It seems the more digging one does, the more the history of the world is not what we’ve been told.

Case in point: Winston Churchill was not the great war hero and champion of peace as he is depicted. He was a bellicose bungler, a dysfunctional drunk, and the cause of most everything we’ve been told were the greatest tragedies of World War II.

It wasn’t as if it was any secret that Churchill was a risky choice as Prime Minister when he took office following the resignation of Neville Chamberlain on May 10, 1940.

During World War I it was his half-baked planning that led to the British disaster at Gallipoli in 1915-16. The Battle of Gallipoli was an unsuccessful attempt by the Allied Powers to control the sea route from Europe to Russia. Lack of sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the terrain, along with a fierce Turkish resistance, led to the failure of the invasion.

Spearheaded by Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty, the naval attack on Gallipoli began with a long-range bombardment by British and French battleships on February 19, 1915. In large part because the battle was going so badly, Churchill resigned his post May 25, 1915, leaving others to deal with the mess he’d helped create. By mid-October, Allied forces had suffered 140,000-200,000 casualties and had made little headway from their initial landing sites. Evacuation began in December 1915, and was completed early the following January.

DinnerWithChurchill-1Similarly, it was on his second watch as First Lord of the Admiralty (September 3, 1939–May 11, 1940) that Great Britain embarked on its hasty and ill-planned invasions of Narvik in Norway from April 9 to June 8, 1940—another British disaster. Intended to prevent the country from being occupied by Nazi Germany, the operation’s failure saw a German invasion and led to the downfall of prime minister Neville Chamberlain, Churchill’s predecessor in Downing Street.
Hitler nursed great hopes that Germany and England could achieve a peace between them and perpetuate the world order established by the two great white races of Europe. Indeed, he wanted only peace and friendship with Britain.
In his book The Other Side of the Hill, British military historian Sir Basil Liddell-Hart quotes German General von Blumentritt on Hitler’s stop order at Dunkirk: “He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire was achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying.’ He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church, saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable, but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere…”
The “miracle at Dunkirk” was in fact an extraordinary peace overture to England.
In his book Churchill’s Deception, Louis Kilzer quoted Hitler: “The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to shed. Our two peoples belong together racially and traditionally. This is and always has been my aim, even if our generals can’t grasp it.”
476449411-british-prime-minister-winston-churchill-cigar-troop-visitAccording to Kilzer, Hitler offered to pull out of France, retreat from the Low Countries, retreat from Norway and Denmark, and give up much of Poland (except East Prussia) in exchange for peace with Britain. Except for ethnically-German territories, all of occupied Europe was to have its sovereignty restored. Hitler wanted an alliance with Britain to be free to fight Bolshevik Russia.
So until the summer of 1940, not one bomb had fallen on an English town.
Churchill had to provoke it somehow.
On July 20, 1940, Churchill received an intercepted German embassy telegram from Washington to Berlin. Hans Thomsen, the German ambassador, reported to Berlin that he had been secretly approached through a Quaker intermediary by Lord Lothian, the British ambassador to the US, to find out what kind of peace offer the Germans might make. Peace was the one thing Churchill could ill afford, because it would probably be the end of his career. So Churchill immediately sent telegrams to Lord Halifax, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and Lord Lothian to put an end to any further contacts between Lothian and Thomsen.
On the same day (July 20, 1940), Churchill sent for air marshal Sir Charles Portal to ask what the earliest date was when a “savage attack” could be launched on civilian targets in Berlin? Portal urged that such action not take place until later in the year when the nights would be longer and the new Sterling heavy bomber planes would be in service; in any event, he warned that the Germans would likely retaliate—and so far, they hadn’t bombed a single city. Their entire attack was being devoted to military targets, not the towns or cities.
Churchill’s only reaction to this warning is that his eyes just twinkled. This was exactly what he wanted.
On August 4, 1940, Churchill was visited by General Charles DeGaulle, who witnessed a curious scene. There was Churchill, standing in the middle of his lawn, shaking his fist at the sky, saying “Why don’t you come?” Hitler had given the Luftwaffe strict orders that there was to be no bombing of civilian targets.
Finally, on August 24, 1940, one German plane strayed from its target of oil tanks and accidentally bombed the East End of London. The damage was minimal—a large number of chickens, broken windows, and flattened Dickensian tenement buildings—but Churchill had the pretext he had been waiting for. The next day he personally ordered the Bomber Command—bypassing Halifax and the Parliament and every other venue for debate—to put a minimum of 100 bombers in the air over Berlin to retaliate for “this savage series of raids” on the civilians of London. Berlin was bombed that night with a loss of civilian life. Over the next ten days, Bomber Command repeated this raid six or seven times—yet even so, the Germans refused to retaliate.
churchill and bottlesOn September 4, 1940, Hitler instructed his legal advisor Dr. Ludwig Weissaur to contact  the British ambassador in Sweden, Victor Mallet, through Swedish supreme court judge Ekeberg (Weissauer’s acquaintance), to make it known to the British that the Germans had a peace offer. Again, on Churchill’s order, the German offer was rebuffed by Mallet before it could even be presented.
That same day Hitler sent for his Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess, and asked him to contact German general, geographer and geopolitician Karl Haushofer to make contact with his English friend, the Duke of Hamilton, who in turn was to contact King George VI.
On September 4, 1940, Hitler also delivered a final warning speech that he would be forced to retaliate if Britain persisted in its bombing raids on Berlin. That same afternoon, Churchill called Hitler’s bluff with yet another raid against civilian targets, and on September 5th Hitler lifted his ban on the bombing of London civilian targets. In the promised retaliation on the evening of September 6-7, a thousand Luftwaffe bombers dropped their payloads on the East End of London, killing over 1,000 British men, woman, and children—directly attributable to Churchill’s provocation.
You will recall that eight months later, on May 10, 1941, Hess made a flight to Scotland in order to meet with the Duke of Hamilton and make one last, desperate attempt to achieve peace with England. Hess was unable to land his plane, so he made the first parachute jump of his life and was captured. Hamilton met alone with Hess the next day, then made arrangements through the Foreign Office to meet with the Prime Minister. He accompanied Churchill back to London the following day, where they both met with members of the War Cabinet. Hamilton also met with the King. So finally Hitler’s peace overtures got through.
But it ended there. The luckless Hess was bundled into permanent solitary confinement, incommunicado. Churchill called Hess his “personal prisoner.” The British public never learned that the Germans had wanted to sue for peace. They never learned what Germany was willing to concede or what pain they could have avoided if Churchill hadn’t interfered.
Just as Churchill had fought against a negotiated peace with Germany before he’d become Prime Minister, he now obstinately resisted any suggestions of peace negotiations with Hitler under any circumstances. This, more than anything, is supposed to be the foundation of Churchill’s greatness—that he bravely stood alone against Hitler against all odds—irrational though it seemed.
All the while, Churchill was free to crank up the war machine for another four disastrous years during which the greatest wartime atrocities occurred. The so-called Hess incident justifiably looms over any assessment of Churchill’s true place in Britain’s history. Churchill’s stature as a national war leader could only grow in Hitler’s shadow.

Still, while Hess was left to rot in Spandau prison as a “war criminal” for over 45 years, the real war monger puffed big cigars and wrote his version of how, with a certain amount of help from the Americans and Russians, he had saved the world. In 1987, when it appeared that Gorbachev was about to drop Soviet objections to his release, Hess was murdered at age 93 by British agents disguised as American jailors. They couldn’t risk the truth getting out and the inevitable questions being asked about whether it was worth it.

churchill-eisenhow_3177791cIf there was ever one constant about Churchill, it was his love of war. Even as a boy he had a huge collection of toy soldiers—1,500 of them—and he played with them for many years after most boys turn to other things. For Churchill, the years without war offered nothing but the “bland skies of peace and platitude.”
And oh yes, there was one other constant: Churchill was a drunk, a raging alcoholic. It appears to have been a lifelong affliction.
In 1899, when Churchill was a 25-year-old correspondent covering the Boer War for the Morning Post, he took with him to the front lines 36 bottles of wine, 18 bottles of ten-year old scotch, and 6 bottles of vintage brandy. In World War I, when George V set a personal example to the troops by giving up alcohol, Churchill declared the whole idea absurd and announced he would not be giving up drink just because the King had.
Even as Prime Minister, Churchill refused to moderate his drinking. He believed Europeans liked leaders who could hold their liquor, so he did nothing to discourage rumors about his alcoholic excess. Churchill admitted he relied on alcohol. He always had a glass of whiskey by him, and he drank brandy and champagne both at lunchtime and dinner.
Churchill promoted the myth that he was none the worse for his constant drinking. Raised as an aristocrat, he claimed that drunkenness was contemptible and disgusting, and a fault in which no gentleman indulged. When he was deprived of his alcohol, though, he became downright surly and rude.
Plus, some of Churchill’s most famous speeches during World War II were recorded for radio broadcast not by Churchill, but by actor Norman Shelley impersonating Churchill—supposedly because Churchill was too drunk at the time to deliver them.
Winston-Churchill-visits-FDR-7When Churchill became Prime Minister, Franklin Roosevelt commented ungenerously that he “supposed Churchill was the best man that England had, even if he was drunk half of his time.”
Some believe Churchill’s heavy drinking caused his decline as Prime Minister.
His doctor Lord Moran commented: “It makes his speech more difficult to understand and fuddles what is left of his wits; and yet he does not attempt to control his thirst.” In The British Medical Journal, Ian Robertson described him as the ‘drunk in charge’: “Churchill reputedly put away a bottle of spirits a day and often had to be carried dead drunk from the War Rooms. On the other hand, maybe that’s not so comforting when one remembers the hundreds of thousands of German civilians he burned alive in the firestorms of Dresden and elsewhere, during air raids of questionable military value. Alcohol causes aggression, depression, and very disordered thinking: were these factors in some of Churchill’s excesses?”
I think that the alcohol is just a lame excuse. There are some who describe Winston Churchill as a deeply flawed man: “overweeningly ambitious, bumptious, slapdash, reckless, and a monster of egotism,” according to Brooke Allen in The Hudson Review. I tend to believe them.
Was it worth it?

By the end of the war in Europe, over 49 million people were dead, millions more were homeless, their cities were destroyed, the European economy had collapsed, and much of the European industrial infrastructure had been destroyed. Churchill’s actions made the Holocaust more deadly and severe. The British Empire was bankrupted, and the way was cleared for America to become top dog in the world.

I’m sure the British people are eternally thankful to Churchill… those who are pissed out of their minds.



Groove of the Day

Listen to Alfred Piccaver performing “There’ll Always Be An England”


Weather Report

57° Windy and Cloudy


6 Responses to “warmonger”

  1. 1 mrrogers007
    April 4, 2015 at 3:10 pm

    good lord thats downright scary not to mention crazy. i hadnt heard a word about that behavior by churchill till today. if warner von brahn hadnt defected the war may have ended differently as i have read he was miles ahead of the allies in terms of rockletsthat story sure is a scary one sounds like churchill was more of a madman than a herothe last ive heard on that romero kid from saint johns az a new judge from another county took over his case and hes in a foster home. i still dont think the boy did theres no way a little kid like that could pile up a bunch of guns by a glass door and shoot two men in the time he had to work with.to make things worse the town police chief let the owners of house back in it before detectives from the az department of pubic safety had a chance to observe an undisturbed crime scene. by the time they got there (and they told the police chieft how long it would be) 3 days later the owners had already cut out blood stained carpeting from the stairs and thrown stuff in the garbage. so the kids is more than likely innocent and will be in the clutches of the state till hes 18. st johns is a place he would never be able to go back to so i have no idea what he will do when released. for now hes got the best deal he can get . its just a gift from god that this judge took over the case and did the best she could to keep him out of juvenile prison. the county had already been told they had no facilities for a kid that young but the county atty kept raising hell the previous judge in charge made his intentions public so this out of county judge saved the kid. he may even grow up to be an ok person thanks to her    ed rogers winslow az

    • April 4, 2015 at 3:25 pm

      Yes, as your story illustrates, the official version of every story must always be scrutinized and questioned. People sometimes lie; some people always lie. It was Churchill who said: “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”

  2. 3 anonymouse
    April 6, 2015 at 6:40 am

    “By the end of the war in Europe . . .” This paragraph does a great discredit to those who lost their lives in the battles and atrocities of WWII, including my family members. The inference that evil would have been less evil if only that aggressive, war-mongering, pesky drunkard, Mr. Churchill, had accepted their peaceful overtures borders on the absurd.

    • April 6, 2015 at 7:27 am

      I’m sorry if this paragraph makes you uncomfortable, but all these outcomes of the war are factual and true. If Churchill had seen his highest calling as a peacemaker rather than a warmaker, would these outcomes have been less disastrous? Yes, probably… but there would have been other outcomes, and what these would have been is unknowable. Maybe the appeasement of Munich and the subsequent double-cross would have been repeated, but one can scarcely imagine worse outcomes which faced Europe at the close of the war. Would Hitler have been any less evil? Many of the events which are used to prove his evil would probably never have happened. So maybe he wouldn’t be seen today as quite so bad. It is all speculation.

      Saddam Hussein is roundly criticized as the most evil world leader since Adolf Hitler, but can anyone claim that the war in Iraq was justified by his ouster and execution? He and his sons were repugnant people, but they at least kept a lid on things. The present evils of ISIS would have likely been avoided.

      The world is an evil place, and evil will likely persist no matter what anyone in leadership does. But it seems to me that lying about weapons of mass destruction or covering up peace overtures does nothing to diminish evil, and only adds to it.

      An American president or a British prime minister are supposed to be the good guys, and it really frosts me when I learn that they are not blameless and even evil in their own ways.

      Are they any less evil than a Hitler? Seems to me we’re splitting hairs. Do their missteps discredit anyone who served in our wars? That is for you to decide, but be careful who you blame.

      I am only popping the balloons of illusion.

  3. 5 Sam
    April 6, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    “According to Kilzer, Hitler offered to pull out of France, retreat from the Low Countries, retreat from Norway and Denmark, and give up much of Poland (except East Prussia) in exchange for peace with Britain.”

    In the same way he offered not to invade anywhere else after the Munich agreement of 1938. There was only one solution to the problem of Nazi Germany, and that was its destruction. Churchill realised this and carried on fighting. As Neville Chamberlain had said in his declaration of war on 3rd September 1939: “the situation in which no word given by Germany’s ruler could be trusted, and no country or people could feel itself safe had become intolerable”.

    Certainly Churchill had his weaknesses and came from the old-school imperialists who felt anyone outside of Europe was an incapable opponent to be defeated with ease, as seen in Gallipoli, but for all his faults he was a capable Prime Minister who led Britain to victory against a dangerous enemy. He took Britain to war on many occasions, but one needs to look at Hitler and his record of attacking and invading other non-Germanic European countries (such as the USSR and Poland) to create “Lebensraum” before suggesting that Churchill was the warmonger of the two.

  4. 6 matt
    April 25, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    Today, April 25, 2015, ANZAC Day, marks the centenary of the beginning of the Gallipoli Campaign.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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

%d bloggers like this: