without the assistance of the French Army protecting the port of Dunkirk and its surrounding beaches, the British could not have evacuated their defeated army. Admiral Darlan – the head of the French Navy at the time of Dunkirk stated, ‘The prospect of getting out suddenly made the crawling British grow wings…’ He added that if it were not for the presence of two French Admirals on the spot at Dunkirk, Abrial and Platon, the Dunkirk evacuation could not have happened at all. The French casualties amounted to at least 18,000, with another 35,000 captured. By comparison, the British lost just 3,500 killed during the evacuation. British propaganda (then as now) depicts the French as cowardly and not involved in the battle at all, or only in a peripheral sense, blaming the defeat on the lack of RAF cover (a myth regurgitated in the latest film adaptation), when in fact the RAF lost an astonishing 127 aeroplanes during the battle!

1940: Following the formal French surrender to Nazi Germany on the June 22nd, 1940, Churchill ordered the commencement of ‘Operation Catapult’ which involved the Royal Navy attacking the French Naval Fleet whilst at peaceful anchor in the French Algerian base at Mers-el-Kébir. This attack upon France by its ally cost the lives of 1,297 French Serviceman. In one battle, Churchill managed to kill more French sailors than were killed throughout the entire duration of WWII by the Nazi Germans!

1941: Lord Forbes-Sempill – after travelling to Japan in the early 1920s – had become convinced that ‘Imperial’ (fascist) Japan offered a new model through which all societies could be re-organised. From 1925 onwards – Lord Forbes-Sempill started openly ‘spying’ for the Imperial Japanese government – passing sensitive military data via the Mitsubishi factory which was located in London (Lord Sempill would also receive his ‘pay’ from the Mitsubishi Accounts Department in London). MI5 called him in in 1926 and asked him to ‘tone-down’ the activity. As the British Establishment (led by Churchill) was busy ‘illegally’ destroying the Labour Party at the time, it was felt that it would not be good business if a prominent member of the British upper-classes was wilfully spying for a) a foreign power, and b) a ‘non-White’ power to boot! Lord Sempill was unfazed and unapologetic. His attitude was one of class-arrogance and natural dominance. As a consequence, and given that MI5 did ‘nothing’ in 1926 – Lord Sempill continued to ‘spy’ for Imperial Japan right up until just before the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbour in late-1941. MI5 wanted him dismissed from the Royal Navy (where he held the rank of ‘Commander’) and imprisoned. As Britain and Japan had been good allies for decades – Lord Sempill could not be formally charged as both countries were not yet at war and were on good terms – at least ‘officially’. Prime Minister Winston Churchill interceded yet again and demanded that Lord Sempill merely be ‘moved’ to another Department despite the risk to security he represented. Lord Sempill was ‘warned’ yet again and posted to a remote Royal Navy outpost situated in North Scotland. In the meantime, two (Scottish) male youths (one aged 17 and the other 21 years-old) decided to telephone the German Legation situated in Ireland as a ‘joke’. Both were imprisoned for five years for ‘endangering the safety of the country’. How different the working-class was treated when compared to the upper-class! Lord Sempill, of course, was just one of many members of the British aristocracy that openly supported the fascist countries around the world (such as Lord Tavistock, etc). (See: Hitler’s British Traitors by Tim Tate – 2019).

1941: Whilst refusing to ‘arm’ the local Chinese population and to provide adequate troops and weaponry for its defence, Winston Churchill orders the British colony of Hong Kong ‘not to surrender’ against a ferocious Japanese invasion. Sikh police officers in the British Administration immediately defect to the invading Japanese, and the colony falls on Xmas Day, 1941. Japanese massacres begin almost immediately.

1942: ‘It would be idle to speculate on what would have happened to Russia, Britain and the United States 1941-5, if they had not been united in their determination to crush Nazi Germany. It may well have been a “strange alliance” (as it was described by General John R Deane, head of the American Military Mission in Moscow towards the end of the war), and its breakdown after the job was done may have been inevitable, despite the formal twenty-year alliance that Russia and Britain had signed in 1942, and other good wartime resolutions. Whatever members of the John Birch Society and other politically certifiable people (to use my friend Sir Denis Brogan’s phrase) may say today about our having fought “on the wrong side”, we must say “thank God for the Strange Alliance”.’ (Alexander Werth: Russia at War, Barrie and Rockliff, (1964) Page xiii). Churchill signed a 20 year alliance with the USSR in 1942 – a treaty immediately broken by the incumbent Labour Party in 1945 – under pressure from President Truman and an out of power Churchill as they laid the foundations for the ‘Cold War’!

1942: Winston Churchill ordered the Dieppe Raid as a means to ‘test’ Nazi German defences in Northern France. This led to the death or capture of around 3000 British and Canadian troops for no discernible gain. Churchill later tried to blame his bad judgement as the result of pressure from the Soviet Union. Churchill breaks the Geneva Convention by ordering – in writing – that the hands of all German POWs captured at Dieppe should be ‘tied’ – like a common criminal – despite never a) committing a crime, or b) being found ‘guilty’ in a Court of law of committing a crime. Many German POWs with shackled hands ‘drowned’ as a consequence when the British troop ships they were being transported in were sunk.

1942: Churchill’s War Cabinet produces the ‘Beverage Report’ calling for a raising of tax for a radical re-distribution of wealth throughout British society. Churchill reluctantly agrees with this report at the time – but subsequently campaigned against any form of Socialism or working-class empowerment.

1943: Churchill originally stated that he thought all Nazi German (and Axis) War Criminals should be ‘shot’ as quickly and as quietly as possible at the end of hostilities to save both time and money for the Allies. This was to avoid any complications associated with a ‘military’ trial having to be ‘adjusted’ and ‘justified’ from a complicated legal perspective, to operate in the realm of ‘civil’ law. A Court Martial can last about a minute – followed by the condemned being immediately ‘shot’ – but this was felt to be too quick and from the position of Civil Law – ‘unfair’. It was the Soviet leader – Joseph Stalin – who suggested that each of the accused should have be afforded with the automatic ‘right’ to a trial presided over by the four principal Allies – the US, UK, France and the USSR. Furthermore, Joseph Stalin was of the opinion that the trial should be ‘international’ in legal context, with a careful consideration of which part of what legal system or tradition should be used to judge some of the gravest crimes and atrocities ever committed in the history of humanity. President Roosevelt agreed with the position of Joseph Stalin and was alarmed at the opinion of Churchill. As the French were in favour of a careful recording of all the Nazi German crimes (particularly those suffered in their country), they also supported the view of Joseph Stalin and Churchill’s idea of summary executions was voted down. Churchill’s opposition to the trials ended (according to the work of Christopher Dodd) after the suicides of Hitler and Goebbels. At the Tehran Conference (which started on November, 28th, 1943), Joseph Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill met over a number of days to discuss what the Allies would do at the end of the war. Although Churchill was excluded from a number of meetings between Stalin and Roosevelt – Roosevelt discussed the establishing of an international organisation that would include the four Allies plus China (a point he was adamant be accepted). Furthermore, at a Soviet Embassy Dinner, Stalin – knowing that Churchill favoured ‘summary executions’ – made a joke at Churchill’s expense, suggesting the Allies should only ‘summarily shoot’ shoot between 50,000 to 150,000 Nazi War Criminals! Roosevelt – playing along – responded by suggesting that the number should be kept to just 49,000! A disgruntled (and ungracious) Churchill replied by expressing the exact opposite to his personal view and the view of the British government (which would not change for another two years) by stating that neither he (nor his country) would partake in any punishment of Nazi German War Criminals without them first being subjected to a ‘trial’. Was this Churchill’s attempt at a ‘joke’, or was it a blatant ‘lie’? Whatever the reality, the above exchange has been used in support of the usual ‘inverted’ US (anti-intellectual) narrative that came to represent the Cold War. Numerous (Western) authors now cite this exchange (bizarrely) as ‘proof’ of Stalin’s maniacal and insane personality, and of Churchill’s just, caring and above all ‘democratic’ attitudes! This deliberate ‘misreading’ and ‘falsification’ of Soviet history is a mainstream phenomenon in the West, and even raises its head from time to time in modern Russia!  

1943-1944: Winston Churchill ordered the British Army in Bengal (India) to commandeer all the food supplies in the area, and deny the local population any sustenance. This led to a famine throughout the region that killed around 4 million people (some estimates suggest a figure of between 12-29 million deaths). The numbers are in dispute due to the fog of war and allegations of British maladministration of the entire affair, in an attempt to cover-up Churchill’s Crime Against Humanity.


1944: Majdanek Concentration Camp (Poland). When British BBC correspondent Alexander Werth reported that he had been in the Red Army frontline when it had liberated the Majdanek Concentration Camp, Winston Churchill forbade the BBC from transmitting the details of the brutality and mass murder discovered – instead referring to this information as ‘Communist propaganda’, designed to make people feel ‘sorry’ for Soviet suffering!

1944: During the Warsaw Rising of August-September – Churchill attempted to coordinate the reinstatement of the rightwing Polish government (then living a life of luxurious exile in London) with the successful advance of the Red Army into Warsaw. Churchill’s man on the ground was Bor-Komarowski who led the Polish uprising following orders from London (and Washington) but with no consultation with Moscow. The Polish insurgents were poorly armed and initiated their uprising at the exact moment the Nazi Germans launched a highly effective counter-attack which pushed the Red Army a number of miles out of Warsaw. As the pressure was relieved upon the centre of Warsaw, and given that the Polish insurgents had failed to achieve any of their objectives, they were easily neutralised by the Nazi German forces. Although the Red Army was losing tens of thousands of men in the bitter fighting – Churchill referred to their efforts as “strange and sinister behaviour”. Bor-Komarowski surrendered to the Nazi German forces and eventually told his story of “Russian treachery” in Stanislas Mikolajczyk’s book entitled the ‘Rape of Poland’. This followed the Churchillian-narrative of the Soviets deliberately sabotaging their own liberation efforts to deny Churchill the opportunity to re-establish the rightwing (anti-Soviet) government in Poland. Alexander Werth covers this episode in his ‘Russia at War 1941-1945’, supplying background information proving Churchill and Bor-Komarowski wrong. Years later, the anti-Soviet narrative of the ‘Rape of Poland’ would morph into the equally fallacious ‘Rape of Berlin’.

1944: Once Charles De Gaulle had been formally backed by the rightwing Winston Churchill, his job was to divert any and all Socialist Revolutionary thinking, and as quickly as possible, reinstate exactly the same bourgeois thinking (and State) that pervaded France in the decades leading up to the Nazi German invasion. This rightwing Churchill-De Gaulle nexus was a disaster for the Communist-led Resistance that had paid a tremendous cost with their lives. Thirty thousand of the Resistance had been shot, and out of the 120,000 men and women who had been deported as ‘slaves’ to Germany, only 35,000 returned, usually with permanent psychological and physical damage:

‘…de Gaulle’s prestige was such that he could in 1944 have got all the necessary support, “had he remained faithful to his mission”. But De Gaulle was to turn his back on the Resistance. Time and again de Gaulle had cold-shouldered and insulted the Resistance leaders during his triumphal journeys through France in the autumn of 1944. And on the day of the Liberation of Paris he had uttered the word “Renovation”, and had avoided the word “Revolution”.’

Alexander Werth: France 1940-1955, Robert Hale, (1956), Page 175. Werth is paraphrasing the words of French Resistance fighter Claude Bourdet (1909-1996).

Churchill & de Gaulle – Two Rghtwing Reactionaries

1940-1944: Churchill played a double-game with regards to occupied France. Whilst abandoning the  French Army at Dunkirk and perpetuating the myth of French ‘cowardice’, Churchill also demanded that every French person resist the Nazi German occupiers in every way possible, and that Britain would arm and finance this struggle from afar. De Gaulle, exiled as he was in the UK, managed to raise only relatively small amounts from the British State, which he passed on to the desperate (and disparate) French Resistance. Following the Nazi German defeat at Stalingrad in 1943, the German Authorities in France intensified the ‘Deportation’ of French adults to Germany proper, to work in slave-like conditions. In the meantime, Churchill instructed that the BBC broadcast news bulletins that glorified the RAF blanket-bombing of such German cities as Hamburg, Frankfurt, and Cologne, whilst ignoring the suffering of the French people. The reality was that Churchill knew that the French Resistance did not possess any proper arms (or training) to carry-out any significant military actions against the Nazi Germans or the Vichy collaborators, and this is exactly how he wanted matters to stay. Although French people bravely died due to this lack of resources, Churchill could continue to perpetuate the myth of French cowardice to the world (a lie that persists to this day). Alexander Werth, in his book entitled ‘France 1940-1955’, states that Churchill ordered that France be given small amounts of money and no arms because he thought these resources would be used by French Communists. Indeed, the several hundred men of the Montagne Noire Marquis Resistance Unit in 1943, possessed the following weapons: 60 muskets, 2 rusty sub-machine guns, 2 grenades, 45 revolvers, and 4 Lebel rifles. It was only when the D-Day Operation approached that Churchill finally allowed an increase in money and weapons to be delivered to the French Resistance – but by this time, many thousands of brave French men and women had already been killed by the Nazi Germans and their Vichy allies, during anti-Resistance operations (often carried-out in retaliation to the RAF ‘terror-bombing’ campaigns).

1945: Winston Churchill, in collusion with Pope Pious XII, ordered the resettlement of an SS Regiment in Scotland – with the cover story that these men (who had committed mass murder and other atrocities on the Eastern Front during the Nazi German invasion of the Soviet Union) – were relocated Polish refugees. Churchill carried-out this pro-fascist policy whilst criticising the Labour Party’s plans for a ‘Socialist-style’ National Health Service (NHS) and comprehensive Welfare State. As WWII drew to a close, Churchill supported the militarily pointless atomic bombing of Japan.

1945: Churchill told Roosevelt and Stalin (at Yalta) that he wanted key Nazi Germans ‘executed without trial’ instead of being tried in by a court of law. Roosevelt and Stalin refused – both insisting that the best way forward was open trials. I suspect Churchill was afraid of what might be given as evidence by the high-ranking Nazis at any such trial, particularly when it is considered that he (Churchill) had been rumoured to have agreed secret deals with Hitler behind the scenes (as British military personnel were fighting and dying). The Guardian is no friend of Socialism today, and is obviously anti-Soviet in its reporting, but the details contained here, yet again demonstrate the fascist streak within Churchill’s character. Of course, his brain-washed apologists will see only sweetness and light in this 2012 revelation! It must be remembered that the US Cold War rhetoric only really kicked-in within the UK in 1951 – after Churchill’s re-election, and I suspect that if the British public had known of Churchill’s ‘undemocratic’ decision, he would have faced open dissent. As matters transpired, his unpopularity amonst the British working class, was reflected in the landslide Labour Party victory (won on a Socialist ticket) in 1945, meaning that by the time the Nuremberg Trials began in November, 1945, Churchill was nolonger in power.

1945-1946 War in Vietnam: Ho Chi Minh’s ‘Viet Minh’ freedom fighters in Vietnam had been promised ‘Independence’ from French (and Japanese) colonial rule by Churchill, if they fought against the Japanese on behalf of the Allied cause during WWII. However, under the terms of the 1941 Atlantic Charter, both Churchill and Roosevelt agreed that all occupied territories had to be return to their pre-war governments upon the secession of hostilities. A particularly bitter pill for Ho Chi Minh to swallow was that the British Army ‘re-armed’ the surrendered Imperial Japanese Forces, which then re-deployed to yet again terrorise the Vietnamese population. This pro-colonial policy of Churchill would lead to the wars in Vietnam between the French, the Americans and the Vietnamese people. These wars would lead to millions of Vietnamese deaths.

Churchill & Truman Prepare to Deceive the World!

1946: Fulton Speech, Missouri, USA. Churchill (applauded by US President Harry Truman), delivers a speech which lays the rhetorical foundation for the US derived ‘Cold War’ (so-called as it was considered by Churchill that the USSR would be ‘scared’ back to its 1939 borders through the threat of military action and atomic bombing by the West, without developing into a ‘Hot War’ of actual military exchange). Although Churchill had been ousted from his unelected office of Prime Minister by a Socialist Labour Party in 1945, he nevertheless exercised a destructive presence on the world stage, which set the anti-Soviet agenda until 1991 and beyond (Communist China and North Korea are still subject to Churchill’s corrosive influence, as is the ‘history’ of the USSR). At Fulton, Harry Truman, using Churchill as his ‘frontman’, established a new US anti-Soviet position that Churchill automatically applied to the rest of the world. In response to Churchill generating the ‘Iron Curtain’ myth, Truman implied that the US would finance the British empire, and attempt to keep India ‘British’ (the Labour Party had other ideas). Churchill’s Fulton speech had no political reality or reason other than Harry Truman’s rightwing, Christian bigotry, and Churchill’s anti-working class and racist attitudes, and yet it was allowed to permeate all sections of the Western psyche (and still does). All treaty agreements with the USSR were unilaterally abandoned by the US and Britain (with Churchill dishonestly claiming that Stalin had initiated this breakdown in political relations), and through the Truman Doctrine and the Marshal Plan, the basis of the anti-Socialist European Union and militarily aggressive ‘NATO’ were born. Europe was to be stripped of its political and military independence, and ‘de-Socialised’ so that it became an extension of the US culture and US foreign policy. This strategy developed into one of the West attempting to push the USSR into making an aggressive military move, which would then be met with a massive nuclear retaliation. Two books which correctly portray this period in world history are Alexander Werth’s Russia: The Post War Years, and Andrew Alexander’s America and the Imperialism of Ignorance: US Foreign Policy since 1945, amongst many others.

1946-1949 Greek Civil War. During the brutal Nazi German (and Fascist Italian)  occupation of Greece during WWII, the ‘Communist’ Democratic Army of Greece (DSE), also known as the ‘People’s Army’, offered the only real resistance to this fascist tyranny. Most Greek people at the time supported a ‘Socialist’ Revolution, but Churchill retained a Greek rightwing ‘government in exile’, that had no intention of allowing any kind of leftwing administration after the war. Furthermore, Churchill had entered into an understanding with Stalin as part of the Percentages Agreement of October, 1944, that the USSR would not support a Socialist Revolution in Greece. Churchill’s interference in the internal affairs of Greece, and his support for a rightwing government, led to the deaths of over 150,000 Greek people AFTER WWII had come to an end.

1946: Smarting from his comprehensive electoral defeat in 1945, and having witnessed the coming to power of a ‘Socialist’ Labour Party, Winston Churchill makes his infamous ‘Iron Curtain’ speech  in 1946, and actively assisted President Truman to initiate the US ‘Cold War’ anti-Soviet disinformation programme. Churchill was concerned that the Labour Party was planning an ‘alliance’ with the Soviet Union, and a ‘Communist Revolution’ in Britain. Churchill backed the anti-Socialist Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan not only in the UK, but across the entirety of Western Europe. This US interference within European politics eventually morphed into the anti-Socialist ‘European Union’ (EU).

1947: On May 14th, Churchill gave his ‘Europe Arise’ speech at the Royal Albert Hall, within which he advocated the forming of a ‘United States of Europe’. He defined this ‘United Europe’ as embodying ‘Freedom, justice, honour, duty, charity.’ He stated that Britain and France would be the pivotal ‘founders’ of this union which must be premised upon the ‘reintegration of Germany, with her industrial genius.’ This was a response by Churchill in support of a call from US President Truman for Socialism to be stamped-out across Europe, with US-style predatory capitalism firmly taking its place. As a reward for steering Western Europe away from the influence of the Soviet Union, the United States would grant generous financial loans and material aid to assist in the reconstruction of a shattered Europe still underway after WWII. For this plan to work, a re-armed and rightwing Germany had to be created to serve as a bulwark against any potential advance of the Red Army into Western Europe. The problem was that many countries in Europe preferred Socialism and had no intention of re-arming a Germany that under Hitler had just killed tens of millions of people in its racialised pogroms prior to – and during WWII! Churchill effectively presented the blueprint for the modern European Union (EU), which was a means of spreading and consolidating US political and economic hegemony Western Europe (a policy now being projected into Eastern Europe through various Western-backed neo-Nazi Movements). (Alexander Werth: France 1940-1955, Robert Hale, (1956), Page 358

1948-1960: Malaya Emergency. Winston Churchill had become Prime Minister in 1951, and continued the existing British imperialist policy in the colony of Malaya. During WWII, Malayan and Chinese Communist Partisans were promised independence by Churchill if they fought for the Allies against the Imperial Japanese. However, following Japan’s surrender in 1945, Churchill sent in the British Army to put-down the Malay Independence Movement. In 1948, the British Army would commit the atrocity of ‘Batang Kali’. Churchill saw the Malaya Emergency as an important resistance to the perceived threat of the spread of International Communism, and refused to hold the British Army accountable for its actions.

1950-1953: Korean War. Winston Churchill had become Prime Minister in 1951 – and continued the Labour Party’s support for the US and UN intervention in Korea. This included an unquestioned parroting of an essentially ‘racist’ US Cold War rhetoric against North Korea and Communist China, which had no basis in fact. As Communist Forces began to inflict humiliating defeats upon Western Military Forces, Churchill, fearing the possibility of a defeat to Communist Forces, changed his tune and began to advocate negotiation and ceasefire. However, in a 1950 pre-election speech, Winston Churchill suggests that British Socialism is an ‘evil’, and that Soviet Communism is exactly the same as Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism, stating that the ‘Free World’ must fight once again to defeat the ‘materialist religion’ of Communism. Churchill, of course, says nothing about the US use of biological and chemical weapons in Korea, or the millions of civilians killed by UN Forces.

1951: Whilst elected Prime Minister, Winston Churchill began an immediate attack upon the NHS (introducing pointless ‘Prescription Charges’), and the Welfare State. Many of the draconian and fascistic elements of the ‘Department of Work and Pensions’ (as it is now known) derived from Churchill’s time in office. Although the British working class paid for the NHS and Welfare State through taxation, and despite ample finance being raised, Churchill instigated the idea that this Socialist provision was ‘failing’ and could not be ‘afforded’ – both false assumptions. From this time onward, anyone seeking free healthcare or benefits would be treated with disrespect and derision by governmental staff. For Churchill, only the ‘rich’ deserved a secure or happy life.

1954: Chemical Castration of Alan Turing (the Enigma Code Breaker during WWII). Turing committed suicide shortly after. Churchill was instrumental in Turing’s prosecution for being ‘gay’.

1955: During a Cabinet meeting in January, 1955, Churchill suggested that the Tories should campaign for the next General Election by using the slogan ‘Keep England White’.

This is an ongoing ‘Crimes of Churchill Project’, with new details being added regularly. The point is that Winston Churchill was a rightwing racist, who had no interest in the welfare and development of British working class, or any workers from around the world. His notoriety is a contrivance fabricated and maintained by the middle classes and those who are invested with high office. He was and remains a dictator of the worst kind, propelled into democratic governments and positions of immense power and social influence. He misused that power to pursue a destructive Tory narrative much the same as that currently prevalent in the UK. A an opponent of the NHS and Welfare System in the UK, he was of the opinion that the British working class should firmly ‘know its place’, and never be allowed to develop beyond poverty, hardship and oppression. Churchill most certainly is NOT a hero of any sort, and the youth of this country are advised to through-off the oppressive yoke of pseudo history and learn about the REAL Winston Churchill. Do not inflict middle class lies a delusion upon another generation. Think for yourselves always, evolve psychologically and physically, and in so doing, become proficient in critical thinking.

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2018.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s