Brit 72 yrs old here, still learning... Thank you Sir.

@robertewing3114

2 ай бұрын

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

As a Scot, I never thought of Churchill being heroic or praiseworthy! My Great Grandfather went to Gallipoli and my Grandfather was abandoned in France. Consigned to 5 years of starvation and slave Labour! He is a Colonial Occupier! 🤬

@gregorymalchuk272

2 күн бұрын

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

Corruption has always under-lined politics, no one is in power unless someone unseen wants them there to do their bidding, wealth and power will always be fiercely guarded, we are all manipulated on every level in every country in the world. Whoever you are, you are being played.

@serpentines6356

Жыл бұрын

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

@mattbell5575

Жыл бұрын

@@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?

@simonengland6448

Жыл бұрын

@@mattbell5575 The thing that always bemuses me is; the truth is so close to the surface and often plainly visible, yet point it out to the average normie and they can't even see it when you highlight it. I don't think we or the US have a chance until the entire story of the first 50 years of the 20th century is told and understood.

@serpentines6356

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@SunakStarmerisacunt

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

No to forget that churchill as defense minister in the first WW was responsible for the death of 140,000 british and australian soldiers in the disastrous Galipoli campaign.

@andrewnorrie2731

Жыл бұрын

And New Zealanders.

@murrismiller2312

Жыл бұрын

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

@murrismiller2312

Жыл бұрын

Horrid landscape , Gallipoli.....horrid

@emmetsweeney9236

Жыл бұрын

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.

@uttaradit2

Жыл бұрын

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

Churchill's explanation for his ordering the RAF to drop nerve gas on Kurdish villages was, 'to instill a healthy terror in them'. What we now call terrorism. At the time we invaded Iraq because Saddam had done the same thing, the British public overwhelmingly voted Churchill the greatest Briton ever to have lived.

People would rather believe in the cuddly disneyfied version of Churchill rather than learning historical fact. Anything for nationalist jingoism. It's disgusting. The truth needs to be heard.

@Alburr250

Жыл бұрын

As someone of Indian and Pakistani heritage I strongly agree

@serpentines6356

Жыл бұрын

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.

@AB-kc3yc

Жыл бұрын

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.

@thehound9638

Жыл бұрын

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.

@AB-kc3yc

Жыл бұрын

@@thehound9638 👍

churchill was prepared to turn the guns on his own people/threatened the Welsh miners with the army

@fun_ghoul

Жыл бұрын

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

@sojourn6697

Ай бұрын

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

@shantishanti1949

Ай бұрын

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

@michaeldunn8972

Ай бұрын

Welsh are not Churchill's own people.

One thing that tranformed my opinion about him, was actually my gran. Growing up, going to a Church of England school, we had the narrative that he was a hero etc. my gran was a teenager in the war, and she grew up in a miner’s household, and she told me that the miners could never forget that on the hunger marches, he set the troops out on them. I don’t discount the contribution he had in WW2, yet he is a far more complicated person than the hero narrative relates.

@xchen3079

Жыл бұрын

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?

@gooderspitman8052

Жыл бұрын

I’ll second that opinion.

@jackreacher5667

Жыл бұрын

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

@xchen3079

Жыл бұрын

@@jackreacher5667 I have said in my comment already.

@jackreacher5667

Жыл бұрын

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

Church's life became sanctified mostly after his death in 1965. I remember it well. The bookshops offered several biographies and tv showed documentaries reviewing Churchill's life and aspects of his successes and failings.

@serpentines6356

Жыл бұрын

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.

@kaushikbasu3778

Жыл бұрын

@@serpentines6356 That is right, sir.

@zulfhashimmi2040

Жыл бұрын

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

@zulfhashimmi2040

Жыл бұрын

@@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

@gooderspitman8052

Жыл бұрын

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?

Churchill was no friend of Ireland either - continually resistant towards Irish independence and threatened to seize militarily Irish ports during WW2. A man should be judged by the actions of his entire lifetime - not by a small section of it.

@rover9214

Жыл бұрын

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

@serpentines6356

Жыл бұрын

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

@tombyrne7784

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@serpentines6356

Жыл бұрын

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

@tombyrne7784

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

I'm from Welsh mining stock,my Grandfather hated Churchill

@AB-kc3yc

Жыл бұрын

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!

@Alfred5555

Жыл бұрын

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

@stevarey3519

Жыл бұрын

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

@antikdeela5625

Жыл бұрын

Us Merthyr boys did the same

@grahamt5924

Жыл бұрын

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

Churchill was an imperialist - But he despised communism and fascism . To say that Churchill was sympathetic to fascism is complete rubbish. As early as 1933 , in his "wildness years " , Churchill was warning Baldwin and Parliament of Hitler's military build up . Tariq Ali has completely invented this part . Churchill was a great believer in Liberal Democracy and did everything he could to restore Democratic elections to Poland . .

@JamesMc2051

Жыл бұрын

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).

@juancampbell5399

Жыл бұрын

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

@johnhooper7040

Жыл бұрын

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.

@juancampbell5399

Жыл бұрын

@@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 ?

@dalipsingh2467

Жыл бұрын

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?

Fun fact : Churchill still owes a tab at the local club. “In the year of grace 1868, a group of British officers banded together to start the Bangalore Club. In the year of grace 1899, one Lt. W.L.S. Churchill was put up on the Club’s list of defaulters, which numbered 17, for an amount of Rs 13/- being for an unpaid bill of the Club. Formed by a bunch of British officers, the Bangalore United Services Club came into existence formally five years later in 1868. Since its existence, many British officers, who were stationed in Bengaluru or erstwhile Bangalore, became members of the exclusive white club for men. Winston Churchill, former British Prime Minister during World War II, and heavily criticised for his role in the great Bengal famine, came to Bangalore in 1896. Twenty-eight years into the club’s existence, Churchill, who was a lieutenant in the 4th Hussars, was stationed in the Bangalore cantonment, when he became a member of the club. According to Bangalore Club’s website, Winston Churchill played polo and read a lot of books at the club during his time as a member and also spent a lot of time “courting” an English woman named Pamela Plowden, who later went on to become Lady Lytton. Three years after his stay in Bengaluru (erstwhile Bangalore), Churchill left for war in the then North-West frontier, which is now Pakistan. When he left the city, he also left behind a debt of Rs 13 that he owed to the club, which was subsequently written off as “irrecoverable debt” in 1899.

@loolfactorie

11 ай бұрын

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

@maaziy_ghaziyIYI

6 ай бұрын

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

Churchill fought passionately for whoever was paying his bills at that time. A model for all western politicians going forward.

@Smudgeroon74

8 ай бұрын

@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

@razachaswills5076

5 ай бұрын

⁠@@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!

@Letsgetiton41

Ай бұрын

Exactly

@serpentines6356

Ай бұрын

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

@alcoholicjoe6199

Ай бұрын

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

At 10:08, the closed captioning has mistakenly labeled the two crucial Soviet victories in WWII as Corsica and Stalingrad, when of course it was Kursk and Stalingrad.

@davidmcnamara2730

Жыл бұрын

do you not understand inflection

@skipper6528

Жыл бұрын

I was thinking Caucasus

@sticky59

Жыл бұрын

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

@caseywhite3150

Жыл бұрын

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

@fun_ghoul

Жыл бұрын

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

"Winston Churchill" by the Soviet writer Vladimir Trukhanovsky, written in 1978, is well worth a read.

@Freedom_4_Assange

Жыл бұрын

thank you !

@adrianingham1560

Жыл бұрын

So is David Irving,s Churchills War.

@perlefisker

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for this recommendation.

@peterplotts1238

Жыл бұрын

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

@robertrichard6107

Жыл бұрын

Italy was no soft underbelly of Europe.

A couple of years ago it was reported 40% of young British people thought Churchill was an animated dog advertising an insurance company of that name.

@philiprenshaw9184

Жыл бұрын

Very funny! Not

@freedom4639

Жыл бұрын

They should keep that one

@brendanbrown3100

11 ай бұрын

Oh yes!

After the war Churchill was voted out of office as the Oldham MP. He didn't win the war. The working class who he treated like shite did the bloody work once more. And the USSR lost over 23 million people fighting the man that Churchill and his ilk promoted and used against the communists and even allowed the prototype Luftwaffe to carpet bomb the republic fighters and civilians in Guernica. The UK establishment made it illegal to travel and fight in Spain against the Fascists. The Western powers allowed the rise of Fascism because they feared Communism. They created a monster (Churchill included) and unleashed it on Europe. The same seems to be unfolding once more in Ukraine. Once more we side with Nazis against the Russian people.

@shantishanti1949

Ай бұрын

Agree entirely. 👍

@JohnBaxter-iq7wr

Ай бұрын

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.

@shantishanti1949

Ай бұрын

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

@JohnBaxter-iq7wr

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@shantishanti1949

Ай бұрын

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

Churchill was not made Prime Minister in 1939. Bit of a glaring mistake for someone like Tariq Ali to make. It was Neville Chamberlain who took Britain into war when his Government declared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939. Churchill did not take over as PM until May 1940.

@robertrichard6107

Жыл бұрын

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.

@cloviscameron7233

Жыл бұрын

Give and take a few minutes.

@briancarton1804

Жыл бұрын

Ever hear of a slip of the tongue.

@junewebb-baptiste2409

Жыл бұрын

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

@lorddaver5729

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

He was huge reason for 3 million deaths in the Great Bengal Famine 1943 by demanding food to be sent out to Britain and elsewhere and blaming the Indians for it. Even rejected offers for aid by US to do maximum devastation to the people of Bengal

@Mute040404

Жыл бұрын

No mention of the Japanese blockage at the time ?

@jryan2552

Жыл бұрын

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

@shkodranalbi

10 ай бұрын

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.

@shkodranalbi

10 ай бұрын

@@Mute040404 which provoked Pearl Harbour

@copferthat

10 ай бұрын

Is it compulsory for you all to talk such shite?

According to Tony Benn the reason Churchill lost the 45 election was because they had been reading Robert Tressells book The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.

@grahamt5924

Жыл бұрын

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

@2msvalkyrie529

Жыл бұрын

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

@widsof7862

Жыл бұрын

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.

@landsea7332

Жыл бұрын

@@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 . .

@michaelmccomb2594

6 ай бұрын

@@grahamt5924didn’t rationing continue under Attlee?

it's crazy cause non white brits are effectively gaslighted and told the person that felt so negatively about us, was a really good person with admirable values????

@jonsmith1162

2 жыл бұрын

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

@carcher3279

Жыл бұрын

Britain is gas lighting central HQ of the world.

@sheilasmith7991

Жыл бұрын

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

@carcher3279

Жыл бұрын

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

@afkaqualls

Жыл бұрын

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

Tariq should write a book about all of these evil scum spend their lives trying to mess with the peasants !

@drstrangelove4998

Жыл бұрын

Tariq has spent his life trashing the British.

@freebeerfordworkers

Жыл бұрын

@@drstrangelove4998 He had to skip his native Pakistan it was too dangerous to be a revolutionary there.

@user-kn8un4ru8p

Жыл бұрын

@@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...........

@elkpaz560

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@user-kn8un4ru8p

Жыл бұрын

@@elkpaz560 the scars make it true.

The English have a strange compulsion for forelock tugging. Doesn´t really matter who.

@kerryburns6041

Жыл бұрын

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

@freedom4639

Жыл бұрын

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

@sojourn6697

Ай бұрын

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

Churchill was a bloodthirsty monster that could have prevented WW2

@richard7704

Жыл бұрын

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

@andym9571

Жыл бұрын

Ridiculous

@Freedom_4_Assange

Жыл бұрын

@@andym9571 kzread.info/dash/bejne/nox82suEdLeulrg.html

@zulfhashimmi2040

Жыл бұрын

Yes indeed

@brendanbrown3100

11 ай бұрын

So nothing to do with Hitler invading Poland then?

Also after the war he was voted out by the very soldiers who returned after defeating Hitler.

@fearnpol4938

Жыл бұрын

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

@charlytaylor1748

Жыл бұрын

Working class men exchanging ideas on the front line

@Alfred5555

Жыл бұрын

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.

@rupert5390

Жыл бұрын

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

@iainclark5964

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

Working Class people like my grandparents knew what Churchill was and got rid of him in election after war

@michaelmccomb2594

6 ай бұрын

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.

Very interesting synopsis, I will definitely read this book. Different view points make for interesting debate and one should not be polarised in one’s opinions without reading all sides of a story.

@embalmertrick1420

Жыл бұрын

He ignores facts... 🙄

@gooderspitman8052

Жыл бұрын

@@embalmertrick1420 which are?

@richardwills-woodward5340

Жыл бұрын

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

@gooderspitman8052

Жыл бұрын

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.

@TrueEnglishMan01

Жыл бұрын

@@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?

Thank you for this!

Tariq, I have no idea who you are, I never heard of you AND you reflect just about everything that I, as a white, black sheep, English man from a true blue background, have worked out over my six or so decades. I commend your excelent presentation of your perceptions.

@charananekibalijaun8837

Жыл бұрын

'excelent' English man you are 🤦

@philiprufus4427

Жыл бұрын

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

@alipaf2002

Жыл бұрын

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

@nickush7512

Жыл бұрын

@@alipaf2002 Could not agree more.

@2msvalkyrie529

Жыл бұрын

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.

Well done. Some real insights

Churchill was not a fascist but he was an eugenicist. Questionable what is worse !

I was born just after the war. London was still flattened, I saw it. My parents and aunts, uncles, all knew that Churchill's leadership and stoicism, through the radio broadcasts of the time, kept up morale when everyone was losing everything, their homes and families. This was when UK stood alone, before the US or Soviet Union were fighting Germany. There is a reason why Churchill is revered. Easy and cheap to pick off the things that he did that, retrospectively, after several generations and cultural changes, seem wrong. We have no idea now what life was like under the Blitz. Nothing can change what Churchill did for this country.

@johnsmith-mq4eq

Жыл бұрын

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

@freedom4639

Жыл бұрын

Keep drinking the drug

@zulfhashimmi2040

Жыл бұрын

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.

@zulfhashimmi2040

Жыл бұрын

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

@DorotheaAntonio

Жыл бұрын

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

Mr Ali is quite right, it is a cult of personality that has been built up around the character of Churchill. One where his faults are not only ignored but actively erased. This is very politically and culturally harmful, in my opinion. The record needs to be set straight, and I for one am very pleased that this man is attempting to straighten it. When ever people come at me with "Winston Churchill the great" rhetoric, I only have two words for them: Bengal famine.

@tmahe28

Жыл бұрын

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

@carlodefalco7930

Жыл бұрын

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 .

@arunjetli7909

Жыл бұрын

@@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

@chrisjones2224

Жыл бұрын

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.

@littlestone1541

Жыл бұрын

@@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 mean I’m Australian so I know Gallipoli only happens because of Churchill. But I’m also Polish, so I know the the horror of WW2 - whirl Churchill was deeply flawed he stood against Hitler. I would chose him over the available alternatives everyday.

@agin1519

Жыл бұрын

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.

@philiprufus4427

Жыл бұрын

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

@alipaf2002

Жыл бұрын

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

@fun_ghoul

Жыл бұрын

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

And that is why Boris Johnson venerates him.

Having been born in the US in 1950 I can assure you that deep respect for Mr C. , with an understanding of his quirks, was well established long before the Falklands war. If you are really concerned with racism, I would start with Japan, China, Korea and the Indian class system

@chrisbennett6260

Жыл бұрын

yeah dodge the issue by deflecting it to to other countries

@saracenseven8314

Жыл бұрын

let me guess non wasp

@serpentines6356

Жыл бұрын

@@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?

@chrisbennett6260

Жыл бұрын

@@saracenseven8314 if the cap fits mate

@robertblankenship8541

Жыл бұрын

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

I remember him as agitating student in the sixties, he's still at it.

@SunakStarmerisacunt

Жыл бұрын

good. Facts are facts.

@namethathasntbeentakenyetm3682

Жыл бұрын

God bless Tariq

@namethathasntbeentakenyetm3682

Жыл бұрын

@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.

@namethathasntbeentakenyetm3682

Жыл бұрын

@Van Brighouse Yeah I see what you mean.

@jonlewis6700

Жыл бұрын

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

He became Prime Minister in 1940. The previous Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, remained leader of the Conservative Party until his death in November 1940, serving in Churchill's Con-Lib-Lab Coalition Government cabinet dealing with home affairs. He got 47% of the vote against Labour's 49% in the 1951 General Election. Due to the distortions of the first-pass-the-post system, and demographic changes not taken into account in constituency boundary changed, Churchill's Conservatives won a majority, ushering in 13 years of Conservative rule. There still fails to be a top up system to ensure that the party with the largest number of seats gets the largest number of votes.

I suppose the question is: How do we measure a persons worth? Does doing one bad thing negate all the good things they did? Should we judge the person by todays standards or view their life within the prism of history. Does Mandela or Gandhi get let off for their views and actions, or can we also claim their cult is built on lies?

@owenokane9643

11 ай бұрын

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.

It reminds me of when I wrote a graduate presentation on the Soham Rail Disaster in 1944, and learned quickly that despite the image Churchill had very little to do with WW2 British domestic politics as opposed to the Labour Party.

@serpentines6356

Жыл бұрын

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

@jonlewis6700

Жыл бұрын

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

@fredfrantz855

Жыл бұрын

@@serpentines6356 thanks for that.....

@keithfrost1190

Жыл бұрын

@@serpentines6356 All on his own!

@serpentines6356

Жыл бұрын

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

If only we had intellectual wind bags like Tariq Ali instead of Churchill to fight nazis in 1939-1945

@DavidSmith-fs5qj

Ай бұрын

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

My mother from a working class family and growing up in the 1920s and 1930s hated Churchill with a passion, exactly for the reasons that the commentator here states. However, she does accept that in WW2, he was the right man at the right place in the right job. Throughout the Empire Years the British population were fed a diet of propaganda of the “Benevolent” care of the people of the Empire. Churchill was one of those who propagated the lies.

@Smudgeroon74

8 ай бұрын

@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 debates are important, but you don't get to tear down public historical art. Public historical art is so important. We need more of it, not less.

@davidpalk5010

Жыл бұрын

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.

@serpentines6356

Жыл бұрын

@@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!

@grahamt5924

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@DefenderOfLogic

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@grahamt5924

Жыл бұрын

@@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?

The right Man at the Right time but after WWII his time was over How he was ever Voted in again is beyond me.

an excellant way to start my day . . . many thanks

If he thought well of Fascist leaders, why did he bang the drum before WW2 when others thought there would be "Peace in our time".

@danteshydratshirt2360

Жыл бұрын

rival gang leaders are basically the same - they dont like competition

He had his faults like everyone else but Winston Churchill was a great man and the ultimate British patriot. It’s a pity there’s nobody remotely like him in British politics today. May he Rest In Peace.❤

@larrybxl5406

5 ай бұрын

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.

@mudra5114

3 ай бұрын

Guy was a mass murderer mate. A genocider.

Very interesting - will read this book, and will discount a bit for source!

You suggest that history of colonialism should not have happened.....but it did.....it's just what is. Those with power take what they want. Their heroes like Churchill were not liked for being nice people, but for helping defeat the enemy. After the war he was redundant. Life in all countries, at all times, rolls on, it has no purpose or plan - just what is possible. The Churchill cult comes from a sense of loss of 'great britain'....nostalgia.

Fascinating! I think I might buy his book. Great that at last someone is writing about Churchill unafraid to criticise a very flawed man whose failures are effectively forgotten because of his role in WW2. A role which was exaggerated because he wrote the definitive history of the war

@juancampbell5399

Жыл бұрын

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?

@johnwalters5131

Жыл бұрын

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

@farinatadegliuberti8461

Жыл бұрын

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

@differous01

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@sueelliott8085

Жыл бұрын

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.

I didn't know about the mutinies. Very interesting. Thank you

@robertrichard6107

Жыл бұрын

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'.

Didn't the English have a penchant for displaying the heads of their enemies on poles outside their castles going back to the middle ages? Was their explanation of their barbaric behavior against the Greek resistance a bit of projection?

At last how refreshing! Churchill would never had lowered the Union Jack anywhere in Empire Indian Military Veterans .

@AB-kc3yc

Жыл бұрын

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.

Problem is all his flaws are cancelled out and more by his leadership during the war which helped rally the british people.Regardless of what people think of his numerous bad points and flaws his leadership during the war outweighs it , and I say this as someone who is Irish (a country Churchill had complete contempt for) .

@MrWhothefoxthat

Жыл бұрын

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.

@alipaf2002

Жыл бұрын

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

@neilthefish

Жыл бұрын

As somebody Who is lrish you should be ashamed.

@DerekDerekDerekDerekDerekDerek

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

If you read anything about Churchill you will see he was basically a beligerent windbag. Unfortunately that is the type of leader needed in a war. Once he became PM he was full of hairbrained miltary schemes that had to be curbed by his various military advisors. He was obsessed with getting back Britains colonial possessions in the far east. He was also opposed to the Normandy landings until Stalin and Roosevelt forced his hand

@johnbrewer8954

Жыл бұрын

Was all that in a dream you had?

Prof. Dorling lecture around brexit and the British empire is an interesting video to watch alongside this one.

You should do one about one of the many Asian despot's . save you going through the pain of dealing with the English ones .....just a thought

@serpentines6356

Жыл бұрын

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.

@abrahamheg1734

Жыл бұрын

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

@abrahamheg1734

Жыл бұрын

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

@serpentines6356

Жыл бұрын

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

@IshtarNike

Жыл бұрын

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

HRH the Duke of Kent, in the book ‘First to fight’ pays tribute to Polish forces during WWII, after kindly unveiling a Polish Armed Forces War Memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum on 19th September 2009. In the introduction of the same publication, the grandson of Winston Churchill, Sir Winston S. Churchill, also pays tribute to the Polish Forces and states that it was his grandfather’s greatest disappointment that Poland endured Soviet slavery for 45 years and blamed Roosevelt for not recognising Stalin’s obvious intent towards Europe. I suspect Winston Churchill’s conscience troubled him for the remainder of his life.

@landsea7332

Жыл бұрын

" 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 . kzread.info/dash/bejne/oW2D2MOjm9rfqNo.html .

Had Churchill not been PM during WW2 we would've remembered him as yet another mediocre aristocratic politician that got their career obliterated by WW1

tariq ali should wake up and live in 2023 with worlds real problems!!

@josef1836

Ай бұрын

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

Always nice to hear Tariq speak on anything.

@cloviscameron7233

Жыл бұрын

I used to be on demonstration with him back in the days.

@rolandhawken6628

Жыл бұрын

Yes even though he has no idea what he is talking about .Russia did not win the second WW Without the second front in Normandy the constant bombing Of Germany Russia would have remained occupied . To say one nation defeated Germany is stupid

@terryhoath1983

Жыл бұрын

@@rolandhawken6628 Tariq has never understood what he is talking about. Within the first few seconds of the beginning, he said that he didn't want to write about Churchill ...... because he didn't want to prolong the Churchill Cult and he didn't want to "waste time" reading about him. Well, he certainly DIDN'T "waste time" doing any research, but he still wasted time writing rubbish. It is amazing what a book contract can do. As for your reply ... absolutely right.

@afkaqualls

Жыл бұрын

@@terryhoath1983 Mind explaining everything he gets wrong?

@afkaqualls

Жыл бұрын

@@rolandhawken6628 Quit lying. He literally says the defeat of the fascists was a combination of the Soviet Union on the eastern front and the American industrial war machine. You didn't even watch the video.

It has been many years since I listened to you. I am so happy to see you have lost none of your fire. The world is a much richer place for your contribution.

@colinbrigham8253

Жыл бұрын

I agree 😊

well done sir

tariiq ali put the boot to the churchill myth in elegant fashion, readable and well-supported.

Churchill did support the Partition because he wanted the continuation of the Great Game.

@AB-kc3yc

Жыл бұрын

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.

@SunakStarmerisacunt

Жыл бұрын

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

@andym9571

Жыл бұрын

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

@Mute040404

Жыл бұрын

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

@pushpenderrana6190

7 ай бұрын

Jinnah was meeting him all the time

He mentions the 3 million deaths in Bengal caused by Churchill right at end of this presentation. I thought he was not going to mention it! A famine was to blame for so many deaths

@beerd67

Жыл бұрын

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

@matthewkopp2391

Жыл бұрын

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.

@marasi36

Жыл бұрын

4.5 million!

@barrybarry6592

Жыл бұрын

A famine directly managed by the government agents

@serpentines6356

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

True about Clement Attlee as Tariq said . Apparently Churchill once said " Mr.Attlee is a very modest man and has much to be modest about " . It is also overlooked that Attlee was Churchill's Deputy PM during the war time coalition and basically ran the UK domestically whilst Churchill concentrated on the war effort .

@michaelmccomb2594

6 ай бұрын

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.“

It amazes me that so many people have a distorted opinion of Churchill, He seems to be growing in popularity in the USA. His Leadership during the 2nd World War is the only thing he did that was half way reasonable. Thank you for speaking the Truth.

What a brilliant speaker

@wolfthequarrelsome504

Жыл бұрын

Who was?

@AB-kc3yc

Жыл бұрын

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.

@SunakStarmerisacunt

Жыл бұрын

@@wolfthequarrelsome504 your mums boyfriend when your dad was out.

@landsea7332

Жыл бұрын

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 .

His description of the Churchill cult as an English one ignores how he is revered in certain right wing American circles.

@user-wj6dt5bq3w

Ай бұрын

That's simply an extension of the same cult.

@philwilliams953

Ай бұрын

​@@user-wj6dt5bq3w Why?

How fiercely little men resent greatness.

Winston Churchill Was a disaster as a politician with the exception of 1940-1942, his first two years as Prime Minister. But given that 1940-1942 was a time that the UK was most under threat from Hitler and the Nazis ,Churchill gained massive public popularity.

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 any better!

@christophermclaughlin8917

Жыл бұрын

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.

The evil men do lives on after them ,the good is interned with their bones .

@afkaqualls

Жыл бұрын

Cool "wisdom" too bad its dumb as hell

@spundam

Жыл бұрын

It's 'interred' not 'interned.'

@rolandhawken6628

Жыл бұрын

@@spundam Yes of course ,thanks

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’s 2 books on Churchill were great…… Churchills involvement with the focus was very interesting

@17152ad

Жыл бұрын

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

@Benidorm167

Жыл бұрын

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.

True

The working class should remember who he was and what he did and wanted to do to keep them down Victorian values

Says the guy who lives in a country not ruled by a german dictator. Ingratitude is outrageous

Now I understand why Boris Johnson is so infatuated with Churchill: birds of a feather...

Exquisitely and eloquently put.

Churchill was a bastard but you need such a man in a war situation

A very well delivered lecture!

Brilliant

And yet, clearly Ali is a man driven by personal vengeance.

What I don’t get is why the U.S. media industry enthusiastically cooperates in the production of the Churchill Personality Cult.

Tariq is so intellectually vast. He's been a noted activist-philosopher throughout my lifetime; which overlaps his. I have tremendous respect and appreciation for him and for his inspiring work.

Churchill sent paid mercenaries to Ireland ( £1 a day) in 1922 with a free hand to crush the Irish, they were mostly ptsd suffering WW1 vets and criminals, their mixture of RIC and army uniforms earned them the label, black & tans, even the regular British army soldiers were appalled at their behaviour twords ordinary people.

While i'm no communist we can learn from lenin who said "you must work and struggle alongside the labour/reformists to show them how opportinistic double dealing with the right wing elite damages the workers movement. Only this way can people be won from the dead end of parliamentary politics" Just look at the spectacle of Starmer lauding the likes of Thatcher(an ardent churchill fan) and vowing to continue austerity. Isn't it sad Churchill could be taken as the figurehead of another workers party? Confining the minds of the people within the nationalist straitjacket will lead to a colossal defeat.

3 million dead in the Bengal famine. If Churchill carries even partial responsibility for that he would be no different to Hitler

Ali should debate Andrew Roberts on this

@andym9571

Жыл бұрын

Spot on ! See how he would debate with someone who actually knows facts !

Churchill also took credit for all the (apparently) brilliant strategic decisions which he was able take due to intelligence being gathered from the 'Ultra' secret. The level of intelligence which the (actually) brilliant British and Polish code breakers supplied Churchill with during WWII, was truly staggering, but this revealing fact remained hidden until the 1970s. It was very convenient that Churchill's own history of WWII could make no reference to the Ultra secret.

@grahamt5924

Жыл бұрын

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.

@davidbrear8642

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@grahamt5924

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@davidbrear8642

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@grahamt5924

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

Study Winston Churchill's "Operation Unthinkable"

I don't necessarily agree, but I do like the way you speak

most important book to come out this year imo

@AB-kc3yc

Жыл бұрын

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.

For Ali and all his ilk who are arm chair nobodies who just want to be smug and say look how better I am, who is the end have a achieved nothing. I leave the immortal words of Teddy Roosevelt. “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." Well done Churchill!

@lewislee9201

Жыл бұрын

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.

Quite reassuring to find someone who says similar things to myself when I point out that the allies lost WWII in Europe and sold half of Europe down the river - they think I'm insane or a supporter of Hitler (by some illogical sense of reasoning).

Extremely interesting to listen to, as a French. Maybe there's already a Vietnamese, Syrian, Algerian or Senegalese introduction to Charles de Gaulle as deep and educated as Tariq Ali's one on lord Churchill? [1] omitting a possible French scholar since AFAIK M de Gaulle had no political influence before the 1940 defeat.

I respect Mr Tariq Ali.I have always wanted to know more about this British leader.I will read this book.