Pretend, for a moment, that you did not read the title to this article and picture for me two European leaders in the first half of the 20th century. One is bipolar, an alcoholic and rarely seen without a cigar in his mouth. The other, a tee-total, animal-loving vegetarian who remained abstinent for most of his life. One is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (twice) and one is the Chancellor of Germany.
Hailed as the saviour of the world in some desperate British people’s eyes, British school children are taught to love and adore Churchill in the way we would Charles Darwin or Margot Robbie. Maybe not the latter .
We are taught that it was Churchill’s stern resistance, his refusal to bow to Hitler’s demands, that won World War 2 for the Allies and secured the defeat of fascism in Germany. Whilst some aspects are true, most are not. Churchill himself once famously, as an addage to the famous quotation ‘history is written by the winners’, commented that ‘history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it’. That he did and that it is.
If we want to go into details of battleplans during World War 2 it is important to remember the idea which many historians share that ‘the UK gave us time, the USA gave money and the Soviets gave their lives’. This is true.
People think the war was won because of Churchill? Hitler’s decision to invade Russia forced him to move most of his forces East and ended the Blitz which had brought London to its knees. Hitler’s poor planning saved us there.
Then we get onto my real point. The Bengal Famine of 1943. Don’t worry, I know you haven’t heard of it, because it makes Britain, Churchill and both their legacies look bad. Why would it be taught in school?
Bengal (now Bangladesh) was part of the British Indian Empire. Despite millions of Indians volunteering to fight in Europe and Japan to support the Empire, who had been oppressing them for years, Churchill decided that blockades, sanctions and restrictions in that region had to be upheld. To support the war effort. Churchill’s detractors point to his well-documented bigotry, articulated often with shocking callousness and contempt. “I hate Indians,” he once trumpeted. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” Cheers for that Winston.
It is estimated that of the 60 million Bengalis, 2-3 million died of starvation because of this decision.
Want more? He referred to Palestinians as “barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung.” When quashing insurgents in Sudan in the earlier days of his imperial career, Churchill boasted of killing three “savages.” Contemplating restive populations in northwest Asia, he infamously lamented the “squeamishness” of his colleagues, who were not in “favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.” Read that again. Then once more. I’ll stop now but it goes on.
This may sound like an angry rant against Churchill but it’s not. The man displayed great courage and leadership at a time when Britain needed it most. But he is not the hero we have been taught throughout our lives. He was not the Second Coming. In a recent poll he was ranked as the Greatest Briton of all time. Not Darwin? Not Shakespeare? Newton, Lennon, Hawking? None of them ever sanctioned genocide or expressed views which are inexplicable.
Famed for his quick wit, he once entered into an argument with Lady Astor. Lady Astor, infuriated, snapped and commented “Well Winston, if I was your wife I would poison your tea.” To which he replied, “and if I was your husband I would drink it.” A war veteran, a well-versed politician, an excellent public speaker and a Nobel Prize winner for Literature. No one denies the gifts God gave Churchill and it would be difficult to suggest he did not utilise these gifts. But the white-washing of his history is terrifying.
It was in the darkest of times that we needed a man like Churchill. A man of principle and conviction. A complicated man and, if we’re honest, were his incredibly offensive comments so much different from what other politicians at the time were spouting? There is no doubt, however, that in modern times a politician who switched from the Conservatives, to the Liberals, then back to the Conservatives whilst having a drinking problem and advocating policies that many who class as “insane” could ever become PM – twice.
Hero or Villian? Perspective or fact?
Ignorantly Ignorant 