The Churchill cult is out of control: Tariq Ali on Winston Churchill 

Anyone against Churchill being a household god has only to be just to Neville Chamberlain. This man doesn't pursue justice, he pursues the cult he favours. And it has always struck me that traducing Chamberlain is invitation for doing down the British people. Churchill angrily replied My chief has a will of steel! Learn this - Churchill may have detected the danger

Listening to this man’s point of view doesn’t make it fact. He is an open Marxist with very radical views.

Oh, stop it. Go live in N. Korea then. Geez. Get a clue.

@@serpentines6356 It’s easier to fool someone than to persuade them they have been fooled. Churchill was convinced he was superior to the common man due to being a minor noble, he lived far beyond his means and was bailed out financially by various entities hostile to the British people who obviously thought they were getting value for money. Think about it the other way round. If you were leading a 100 Billion industry would you not spend a few thousand or a few million to have things go your way?

@@mattbell5575 That's a bit of a butchery on Twains quote. I don't care, I really don't care about people pontificating decades later in judgement about Churchill, when they have no clue about their own weaknesses that would arise in them in that time, and place in that world, in that position. It's ignorant garbage.

@@serpentines6356 no need, the UK already is N.K. We saw that a month ago with all the moronic plebs wailing over the death of a parasite royal.

@@fookorf Oh, stop it. That's hardly N.K.

And New Zealanders.

I have been to Gallipoli......it's NOT Churchill's fault.

Horrid landscape , Gallipoli.....horrid

Churchill also helped cause WW 1 in the first place. He was a psychopath. Read Pat Buchanan's book, "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War". It's an eye-opener.

my grandfather lost a leg in galipoli.....

Did the Germans starve your great grandfather? What kind of labor did he do?

I am a Blackman from Jamaica - My Grandmother told me that two white men came to the house and while one of the white men engaged my grandfather in conversation the other white man drifted to the rear of my grandfather and suddenly without warning - jumped on my grandfathers back - after this incident both white men informed my grandfather that he had been selected for the British Army and must report to Up Park Camp, Kingston - After which my grandfather was sent as a mule to Gallipoli where he laboured for the British Government until the end of the first world war

And on Britain's Soviet allies in "Operation Unthinkable".

And the Welsh will continue to whine perpetually. Boo hoo.

@@sojourn6697 what a sick response. Mental health day needed for you mate.

Welsh are not Churchill's own people.

As someone of Indian and Pakistani heritage I strongly agree

Such stupidity, and racism. You don't like the white guy? I do. I know he was flawed but he was also an amazing leader.

When the truth about everyone's indigenous culture [which they hold dear, secretly or openly] comes to light. Then the World will be a level playing field.

People admire strength and courage which Churchill had in abundance! It might be the latest fad for everyone to present themselves as the victim, but it won't last! Men like Churchill live on in the memory of nations for centuries! There's a reason for that.

@@thehound9638 👍

He was not a hero because he didn't go through the rain of bullets himself. But he was the greatest statesman of 20 century who made a country a hero and saved the world from one evil. Any argument?

I’ll second that opinion.

@@xchen3079 What in your opinion makes him the greatest statesman in the 20th century?

@@jackreacher5667 I have said in my comment already.

@@xchen3079 You have indeed, I would disagree and I am ready to argue.

When the truth about everyone's indigenous culture [which they hold dear, secretly or openly] comes to light. Then the World will find some peace!

@@AB-kc3yc What do you mean by this? "when the truth about everyone's indigenous culture comes to light"?

Well mate your a Welsh man and your father hated him and he was right.The thing is you say your dad despised him, I'm saying you dad hated him and I'm English. He was an imperialist who hated working classes that was a massive problem with the upper classes then

Us Merthyr boys did the same

I am from Welsh mining stock and my Father loved Churchill. How strange is that.

No, it's not about being "sanctified." It's about knowing history, understanding people in their times, and how difficult it is to be a great leader, especially during a time of war when you are the underdog.

@@serpentines6356 That is right, sir.

That happens to a lot of world leaders and even regional ones

@@serpentines6356 underdog ? Who Churchill ? When he was commanding a huge empire pitted against a pathetic primitive war worn German army in 1940 , glorified coast guard Kriegsmarine and a outnumbered airforce luftwaffe. Germany war industry was in shambles because of the ineptitude of the nazis

One cannot judge someone on the morals of yesteryear, morals are after all just codes of conduct that are prevalent in one’s own epoch. But one can point out the failing’s of an historical figure or event, that’s called revision. Though Churchill was a fantastic wartime orator and leader, one must not forget that the government was a coalition government. Therefore Winston Churchill was not a god, like everyone else he had a feet of clay and was guilty of quite a few crimes against native populations, including the Irish populace, on whom he personally unleashed the Black and Tans. There are many more instances of Churchills shortcomings, but why not just read the book and draw your own conclusions?

@mattbell5575 From 1936 Winston was employed by the "Focus Group" to do their bidding (against Germany) which was chaired by Royal Dutch Shell chairman Robert Waley Cohen

⁠@@Smudgeroon74. So Churchill was against Hitler, even before the war started. And it seems, you see that as a weakness in Churchill? Fortunately most of the world benefitted from Churchills foresight and clarity of mind. Sadly there still exists a few “evil people” who admire the cruel, sadistic, madness of Hitler. You it seems is one of them!

Exactly

​@@Smudgeroon74 Winston Churchill was a great leader. Thank goodness England had him as their Prime Minister at the time.

@@serpentines6356 you clown you ..I'm British , you ain't got a clue how the world is ran .

Agree entirely. 👍

As you reveal, this is all about finding largely misplaced fault and never seeing the complexity of history or distinguishing between a desire to preserve what is best about Britain and Western Civilization versus thinking of it as simple racism or unnecessary brutality. The British feared Communism and for good reason. Just ask any German freed from East German rule after the collapse of the Soviet Empire. You are failing to see the inherent superiority of Western ideas about capitalism, relatively open and competitive markets, and representative government. Churchill recanted on his Victorian racist views and allowed that the Indian was the equal of any Englishman by the end of his life. And, to argue that he didn't win the war through strategy shows merely a lack of knowledge about how the war was conducted. The guy invented the idea of a landing craft so D-Day would be possible, for God's sake. Gallipoli was a disaster as you state, but disasters happen when new and risky things are tried in war. Also, Churchill claimed he was not given what he really wanted to make that invasion a success. He felt guilt about it for the rest of his life and even wanted to cancel D-Day at the last minute because of his fear that it would fail as the basic concept was similar. As usual, the opportunity to become more enlightened becomes a polarizing force that swings much too far and fails to recognize how history operates while taking decisions out of context, consumed by only partly justified guilt feelings. The same BS happens as we review the decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan, taking the decision out of context when history proves it was a terrible decision but the only one that was closest to right. Without them hundreds of thousands more Americans would have died conquering Japan, more Japanese would have died, and Japan would be like North and South Korea with a Communist government in the North. The Japanese were not going to surrender without overwhelming force applied one way or another.

@@JohnBaxter-iq7wr you failed to address anything raised.

@@shantishanti1949 To debate against what was raised was not my point or desire. My point was not to try to contradict anything raised, but to put the sins committed during war into a larger context--whether or not there was a net improvement or progress of any kind. What needs to be addressed is not the desire to bring up buried sins, but the inherent bias of those doing so who never put them in proper context. And besides, I did end up addressing the things done, perhaps to excess, in trying to defeat Communism. That is hardly a bad direction. The Allies bombed civilians in Germany during World War II believing it would help to stop Hitler. In a society blind to all but the power of the Nazi Party, it can be argued that such destruction was pointless and that Hitler could only be stopped in the field against German soldiers. We'll never know. But the war was won and Germany was ultimately brought to a far better state. One needs to see the bigger picture, and what I am arguing, too, is that we need to be fair and objective and see, also, that we may sin, but we only learn from those sins--our errors. History moves forward, but never backward.

@@JohnBaxter-iq7wr I think Israel / Palestine proves history repeats? Hatred moves forward. The hatred caused by the history.

He was ol' buds with FDR though since they were both Secretary's of their Navies, what with his American blood, Digby and all. I think he knew he couldn't screw this war up like the last one. Having the Ultra Secret helped.

Give and take a few minutes.

Ever hear of a slip of the tongue.

Is this an attempt to discredit the truth of his comments? Seems so to me.Nitpicking!

@@briancarton1804 Getting the year wrong is more than a slip of the tongue for someone of Tariq Ali's standing as an academic. Saying that Churchill was PM in 1939 would lead those who don't have a detailed knowledge of the facts of the war - but like many in such a position, are aware that Britain declared war on Germany in 1939 - the end result of Tariq Ali's error is that they now think it was Churchill who took Britain to war. It is clearly important that they should know it was Neville Chamberlain's government that declared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939, not Churchill's government in May 1940.

do you not understand inflection

I was thinking Caucasus

@@davidmcnamara2730 Well ... was it actually Corsica or was it Kursk ??

Lol Corsica is the little French Island Napoleon was from..... It was not a part of the WW2 turning around. Kursk was the big tank and army battle in Russia in 1943 where the Germans just had to much to go through and had to retreat.(i believe Hitler sent alot or the men to Italy as it was being invaded simultaneously

@@davidmcnamara2730 Do you not understand CLOSED CAPTIONING???

Every country has got a blood thirsty monster not just the UK. What country u from

Ridiculous

@@andym9571 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lXHxiKDTHfU.html

Yes indeed

So nothing to do with Hitler invading Poland then?

No mention of the Japanese blockage at the time ?

@@Mute040404 The blockade couldn’t have done much. Churchill chose to starve Bengal so that they could increase excess food stocks in Europe.

Indeed. He starved 1 million Germans, too, closer to home. Then Dresden. Etcetera. And he lied about a lot of things which caused more millions of dead people in Europe.

@@Mute040404 which provoked Pearl Harbour

Is it compulsory for you all to talk such shite?

He probably meant prior to that time -- i.e. late '20s. Any favourable quotes Churchill made about Mussolini seem to be from that time period (they met once pre-ww2 in 1927).

Persuasive line of thought but flawed by Marxist prejudice . . . and facts!

Land Sea: Churchill's obsession with Hitler and the Nazis is more due to his hatred and suspicion of Germany than Hitlers politics. As early as 1908 long before the start of WW1 Churchill made a speech at Oxford in which he said war with, then, imperial Germany was necessary. He saw imperial Germany, which was fast overtaking Britain's industrial output and wealth as the greatest threat to his beloved British Empire. With his dual British and American heritage he did not see, or want to see, that the greatest threat to Britain's empire was from the anti- imperialist USA, in particular men like FDR. Later the USA was to show it's opposition to empire by not supporting Britain during the Suez crisis, that last gasp of British imperial action. Very Churchillian although ordered by his successor as PM and long term associate Anthony Eden.

@@johnhooper7040 yes, Roosevelt was gutless and allowed his anti British stance or rather that of his cabinet, to interfere with the basic cause. Who knows what would have been had Japan and Germany not declared war on the USA ?

Doesn't fascicism and imperialism , if not the same, overlaps each other? If democracy means will or chice of people whom they should be ruled by, Doesn't imperialism negate this very core concept of democracy?

He doesn't owe it if it was written off lol

It's just that he didn't pay it off@@loolfactorie

@@ericdelf You´re probably right Eric, it must be terribly difficult to tug your forelock with a fascist boot pressing on your neck.

They are subjects 😱 do what they are told No protests no uprising no brain .

Yeah well if Hitler had his way even the snivelling bloody Irish would be tugging their forelock to him… or else.

thank you !

So is David Irving,s Churchills War.

Thank you for this recommendation.

Right. A best seller in the USSR - and Cuba.

Italy was no soft underbelly of Europe.

He ignores facts... 🙄

@@embalmertrick1420 which are?

@@gooderspitman8052 Churchill is not guilty of anything he just stated.

My honest unbiased overview. TBH, I am reading the book and imo it needed a very large edit, the book is over one hundred pages longer than needed. Retraces Peterloo and the Newport riots, which is out of context given that Churchill wasn’t born till 1875. Editing is disregarded when one is an older scribe, I personally am finding it hard going, but I will persevere.

@@gooderspitman8052 “Retraces Peterloo and the Newport riots…” It’s called giving context to the world in which Churchill grew up in. What’s wrong with giving historical context?

'excelent' English man you are 🤦

I have heard of him he was a pain in the early seveniies he has mellowed somewhat.'

There was no leadership, we were screwed, on Eastern front and on Western front, luckily Japan attack USA and Germany attacked USSR.

@@alipaf2002 Could not agree more.

You never heard of him !?!? He's been banging on about the coming Revolution for the last 50 years. He's like these old guys wandering about with signs saying " The End is Nigh '' Basically a harmless nutter.

The people were tired of the War, they were tired of rationing, they wanted change.

God , how I miss Tony Benn ! He may have been barking mad but compared to the current lot he was an intellectual giant !!

i didn’t know that, that’s interesting actually. I think after WW1, people had been promised homes fit for heroes etc and it didn’t really happen, it wasn’t so much they didn’t rate his contribution during WW2, they absolutely did, but they wanted a future unlike the 30s where there was the Great Depression etc and at the time, most people who’d been through that connected it with the extremism that they ended up fighting and wanted a better future. One of Churchill’s mistakes was to suggest that the Labour Party being elected could lead to similar extremism, the problem he had with that was that people saw those same Labour politicians being part of the national unity government during the war, and didn’t buy that idea.

@@grahamt5924 Exactly . The British public made sacrifices in yet another war and they wanted employment and social programs . Churchill took this election for granted . This issue was that Britain was broke and as Churchill pointed out , they didn't have the money for social programs . .

@@grahamt5924didn’t rationing continue under Attlee?

Whilst white Brits are told we should welcome with open arms people into our country who hate us and our way of life.

Britain is gas lighting central HQ of the world.

Well I guess these non white Brits could always move to a country where they are not gaslighted and can be happy and free.😊

@@sheilasmith7991 not likely, but keep dreaming on though. 😴

@@sheilasmith7991 Or maybe you could not be a xenophobic nationalist puke and try being a good person.

Exactly what did Churchill have to do with the Bengal famine? What sort of junk history ate you referring to?

theres no cult of churchill being built up , bad as he was , the left or whoever it is, attempts to erase him and point him out to be a criminal is whats driving those who support him to go extreme also... and really his supporters arent extreme..his faults have always been put out in plain view and not glossed over at all .

@@tmahe28 you are either a surreal liar or lived under the rock, an apologist to the core, you dismiss the genocide of 3 million people with a brush soaked in ignorance

And I have to words for you, Japan and Germany, have you ever stopped to think what would have happened had the Allies lost the war, do you honestly think Japan ruling India would have resulted in some sort of paradise.

@@chrisjones2224 The Soviets won the war for the Allies. Then the US and Britain took all the credit and launched what could be legitimately argued as a third world war against communism, by which they meant socialism in all it's forms, Soviet or otherwise. Even Democratic socialism in the south Americas and middle east was too much for them to bare the thought of, resulting in the US staging coups against democratically elected socialist governments and pouring billions in arms, training, logistic support into the most violent and radical far-right theocratic extremist groups in those regions, who swept the countrysides and villages committing their own ideologically driven bloody massacres, many horrific atrocities, and several genocides.. all with the full endorsement of the US Empire and the UK in the name of "anti-communism "... The numerous MILLIONS of lives that were lost during this endeavor by the reactionary forces of the post-war west acting at the behest of the rising US empire BY FAR surpass any "death-count" attributable to even of the most violent socialist revolutions, and the civil-wars that followed them them, including the Russian and Chinese revolutions. The US dropped more bombs on the smazll, poor and agrarian countries of Vietnam and Laos alone than were dropped by ALL other nations TOGETHER during the ENTIRE second world war! Just let that sink in a bit... And when the Korean farmers and workers rose up to oust the unpopular and violent fascist dictator that the Americans had installed in their country as a puppet government, the US bombed the north of the peninsula to the extent that not a single building above two stories was left standing in the entire country, Killing a full 20% of the Korean population, of peasants and farmers. But they weren't finished... They then spread millions of gallons poisonous chemicals from the air over 80% of the north's arable land. Rendering it useless for generations... Later Resulting, along with a comprehensive blocade of embargoes rivaled only by the one imposed on Cuba, in the well known North Korean famine. All that being said, however, there is still something that I don't quite understand about your position: Looking at your respose to my comment, I can only assume that you seem to think for some reason that if Churchill hadn't let some 3 million people starve in India... then the Allies would have lost the war?!... your argument, let alone your conclusion, simply does not follow from your premise.

I was a history student. The only thing negative about Churchill I heard growing up in the 80s and 90s was from the Returned Services who said he just sent their members to die. I didn’t even know he’d been voted out at the end of the war until last year! But you have to remember there was a big movement to figure out what could be done with the poor since Victorian times. The British working class soldiers at Gallipoli and other brutal battles could not vote. This was running parallel to the empire, the desire to solve problems of health, criminality, and of poverty with science which had been doing amazing things (radar! microwaves! Bombs!) in other spheres. It all makes more sense that it was at least in part, a British identity campaign, particularly since the 80s.

That is what the older generation told me as I was growing up. As I was not around then who am I to judge

There was no leadership, we were screwed, on Eastern front and on Western front, luckily Japan attack USA and Germany attacked USSR.

Churchill didn't stand against Nazism. Search up "Operation Unthinkable".

Let’s not forget he was viciously against any form of social state and an NHS.

Working class men exchanging ideas on the front line

He was then swiftly voted BACK IN in 1951 on a ticket of retaining the Empire and foreign affairs, after only a short period of Labour government. So, do make sure to look at the full picture.

Oh brilliant - forgot to mention voted straight in at the next election.

@@Alfred5555 In 1951 the Tories got less votes than Labour and a smaller % of the vote. It was our ridiculous electoral system that got him back into power.

England never stood alone It had the whole might of the British Empire behind it plus the USA in 1940

Keep drinking the drug

Keep believing the myth it was our boys [U.S] that bailed you out in ww2 not the whining of your leader He ruined Britain as an empire by his myopic policies in ww1 and ww2 if it wasn’t for his war mongering, you will still have an empire you can be proud of and so many less britons and their cousins across the North Sea would have died.

Convenient how you forget Canada Australia NZ India and host of other colonies

@@johnsmith-mq4eq France had it's own Empire, but still surrendered.

What did they do in 1951? Remember Churchill was a key figure in founding the welfare state as Liberal in the early 20th century and part two government (under Lloyd-George and Baldwin) that significantly expanded the voting franchise. He identified himself much more as an opponent of middle class socialism than the working class, particularly was his experience as a Manchester MP, a city that still had slums.

I fully agree. Of course Churchill has his flaws, he was a product of his upbringing in an aristocratic home, a very class based society, which was blatantly racist. Woodrow Wilson is often praised especially in Europe, but he too was a blatant racist and anti-semite.

Guy was a mass murderer mate. A genocider.

There was NO difference between Churchill and Hitler.

YOU forgot it was him who sent the black and tans to Ireland , in i920 ,whose crimes would make the Gestapo look like sunday school teachers

It's was a huge feat to get Britain through that war. Guess he should have just let Germany have you.

@@serpentines6356 One huge feat indeed. Nevertheless, it does not eradicate the responsibility he bears for his many earlier crimes. Regarding "letting Germany have us". Maybe so! After all, we were well used to invasion, persecution and tyranny by the British Empire for centuries - we would have resisted the Nazis in a similar fashion.

@@tombyrne7784 Resisted, and failed. The Brits didn't have the Luftwaffe. Without the Brits you would have been toast.

@@serpentines6356 True, we would have failed as did the Poles, Dutch, Belgians, Danish, Norwegians, French, etc. Nevertheless, we would have resisted in our own way - and continued to resist. Our history is a testament to failure and defeat, but also to perseverance in spite of the fact.

Tariq has spent his life trashing the British.

@@drstrangelove4998 Trashing the British? Tariq Ali has not needed to do that, the British are quite capable of doing that all on their own. In the past Tariq was very radical, but now he gives us a history where we as ordinary educated people would never have learnt it. Well done Tariq Ali. As someone once said, history is written by the victors...........

@@user-kn8un4ru8p Someone might have said that but it doesn't make it true. The vanquished may nurse their resentments and create their own history. Basically what TAli is doing.

@@elkpaz560 the scars make it true.

@Wilkins_Micawber Did you know he was employed by the "Focus Group" from 1936 onwards. I suggest you look into this aspect of Churchills background. He was also bailed out 2 times by wealthy US tycoon Bernard Baruch and Henry Straikosch(South African gold mining magnate) from 1930 to 1937. Straikosch gave Churchill £20,000 so he didn't have to sell his country estate Chartwell...

Oh, that wouldn't be any fun. The current fad is to jump on the "hate western culture" bandwagon, and get lots of applause for repeating what's already been said ad nauseam.

He has written extensively about that topic. You have Google, no?

@@serpentines6356 He has written extensively about that topic. You have Google, no?

@@abrahamheg1734 Well, good. Glad he did. Churchill was no despot.

@@serpentines6356 maybe not to someone who looked like you. Have you heard what he did to India?

rally, he did no more than fool them, the proof is in the pudding seeing whats going on today with this open border, we have become a dumping ground.

There was no leadership, we were screwed, on Eastern front and on Western front, luckily Japan attack USA and Germany attacked USSR.

As somebody Who is lrish you should be ashamed.

@@neilthefish you should be ashamed. Without Britain (inc Churchill, unfortunately) Germany would have won the war. Ireland supported Hitler and didn't help the allies during ww2. The Irish are a grossly nationalistic people, yet they have nothing to be proud of.

good. Facts are facts.

God bless Tariq

@Van Brighouse You say that like he doesn't talk about Pakistan. He's written more than one book on Pakistan, the same way he's written more than one book on Britain. He was born in British India and has lived vast majority of his life in Britain. He has the right to criticise it.

@Van Brighouse Yeah I see what you mean.

Why do people who hate Britain want to live here if i lived in a country where everything was so bad I'd F##k off

yeah dodge the issue by deflecting it to to other countries

let me guess non wasp

@@chrisbennett6260 Yeah, I guess Brits should have stayed on their island. Then India could still be burning widows, and enjoying their class system, wretched treatment of the women, and poor. Britain allowed way too many foreigners in, right? Why did so many go overseas to Britain?

@@saracenseven8314 if the cap fits mate

Nope, pure English Scottish Protestant from the state of Virginia, old stock American. @@saracenseven8314

Oh, spare me. He got Britain through freakin' WW2. He was an amazing leader!

No because he had a F##kin World War to Fight

@@serpentines6356 thanks for that.....

@@serpentines6356 All on his own!

@@keithfrost1190 I never stated that, now did I.

Gandhi and Mandela and their peoples were downtrodden within their own country. Churchill was born with the proverbial silver spoon in his mouth. There is no comparison between the 3. Two of them are looked up to around the world and the other in only part of it. You can guess who was who.

Don’t we need to understand the basic ideas of the imperial thesis, and thus those of Churchill?: 1. The British race and the English speaking peoples have a mission to carry out, for the benefit of Western civilization. 2. The exercise of Empire requires determination, authority, and sometimes violence. 3. The benefits in the spheres of education, infrastructure, culture, commerce, and solid institutions, may outweigh the detriments that come with repression. Or perhaps not? 4. But are these “benefits” less than those offered by other civilizations or regimes?

Honest criticism of Churchill would ring truer if made by a member of his own race .

@@juancampbell5399 Italy did not grant this right, so you do not have this duty.

@@juancampbell5399 "... when the War Cabinet chaired by Churchill first realised the enormity of the famine, it agreed that 150,000 tons of Iraqi barley & Australian wheat should be sent to Bengal...” [Churchill and the Bengal Famine - Zareer Masani] Critical Theory makes warts the ALL.

This is nothing new, the majority of Churchill’s biographers recognise he was a flawed man. There is no need for a hatchet job. Of course he should not be sanctified, but most British people recognise if it hadn’t been for him Britain would have surrendered to Hitler, in exactly the same way some people would have the Ukraine surrender to Putin.

Celebratory statues do not function as art, and they're generally not historical. Nobody can name the "artists" responsible for the toppled, daubed, criticised and questioned monuments and statues of the imperialists and other murderers and abusers - and if the statues of Rhodes, Churchill, Thatcher, Harris, Baden-Powell, etc., were removed, who would mourn their loss? Statues and monuments are to honour, celebrate, and remember for wholly positive reasons. We shouldn't afford that kind of veneration and adoration to racists and genocidal tyrants. Statues of such people belong in museums with appropriate context. rather than on public display in their original positions. The statues of people who have been proven to exploit and kill must be taken down and relocated as an act of respect for their victims. As an easy to understand example, Jimmy Savile's gravestone was first vandalised and then officially removed and destroyed - and he was a man who was massively popular. raised £140M for charity, and killed nobody. Are you going to argue that Savile should have been left to rest in peace under a celebratory tomb because the nameless stonemason might have been an artist? Perhaps you'd like to see a Jimmy Savile statue erected somewhere in recognition of his unquestionable popularity and outstanding charitable work. No, I thought not. So, ethical consistency dictates that the murderous imperialists should be dishonoured in exactly the same way.

@@davidpalk5010 Oh, spare me such wokey dokey stupidity! Ugh! Churchill was a grand leader. His statue along with the others do belong in the public purview. Gadz, people like you have no clue!

@@davidpalk5010 I disagree. I like Thatcher, Churchill and Rhodes and beleive their statues should stand. They were giants amongst us and their lives do teach us valuable lessons. Also the statue of Churchill is not about Chirchill but also about what Britain achieved in WW2. Comparing any of these to Savile is a misunderstanding of history. Also comparing people by todays standards is meaningless. You have to put them in context. Rhodes was an unashamedly imperialist that beelived the whole world was going to be better under British rule. Have a look at the world in his day and he was not wrong. If you were living in Africa in his day, he would have been a hero to you. If Africa was the way it was back in 1880s and you had to live there, you would be supporting people like Rhodes.

@@grahamt5924 "Also the statue of Churchill is not about Chirchill but also about what Britain achieved in WW2. " Then why not create a monument of soldiers that died and risked their lives rather than the man who thought he could do with them what he wanted without consequence. "Also comparing people by todays standards is meaningless." What year in history does one begin start or stop the comparison? I'd like to know. Evil is evil. Regardless of what year it happened. "I like Thatcher, Churchill and Rhodes and beleive their statues should stand. They were giants amongst us and their lives do teach us valuable lessons. " Would you be against statues honoring Hitler? He was also a giant amongst us.

@@DefenderOfLogic There are memorials in every town and village in England to those who died in the wars! Also, there you go comparing Hitler to Churchill. You really beleive they are the same?

Yep. Thanks for the summation. I tend to think "cult" is just up there for "click bait." This is more like just another smear to get applause for bashing "a powerful white guy.* It's getting very boring.

Crass episode of history that has been cruelly forgotten... 🤬 One of many.

A famine was to blame for the deaths in Ukraine under Stalin, it too was not intentional. And a famine was to blame in regards to Bengal. But this is what we should learn in regards to propaganda which makes one man the ultimate evil and the other a hero. How is it that Stalin was to blame for a famine, and Churchill was not? The fact is they were both leaders who did not adequately respond to a crisis as millions died. In Stalin’s case it was likely out of pride of not wanting to ask for international aid to hide a flaw and failure, in Churchill‘s case it was racism and imperialist attitude. But both should be remembered accurately.

4.5 million!

A famine directly managed by the government agents

@@matthewkopp2391 No, people have debunked this lie. And it's disgusting that a man of history thinks it's fine to tear down the statues of Britains incredible leader that got them through the war. Shame on ANYONE that thinks that's ok.

​@user-wj6dt5bq3w Why?

I agree 😊

" I suspect Winston Churchill’s conscience troubled him for the remainder of his life. " It did . He wished that he could have done more for Poland . The Yalta Conference in Feb 1945 , is falsely blamed as the sell out to Stalin . However , the truth is the Soviet Army was already in most of Poland , Eastern Europe and 80 Km from Berlin . There wasn't a dam thing Churchill could do about it . Churchill was warning FDR about Stalin , but FDR needed Stalin's commitment to end the war in the Pacific. Both FDR and later Harry Truman got Stalin to attack the Japanese Army in Manchuria 3 months after the war in Europe ended . Churchill asked his military planners to examine the possibility of pushing the Soviet Army out of Poland - they came back and said it would probably lead to total war . Operation Unthinkable became declassified in 1998 . ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-o9Ovajkwyxw.html .

If only we hadn’t fought at all, no blitz, no rationing and no lost empire.

@@DavidSmith-fs5qj Yes; Quite agree. A foolish venture to fight WW2 and accelerate thus the rapid decline of Britain, and worse, to thereby allow America to control large parts of the world and carry on the worst practicies learned from British such as aggressions against other peoples and overthrow of governments.

When the truth about everyone's indigenous culture [which they hold dear, secretly or openly] comes to light. Then the World will be a level playing field.

@@AB-kc3yc stop repeating yourself, parrot boy.

No. He feared a bloodbath without it. There still was one but probably not as bad

Damned if he did, damned if he didn't... Who wanted a partition in the first place? Sadly, whoever created the borders, it would've created mayhem

Jinnah was meeting him all the time

When the truth about every person's own indigenous culture [which they hold dear, secretly or openly] comes to light. Only then will the World be on the road to truth and meaningful discussion.

Who was?

When the truth about every person's own indigenous culture [which they hold dear, secretly or openly] comes to light. Only then will the World be on the road to truth and meaningful discussion.

@@Kitiwake your mums boyfriend when your dad was out.

Tariq Ali speaks with an educated Oxford accent , but what he actually says is rubbish . Ali mentions the 1948 UN declaration of Human Rights as though it suddenly popped up . When in fact human and democratic rights originated during the Age of Enlightenment , John Locke and the 1689 English Bill of Rights . This was followed by many French philosophers and the American Constitution . What followed in 19th Century Britain , lead by the labour class , was one of the greatest achievements in civilization. A massive move forward in human , labour and democratic rights , children's rights and animal rights, public roads , schools , transportation , parks , sanitation , social programs , a national railway grid , communication grid , science & technology . Then all of this was slowly exported all over the world . Even Japan's 1947 Constitution is modeled after Britain' s Westminster system . All of this is the very reason why Tariq Ali has human rights today .

Atlee once went to a toilet, to find Winston at the urinal next to him, upon realising, Churchill zipped up and moved away. “Feeling standoffish today, are we, Winston?” Churchill replied: “That’s right. Every time you see something big, you want to nationalize it.“

U.S. had brand new rifles made for the White Russians before even the Feb. 1917 revolution and U.S. entry into 'The Great War'.

Smug Maxists Would NEVER Allow For The Natural State of Flawed Humanity To Impead Their Critical Dismantling Of Any and All who Answered Uncomfortable Calls at Happenstance and Circumstance. In Their Minds These Men Were PRIVELEDGED PURVEYORS of POWER LUST Singularly. F**K These Marxists.

not understanding the past is destined to repeat it! historians play a part in the interpretation of history,btw how many black and indian soldiers died in ww2

The memory of Churchill has very little to do with actual Churchill. He is just the focal point on the pride of the British(white people generally), on how Britain did in WW2. It's the same as as Ghundi. Examine his life and you find lots wrong. He is just the focal point of the Indian pride in overthrowing the English Colonists from India.

@@grahamt5924 Good point. Personally, I think all words referring to 'race' are a false trail here. For a start, there is only one human race, but for obvious historic reasons, people of Churchill and Ghandi's generation (no matter what their skin colour) habitually couldn't see the world in such rational terms. Churchill was brought up to believe that not only was he 'superior' (the grandson of a 'Duke'), but also that he was the member of a 'superior' nation that ruled over a large portion of the Earth. Churchill and Ghandi also both cultivated their images, becoming two of the most-easily recognised celebrities of their age. Even today, most people would be able to recognise Churchill and Ghandi from merely their silhouettes. They remain two of the most complex and fascinating people to study in history, and particularly if one can use one's critical faculties.

@@davidbrear8642 I think people who have never been a minority forget race at their peril. People are stoll very racist today and if you go and live as a minority somewhere you will appreciate what I mean.

@@grahamt5924 That's the point isn't it? Scientifically, there is only one human race, but almost the entire world continues to employ the out-dated (once scientific) terms of 'races' and 'racism.' In point of fact, we've now got 'racists', 'anti-racists' and 'non-racists.' In reality, members of the human race would appear to retain a natural instinct to want to stick together in their own groups, and not necessarily their own national groups. History proves that it is very easy to manipulate this common instictual human desire. Personally, I think it's better to admit that this instinct (commonly referred to as 'racism') exists in many of us, in order to resist it.

@@davidbrear8642 People generally stick together with their own cultural group and because we all generally try and promote our own family members and our own family tends to be within our own cultural group, it gets very difficult for any minority cultures. The English see Churchill as their hero due to ww2. They don't think about the bad things he did and are not worried about them particularly. Churchill to them is just a cultural icon of the success of ww2. Other cultural groups don't give a damn about England's success in WW2 so for them Churchill is meaningless in this regard. All they see is the failings of Churchill. They want to pull down Churchill because of these failings and they don't care that Churchill is the symbol of greatness to the English. Its basically cross communications going on here.

He looks for all possible ways of condeming the west. It was ALL due to communist Russia. Anglo-American alliance was a rounding error - moronic.

Great post. Most of Churchill's critics are nobodies who have achieved little in their lives, like the people who participated in that 'debate' at Churchill College, Cambridge, which was nothing of the sort, just a bunch of grievance studies graduates piling on Churchill.

It didn’t even exist until after the war. Churchill would have known it was fantasy

@@TheLastOilMan Judging by Israel´s current activities it would not surprise me in the least if their version of the holocaust was distorted in order to weaponise it. Can you give any references ?

His mother was Jewish

He was also bought off by The Focus Forum, owned by......

@@edmundblackaddercoc8522 yes he lived vary well from that pay off.

Don't hold your breath.

Whatabouteri. Focus.

I hope you'll stop being a butt hurt Churchill cultist and get a life, Mr Whatabout.

He has

You write it.

we are talking why he is venerated now

unless you were one of the millions he killed with the Bengal famine?

No,it was far more complex than that. Which the unjustly monstered Chamberlain understood. That was why he had to be not only got rid of but his name blackened too. They needed simplicity. After all we didn't enter the war to save the Jewish people did we. Because we didn't know about their plight.m(Hint,I'm using irony). We only found out about the plight of Jews after we discovered to our horror and surprise Belsen. Until then no one knew. (!!!!) THEY knew. But that was not the basis for our entering the war.

That's not the ringing endorsement you seem to think it is.

Ich auch...

Caribbean people named Their boys after Winston Churchill ,A white supremacist,The Irony & power of Colonialism

Cool "wisdom" too bad its dumb as hell

It's 'interred' not 'interned.'

@@spundam Yes of course ,thanks

We ALL need to start with: Every human being is flawed! Then put ourselves back into the time and the place of WW11, and ask the question: Did this flawed human being do the best he could for his country? And could we as flawed human beings ourselves, have done ant better!

@@AB-kc3yc It will take a VERY long time to even come to near "flawless" deeds done by humans.

There are plenty of historians who wrote about everything to do with Churchill. T Ali is not an historian

The real question is "why is everybody interested in trashing everything Western and does not turn his/her curiosity and intellectual capacity on all the bad and failures outside the West without the easy way out to blame the West ? Plenty of material to dismantle, criticize and finger pointing that does, but ... ?

@@yingyang6080 - Yes - this is the key question , our National Heritage , Culture , Currency , National Identity the Family are under attack . Much of this is being pushed by the corporate Neo Liberal media and empowering the woke ( Neo Marxist Left ) . Historically , the destruction of a Culture has a very devastating effect on people . The idea is to destroy our National Identity to push a Globalist Agenda . This is why the Neo Liberal Media has been spreading fear about Brexit and calling Italy 's democratically elected Prime Minister names . .

What an incredibly blinkered , stinking pile of BS. How are we to learn from history if we dress it up in nationalistic BS? You seem to be unaware of Churchill's disastrous role in the Gallipoli campaign or his role in destruction of workers' rights his cavalier attitude to human rights in SA His role in breaking the General Strike (entirely undemocratic btw) And let's not forget that most appalling policy on the Bengal Famine. You can effectively claim anything for your hero, but you cannot justify the death of between n2 and 4 million people, primarily because he simply couldn't be bothered to make an effort to stop it. Churchill's role in WWII was more in shoring up the UK against Germany than in defeating it. And let's not forget that the reason Hitler thought that the UK would join him was because so many in the upper class, including Churchill, had supported fascism, right from its inception.

@@davidcolin6519 - Colin dear boy you are typical of a lefty full of self loathing because of your own insipid personality - so Churchill was single handedly responsible for the death of 4 million Indians - he was the one with the power to prevent and just couldn’t be bother - that’s your contention is it and he more of less did nothing for England to thwart hitler and nazism - that’s what you’re saying right - just conform it publicly could you.

@@rupert5390 Oh, and while we're at it, the lack of logic in your response is there for all to see. You claim that I am saying that he was solely responsible for the Bengal famine, which, apparently, can't make sense, while you are also claiming that he was solely responsible for thwarting Hitler. Make up you pathetic little mind, why don't you. Or are you waiting for instructions from 55 Tufton Street before you come up with a response?

When the truth about every person's own indigenous culture [which they hold dear, secretly or openly] comes to light. Only then will the World be on the road to truth and meaningful discussion.

David Irving is a Holocaust denier en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

Define holocaust…… what’s that got to do with his books on Churchill? The man is the best researcher period! Go back to bed son.

Tariq is full of garbage.

Reagan, like Churchill, was indeed a great man. You can try to rewrite history all you like - but it will not work. You (and this lying midget Ali) will be forgotten in a thrice - but Churchill will live on in the annals of human history as the wonderful giant that he was. God Bless you Winnie!

How do you work out that Reagan was not a great man? He was mercilessly mocked by the media but he brought down the USSR without firing a shot. And he was a witty speaker, too.