Churchill’s Evil Tribulation.

It has been some 70 years since the fall of the last European war, prior to that there were many variations of hostilities in which Europe countries participated for the sake of sovereignty, power  projection, resources, consolidation, and cultural arrogance of aristocratic governments. They fought amongst themselves, neighbouring countries, and visited their malign egotism upon other nations further afield.  As of now many of the believed acts of atrocious behaviour undertook by nations and notable individuals of those nation, are still rolling through the decades and are often picked on to examine and pontificate over to demonstrate the sophistication, modernity and civility of the current era, against what has gone before, with the comfort of intellectual detachment un-inflicted by hindering consequences of the impact of exiting acts of dubious conduct. 

Since it is difficult to visit upon the past, the ethics and moral interpreted virtues of today, adjusted as they are by the passage of time, experiences and lacking the overall environs of the time upon which a critical accusation can be laid, it is one thinks, somewhat lame to be too proscriptive with individuals whom it is judge to have been complicit in malevolence of the past but it is fair to note, within a context, laudable attributes or acts, against the appalling ones are nailed upon those thought responsible, in seeking a potential balanced opinion. And that is all that such an effort of reinterpretation is, an opinion yet it should be one, if judge correctly offer a way of understanding the past milieu, recognise the postulated ‘errors’ of the time but use it as a setting to insure that similar repudiated state of affairs are not fostered into the present. An ineffective task one thinks given the moral and ethical interpretations of actions in any time are subject to influential contingencies.

There is little point in trying to eliminate the questionable history of the putative disgraced individual, the statues of honour / remembrance, or the legacy of ‘good deeds’ done after the ‘bad’ to purchase a free pass to the pearly gates; wiping out the sins of the past or expunging all deeds as some would have it does not change the present. GodAllah knows one does not have to look too far to see there continues to be states of affairs today that can mirror the milieu of the recent past and the part that individuals have done and still participate.

What brings this issue to mind is the recent 2017 film Darkest Hour set in 1940 depicting Winston Churchill as Prime Minister during World War II and his actions in leading the country’s fight against Nazis Germany but also linked to this by a comment of the current shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, when asked in February this year if the wartime British prime minister was a hero or a villain, McDonnell replied: “Tonypandy. Villain”.  (a)

Not surprisingly this stirred up an element of the grateful acolyte adherents to the myths of notable esteemed persons of which Churchill is positioned as one and his heroic deeds were not to be undone by anyone of low standing least of all a labour member of parliament. 

That such held elevated views of Churchill, as the UK’s war time ‘hero’, as a great man, who saved the country and could do no wrong; was for some of a generation an unquestioned stance but with the passing of time in a period of relative peace for Europe and particularly the UK, this view of great men with exposed history, is challenged to the extent, that him, like some others, are castigated and do not deserve to be held with any high reverence. Is it fair to expose them of their nefarious deeds of the past; deeds which today can be perhaps impartially assessed to match the assumed image of greatness with a clearer reality of all the deeds of the person, deeds that catches up with them, even after their death?

So for example and not to be definitive, why do some wish to rewrite a perception of historic notables like Rhodes, Churchill, and Thatcher? It may add to the viewed perception of such people, it will improve the understanding of the context of deeds, maybe how good those deeds were and no doubt in some cases justifiably help pull down the glorified image built by them and for them but does the ‘new  appreciation’ of them really help correct their accused reprehensible acts? One thinks this is unlikely, there is for some, advantage in preserving and to proliferate the myths of their greatness to foist onto the general populace and frankly one does not think that the larger section of the populace really care unless they have been advantaged or harmed by the dead heads of history. Many notables, like Churchill will have certainly caused lasting harm that may outlast the good but it will depend on which side of the balance preference is preferred.   

Just to wrap up with an imperfect assessment of the defrocking of the celebrated myth of this person and as an example of actions that should be known and laid against the over hyped view maintained of this man. It is worth noting why McDonnell placed Churchill in the villain category. He was using his knowledge of an incident in the Tonypandy south Wales town of November 1910, when one miner was killed and about 580 people, including 80 policemen, were injured. It was reputed that Churchill, as home secretary, sent 200 police, with some Lancashire Fusiliers to stop riots after police attempted to break miners’ picket line. An action that gained a long memory with the Labour party and in Wales, all blamed on Churchill.

Shortly after this in 1911 the Liverpool general transport strike took place involving Dockers, Railway workers, Sailors and workers from other trades all complaining over the wages of poverty. (A situation similar to that of Tonypandy were miners then attempted to improve wages and living conditions in a desperately destitute area, where wages had been kept calculatingly low for many years; in the miner’s case by a cartel of mine owners). Winston Churchill as home secretary sent in 3500 British troops, stationed in the city in preparation and located a battle cruiser HMS Antrim in the Mersey ready to fire on the city. On St. George's Plateau regular meeting were held by the workers and on the 13 August after reading the ‘riot act’ police baton charged the throng of 85,000 people, 350+ people were injured. Two days later, soldiers opened fire on an unarmed crowd on Vauxhall Road, injuring fifteen, two fatally. An inquest into their deaths later brought in a verdict of 'justifiable homicide'. From these two episodes one might see that he was unperturbed in unifying a conflict even on home ground, to keep the peasants in order and make a point; an attitude that stemmed from his forceful background experiences.

Churchill was born in 1874 and died in 1967. His long political career came from his surroundings being the grandson of the Duke of Marlborough and his controversial father, Lord Randolph, a Tory MP, with himself being elected to the House of Commons in 1900, during the reign of Queen Victoria. He served in cabinet as president of the Board of Trade under Edward VII in 1908 and gained a number of gratifying position over the ensuring years to be the present Queen’s first prime minister and played as prime minister, chancellor, home secretary and MP until the 1964.

Born into a Britain that had an empire built on force, oppression, war and killing barbarous primitives people, which being a part of the superior English white race, was quite acceptable to him. On his own admission he had a great time rampaging around on horseback in Africa and India, creating devastation and killing troublesome native savages. He had no trouble defending the use of concentration camps in South Africa, for white Boers, in which some 40K white and black humans died for resisting imperial rule.

He was of an attitude that today would be seen as completely unacceptably racist but then an unacknowledged racist of his time of the first order of power and influence. He believed in the white man supremacy, preferable English and saw his role in life to maintain that position for queen and country. When colonial secretary in the 1920s, he formed and gave free rein to infamous Black and Tan criminals on Ireland’s Catholic civilians to forestall Irish independence, and is reputedly have said “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes, it would spread a lively terror.” this against Kurds opposing to the British empire but perhaps one could extend this attitude to many others had he a mind to.

Churchill disliked democracy, only tolerated for white people as an inconvenience to be managed; a dislike of democracy amplified by his hatred of Indians seeking independence or any others not being pale skinned. He was quite relaxed when in 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused by British policies in which some 3m starved to death and although British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region, he refused. His comment was that it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits” and said plague was “merrily” culling of the population. (b)

He was known for being extreme in views; egotistical, ambiguous, arrogant, opportunistic and seeking conflicts in the empire for the greater good of the British Empire against rivals. He was disliked and mistrusted by many fellow MPs because of his outlandish rants, with at one time Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, warned by Cabinet colleagues, not to appoint him to a position because his views were so antiquated.

He was in part responsible for the modern trouble of Iraq, and the ongoing land theft problems afflicting Palestinians during and after with creation of Israel and their ‘ethnic cleansing’ drive for their own god (Tetragrammaton = Jehovah) given Jewish homeland.

Churchill’s career was mixed with glorious empire showmanship (for him) and monumental balls-up that made him a liability to be associated with. He did though have a sense of the unsettling time of the early 20th century up to the 1930 when he with a few others voiced the menace of Nazi Germany, Hitler and the peril of disarmament and appeasement. Two British prime ministers of the 1930s, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, chose to disregard his warnings having gone through the last war so soon and unwilling to be drawn into another conflict; resisted his aggressive stance and with some MPs pressing influences of appeasement, the government’s attitude was rather not to take preparatory action that could be seen as a challenge to Hitler.

As events unfolded across Europe by the late 30’s his call for action was shown to be correct even though the UK was still largely unprepared for the war and his role in the second war secured his position as leader. It is said that he was more of a talker orator than a strategist and taken to issuing instant decision not based on comprehensive judgment but a need to act decisively, perhaps to match his background experience being energised by killing fights to obliterate the ‘enemy’ as a ‘warmonger’ and in this, one decisive exploit laid at his door was the destruction of the city of Dresden in Germany, as a way of breaking the enemy’s spirit and for retaliation of attacks on England. This destruction is now thought to have been unnecessary, some articles suggest later it was, and should be considered a war crime; not that it was ever likely that an actual charge would be made for obvious reasons, in any event Churchill manoeuvred later to distances himself from responsibility.

One can trawl over the history of Churchill’s actions and find many hostile indications to his acquired importance, which can lead one to think he is not deserving of unbiased accolades of his greatness, a prominence guarded and polished up by many existing parliamentarians for their own advantage. Like others that are given the mantle of greatness in the public arena, often it is underserved when looked at their overall contribution to a nation, gained due to their privileged position of power, but often bestowed in narrow and singular circumstances and not of overall broadly beneficial consequence throughout their tenure. Such greatness attached to them is maintained to override their unacceptable attributes which are covertly hidden until documents are exposed from scrutiny. Destabilisation of the elevated status of those of privileged power, is not easy to successfully challenge for often it suits the state or a division to hold too and foster the myths of those that they have been associated with and having a notable figurehead can hide others complicity in a nations insalubrious acts.  

From one’s own tempered opinion and with kin authority linked with contemporary understanding, one could say that yes he was, with his inclinations, a war monger but he was the UKs war monger at a time when there was a need to invest war making authority into the hands of a coalition dictator use to being single minded in the pursuit of a personal agenda, to pursue with outright prejudice, a plan for survival as was that case, for the country, in that war. Was he a villain as McDonald said? Well he was a part of the aristocratic political establishment that still expected dereference from the lower orders and expected them to know their place and certainly not cause upset to the way things were and should run; in that he would most certainly have to be seen to protect the ruling order as a priority against the proletariat mob, which he did and it did not seem to cause him any discomfort. Probably like many ambitious power seekers, he was a villain occasionally but it did not make him overall, a long term nasty piece of work, maybe?

One can only hope and pray that we are not to see or need the likes of him again though.

© Renot

272191651

(a) Guardian 13.2.19

(b) Richard Toye’s new history, Churchill’s Empire