Churchill the Opportunist
Churchill the Socialist
Churchill and the
First World War
Churchill Between the
The Crash of 1929
Churchill and the
Second World War
The War Crimes
Churchill and the Cold
On February 4th, President Bush eulogized the life of Winston
Churchill. The president described Winston Churchill as a "great
man" and quickly zeroed in on the mistress that both Bush and
Churchill share: war. "He was a prisoner in the Boer War, a
controversial strategist in the Great War. He was the rallying
voice of the Second World War, and a prophet of the Cold War."
Indeed, there doesn't seem to have been a war—or an opportunity
for war—that Churchill wasn't associated with during his long
Bush also recited Churchill's famous retort that "History
will be kind to me, for I intend to write it" adding that
"history has been kind to Winston Churchill, as it usually is to
those who help save the world," surely hoping that history will
be kind to George W. Bush.
Except this history is a myth. The truth about the real
Churchill—the Churchill that few know—is that he was "a man of
the state: of the welfare state and of the warfare state" in
Professor Ralph Raico's turn-of-phrase. The truth about Winston
Churchill is that he was a menace to liberty, and a disaster for
Britain, for Europe, for the United States of America, and for
Western Civilization itself.
Not since fictional personages like Hercules and Zeus, have
so many myths been attached to one man. As we will see, the
Winston Churchill we're told about is not the Churchill known to
honest history, but rather a fictional version of the man and
his actions. And these words and actions have produced our
mainstream "patriotic political myths" as John
Denson calls them, which are merely the victor's wartime
lies and propaganda scripted into the 'Official History.' The
Churchill mythology is challenged by honest history, and the
reality about Churchill involves hard, but necessary truths.
Churchill the Opportunist
Of course, central to the neocon mythology built up around
their almost deified idealization of Churchill is that he fought
for (in Bush's words comparing Tony Blair to Churchill), "the
right thing, and not the easy thing," right over popularity,
principle over opportunism.
Except that isn't true. Churchill was above all a man who
craved power, and a man who craves power, craves opportunity to
advance himself no matter what the cost.
When Churchill entered politics, many took note of his unique
rhetorical talents, which gave him power over men, but it also
came with a powerful failing of its own. During WWII, Robert
Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia, noted of Churchill
"His real tyrant is the glittering phrase so attractive to his
mind that awkward facts have to give way."
However, Churchill had other failings as well. The Spectator
newspaper said of Churchill upon his appointment as First Lord
of the Admiralty in 1911: "We cannot detect in his career any
principles or even any constant outlook upon public affairs; his
ear is always to the ground; he is the true demagogue. . . ."
The great English classical liberal John Morley, after
working with Churchill, passed a succinct appraisal of him,
"Winston," he said, "has no principles."
Entering politics in 1900, Churchill (the grandson of a Duke
and son of a prominent Tory) naturally joined the governing
Conservative party. Then in 1904, he left the Conservatives and
joined the Liberal party, and when they were in decline
Churchill dumped them and rejoined the Conservatives, uttering
his famous quote "It's one thing to rat, it's another to
re-rat." Churchill allegedly made his move to the Liberals on
the issue of free trade. However, Robert Rhodes James, a
Churchill admirer, wrote: "It was believed [at the time],
probably rightly, that if Arthur Balfour had given him office in
1902, Churchill would not have developed such a burning interest
in free trade and joined the Liberals." Clive Ponting also notes
that ". . .he had already admitted to Rosebery, he was looking
for an excuse to defect from a party that seemed reluctant to
recognize his talents." Since the Liberals would not accept a
protectionist, Churchill had to change his tune.
It's not a surprise that this neoconservative administration
and its apologists in the tamed media laud and venerate
Churchill, for he was as President Bush described him; a man who
was synonymous with war. Churchill loved war. In 1925, he wrote,
"The story of the human race is war." This is untrue, but
Churchill lacked any grasp of the fundamentals of true,
classical liberalism. The story of the human race is increasing
peaceful cooperation and the efforts by some to stop it through
war. However, for Churchill, periods without war offered nothing
but "the bland skies of peace and platitude."
Without principles or scruples, Churchill as a prominent
member of the Liberal party government naturally played a role
in the hijacking of liberalism from its roots in individualism,
laissez-faire, free trade and bourgeois morality, to its
transformation into the "New Liberalism" as a proxy for
socialism and the omnipotent state in Britain and in America.
Churchill was also a famous opponent of Communism and of
Bolshevism in particular. One of the reasons why Churchill
admired Italian Fascism was Churchill believed that Mussolini
had found a formula that would neutralize the appeal of
communism, namely super-nationalism with a social welfarist
appeal. This is a domestic formula for power that still appeals
today, if the Bush Administration is any indication. Churchill
went so far as to say that Fascism "proved the necessary
antidote to the Communist poison."
Then came 1941. Churchill made his peace with Communism.
Temporarily, of course. Churchill gave unconditional support to
Stalin, welcoming him as an ally, even embracing him as a
friend, and calling the Breaker of Nations, "Uncle Joe." In his
single-minded obsession with destroying German National
Socialism (while establishing his own British national
socialism) and carrying on his pre-World War I British
Imperialist vendetta to destroy Germany, Churchill completely
failed to consider the danger of inviting Soviet power and
communism into the heart of Europe.
Of course, his self-created mythology--chiefly through his
own books--states that he sensed the danger and tried to warn
Roosevelt about Stalin, but the records of the time do not prove
this out. In fact, Churchill's infatuation with Stalin reached
the point where at the Tehran conference in November 1943,
Churchill presented Stalin with a Crusader's sword; Stalin, who
had murdered millions of Christians, was now presented by
Churchill as a defender of the Christian West.
But if one was to sum up Churchill's passion, his overall
reason for entering politics, it was the empire. The British
Empire was Churchill's abiding love. He fought to expand it, he
defended it, and he created his decades-long hatred of Germany
because of it. The Empire was at the center of his view of the
world. Even as late as 1947, Churchill opposed Indian
independence. When Lord Irwin urged him to bring his views on
India up-to-date by talking to some Indians Churchill replied "I
am quite satisfied with my views on India, and I don't want them
disturbed by any bloody Indians." So much for democracy.
Churchill the Socialist
Churchill made a name for himself as an opponent of socialism
both before and after the First World War, except during the war
when he was a staunch promoter of war socialism, declaring in a
speech: "Our whole nation must be organized, must be socialized
if you like the word." Of course, such rank hypocrisy was by now
Churchill's stock-in-trade, and not surprisingly, during the
1945 election, Churchill described his partners in the national
unity government, the Labour Party, as totalitarians, when it
was Churchill himself who had accepted the infamous Beveridge
Report that laid the foundations for the post-war welfare state
and Keynesian (mis)management of the economy.
As Mises wrote
in 1950, "It is noteworthy to remember that British socialism
was not an achievement of Mr. Attlee's Labor Government, but of
the war cabinet of Mr. Winston Churchill."
Churchill was converted to the Bismarckian model of social
insurance following a visit to Germany. As Churchill told his
constituents: "My heart was filled with admiration of the
patient genius which had added these social bulwarks to the many
glories of the German race." He set out, in his words, to
"thrust a big slice of Bismarckianism over the whole underside
of our industrial system." In 1908, Churchill announced in a
speech in Dundee: "I am on the side of those who think that a
greater collective sentiment should be introduced into the State
and the municipalities. I should like to see the State
undertaking new functions." Churchill even said: "I go farther;
I should like to see the State embark on various novel and
Churchill claimed that "the cause of the Liberal Party is the
cause of the left-out millions," and attacked the Conservatives
as "the Party of the rich against the poor, the classes and
their dependents against the masses, of the lucky, the wealthy,
the happy, and the strong, against the left-out and the shut-out
millions of the weak and poor." Churchill berated the
Conservatives for lacking even a "single plan of social reform
or reconstruction," while boasting that his "New Liberalism"
offered "a wide, comprehensive, interdependent scheme of social
organisation," incorporating "a massive series of legislative
proposals and administrative acts."
Churchill had fallen under the spell of the Fabian Society,
and its leaders Beatrice and Sidney Webb, who more than any
other group, are responsible for the decline of British society.
Here he was introduced to William, later Lord Beveridge, who
Churchill brought into the Board of Trade as his advisor on
social questions. Besides pushing for a variety of social
insurance schemes, Churchill created the system of national
labor exchanges, stating the need to "spread . . . a sort of
Germanized network of state intervention and regulation" over
the British labor market. Churchill even entertained a more
ambitious goal for the Board of Trade. He proposed a plan
whereby the Board of Trade would act as the economic
"intelligence department" of the Government, forecasting trade
and employment in Britain so that the Government could spend
money in the most deserving areas. Controlling this pork would
be a Committee of National Organisation to plan the economy.
Churchill was well aware of the electoral potential of
organized labor, so naturally Churchill became a champion of the
labor unions. He was a leading supporter of the Trades Disputes
Act of 1906 which reversed the judicial decisions which had held
unions responsible for property damage and injuries committed by
their agents on the unions behalf, in effect granting unions a
privileged position exempting them from the ordinary law of the
land. It is ironic that the immense power of the British labor
unions that made Britain the "Sick Man of Europe" for two
generations and became the foil of Margaret Thatcher, originated
with the enthusiastic help of her hero, Winston Churchill.
We can only conclude by Churchill's actions that personal
freedom was the furthest thing from his mind.
Churchill and the First World War
The Great War destroyed European culture and the commitment
to truths. In their place, generations embraced relativism,
nihilism and socialism, and from the ashes arose Lenin, Stalin
and Hitler and their evil doctrines that infect contemporary
culture. In the words of the British historian, Niall Ferguson,
the First World War "was nothing less than the greatest error in
In 1911, Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty, and,
during the crises that followed, used every opportunity to fan
the flames of war. When the final crisis came, in 1914,
Churchill was all smiles and was the only cabinet member who
backed war from the start. Asquith, his own Prime Minister,
wrote: "Winston very bellicose and demanding immediate
mobilization . . . has got all his war paint on."
Churchill was instrumental in establishing the illegal
starvation blockade of Germany. The blockade depended on
scattering mines, and classified as contraband food for
civilians. But, throughout his career, international law and the
conventions created to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to
Churchill. One of the consequences of the hunger blockade was
that, while it killed 750,000 German civilians by hunger and
malnutrition, the youth who survived went on to become the most
Whether Churchill actually arranged for the sinking of the
Lusitania on May 7, 1915, is still unclear, but it is clear that
he did everything possible to ensure that innocent Americans
would be killed by German attempts to break the hunger blockade.
A week before the disaster, Churchill wrote to Walter
Runciman, President of the Board of Trade that it was "most
important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the
hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany."
The Lusitania was a civilian passenger liner loaded with
munitions. Earlier, Churchill had ordered the captains of
merchant ships, including liners, to ram German submarines, and
the Germans were aware of this. The German government even took
out newspaper ads in New York warning Americans not to board the
Churchill, by helping engineer the entry of the United States
into the Great War, set in motion the transformation of the war
into a Democratic Jihad. Wilsonianism lead to the eventual
destruction of the Austrian Empire, and the creation of a vast
power vacuum on Germany's southeastern border that would provide
fruitful opportunities and allies for Hitler's effort to
overturn the Versailles Treaty.
But Churchill was not a strategist. All he cared for, as he
told a visitor after his Gallipoli disaster, was "the waging of
war, the defeat of the Germans."
Churchill Between the Wars
Churchill, who had been appointed Colonial Secretary,
invented two client kingdoms, Transjordan and Iraq, both
artificial and unstable states. Churchill's aim of course was
not liberty for oppressed peoples, as his admirers like to claim
for him, but for Britain to dominate the Middle East to ensure
that the oil wells of Iraq and the Persian Gulf were securely in
In 1924, Churchill rejoined the Conservative party and was
made Chancellor of the Exchequer, where he returned Britain to
the gold standard but didn't account for the British governments
wartime inflation, which consequently severely damaged exports
and ruined the good name of gold. But, of course, Churchill
cared nothing for economic ideas. What interested him was only
that the pound would be as strong as in the days of Queen
Victoria, that once more the pound would "look the dollar in the
face." The consequences of this decision had a far-reaching and
disastrous impact on western civilization and the consequent
appeal of socialism, Nazism and communism: the Crash of 1929.
It was Churchill's unrealistic exchange ratio that caused the
Bank of England and the U.S. Federal Reserve to collude to prop
up the pound by inflating the U.S. dollar, which in turn fueled
the speculative boom during the 1920's that collapsed when the
Churchill's fame—and his mythology—originates during the
period of the 30's, especially for neoconservatives, for whom it
is always 1938. However, Churchill's hard line against Hitler
was little different from his usual warnings about pre-war
Imperial Germany, and his hard line against inter-war Weimar
Germany. For Churchill saw Germany at all times and in all ways
as a threat to the British Empire. A threat that had to be
destroyed and forever kept under heel. For instance, Churchill
denounced all calls for Allied disarmament even before Hitler
came to power. Churchill, like Clemenceau, Wilson and other
Allied leaders, held the unrealistic belief that a defeated
Germany would submit forever to the shackles of Versailles.
And what the neocons forget, or don't know, is that Prime
Minister Stanley Baldwin acknowledged in the House of Commons
that, had they told the people the truth, the Conservatives
could never have won the 1936 election. "Supposing that I had
gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming and that
we must be armed, does anyone think that our pacific democracy
would have rallied to that cry?" It was Neville Chamberlain who
began the rearmament of Britain after the Munich Crisis, the
arms which Churchill would not have had during the Battle of
Britain, including the first deployment of radar, which
Churchill mocked while in opposition in the 1930s.
Moreover, Churchill's Cassandra-like role during the '30s
emerged largely because Churchill moved from one impending
threat to the next: Bolshevik Russia, the General Strike of
1926, the dangers of Indian independence, the abdication crisis
in 1936. During the '30s Churchill was the proverbial Boy Who
Cried Wolf. Maybe his neocon admirers could have learned that
lesson about Iraq.
But as in all things, even with this Churchill reversed
himself. In the fall of 1937, he stated:
"Three or four years ago I was myself a loud alarmist. . . .
In spite of the risks which wait on prophecy, I declare my
belief that a major war is not imminent, and I still believe
that there is a good chance of no major war taking place in our
lifetime. . . . I will not pretend that, if I had to choose
between Communism and Nazism, I would choose Communism."
And in his book Step By Step written in 1937, Churchill had
this to say about the Mortal Enemy: ". . .one may dislike
Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our
country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as
indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place
among the nations." One has to wonder if Churchill was referring
to himself in his hypothetical example.
The common mythology is so far from historical truth that
even an ardent Churchill sympathizer, Gordon Craig, felt obliged
It is reasonably well-known today that Churchill was often
ill-informed, that his claims about German strength were
exaggerated and his prescriptions impractical, that his emphasis
on air power was misplaced.
Moreover, as a British historian noted: "For the record, it
is worth recalling that in the 1930s Churchill did not oppose
the appeasement of either Italy or Japan."
Churchill and the Second World War
After Munich, Chamberlain was determined that Hitler would
have no more easy victories, and when Germany invaded Poland in
September 1939, Britain declared war on Germany, and Churchill
was recalled to his old place as First Lord of the Admiralty. An
astonishing thing then happened: the President of the United
States by-passed all the ordinary diplomatic channels and
initiated a personal correspondence, not with the Prime
Minister, but with Churchill. These messages were surrounded by
a frantic secrecy, and culminated in the imprisonment of Tyler
Kent, the American cipher clerk at the U.S. embassy in London.
Some of these messages contained allusions to FDR's agreement
prior to the war to an alliance with Britain, contrary to his
public statements and American law.
Three months prior to the war, Roosevelt told King George VI
that he intended to set up a zone in the Atlantic to be
patrolled by the U.S. Navy, and, according to the King's notes,
the President stated that "if he saw a U boat he would sink her
at once & wait for the consequences." The biographer of George
VI, John W. Wheeler-Bennett, considered that these conversations
"contained the germ of the future Bases-for-Destroyers deal, and
also of the Lend-Lease Agreement itself."
In 1940, Churchill at last became Prime Minister, ironically
enough when the Chamberlain government resigned over Churchill's
aborted plan to pre-emptively invade Norway. After France's
armed forces were destroyed by the Blitzkrieg, and the British
army fled towards the Channel, Churchill the conservative, the
"anti-socialist," defiled the common law by passing totalitarian
legislation placing "all persons, their services and their
property at the disposal of the Crown," i.e., into the hands of
During the Battle of Britain, Churchill gave perhaps his most
famous speech, in which he plagiarized the French Premier
Georges Clemenceau, and where he uttered his famous phrase "If
the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for a thousand
years, men will say, "This was their finest hour!" This calls to
mind another man's boast about a thousand year Reich. Churchill
also hinted at his plot to drag America into the war: ". . .we
shall never surrender, and even if . . . this island . . . were
subjugated . . . then our empire beyond the seas, armed and
guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle,
until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and
might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old."
But like Marxist Revolutionaries, Christian Millennialists and
other assorted cranks, Churchill was not at all interested in
"God's good time" or any other presumed unearthly schedule, and
he worked night and day to collude with Roosevelt to get America
into the war.
As PM, Churchill continued his policy to refuse any
negotiated peace. Even after the Fall of France, Churchill
rejected Hitler's renewed peace overtures. This, however, more
than anything else, is supposed to be the foundation of his
greatness. Yet what opportunities were lost to a free France and
Britain and the Low Countries before 1940 to re-arm and
negotiate military defense strategies? What of the time lost
that could have been used to study the Blitzkrieg method of
warfare before it crashed through France? The British historian
John Charmley made the crucial point that Churchill's adamant
refusal even to listen to peace proposals in 1940 doomed what he
claimed was most dear to him: the Empire and a Britain that was
nonsocialist and independent in world affairs. One could add
that by allowing Germany to overrun its weaker neighbors when
peace was possible it probably also doomed European Jewry as
well. How many more millions of Jews and other Europeans were
murdered because of Churchill's stupidity? But it is politically
incorrect, and even possibly a hate crime to suggest that better
alternatives were available during World War II than those made
by the Allies. Just because something turned out one way does
not mean that was the only way it could have turned out or was
the best result. Somehow, it is controversial to say this.
The peace camp realized something that escaped Churchill the
empire romanticist: even the British Empire and her vast
resources alone could not defeat the concentrated power that
Germany possessed in Europe. And even more after the Fall of
France, Churchill's war aim of total victory could be realized
only by embroiling the United States in another world war.
As an aside to the French-haters, what they forget is that,
if the U.S. army had met the Wehrmacht in 1940, it would have
fared considerably worse than the French Army. National
chauvinists, however, prefer their petty hatreds.
Involving America was Churchill's policy in World War II,
just as it was Churchill's policy in World War I, and would be
his policy again in the Cold War. Churchill put his heart and
soul into ensuring Roosevelt came through.
In 1940, Churchill sent British agent "Intrepid" to the
United States, where he set up shop in Rockefeller Center,
where, with the full knowledge and cooperation of Roosevelt and
the collaboration of federal agencies, "Intrepid" and his 300
agents "intercepted mail, tapped wires, cracked safes,
kidnapped, . . . rumor mongered" and incessantly smeared their
favorite targets, the "isolationists" (i.e., Jeffersonians) as
nazis and fascists.
In June 1941, Churchill, looking for a chance to bring
America into the war, wrote regarding the German warship, Prinz
Eugen: "It would be better for instance that she should be
located by a U.S. ship as this might tempt her to fire on that
ship, thus providing the incident for which the U.S. government
would be so grateful."
Churchill also instructed the British ambassador to Tokyo,
Sir Robert Craigie, "the entry of the United States into war
either with Germany and Italy or with Japan, is fully
conformable with British interests. Nothing in the munitions
sphere can compare with the importance of the British Empire and
the United States being co-belligerent."
In August 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill met at the Atlantic
conference. Churchill told his Cabinet "The President had said
he would wage war but not declare it and that he would become
more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they
could attack American forces. . . . Everything was to be done to
force an incident."
After the U.S. had officially entered the war, on February
15, 1942, in the House of Commons, Churchill declared, of
America's entry into the war: "This is what I have dreamed of,
aimed at, worked for, and now it has come to pass."
This deceptive alliance illustrates another of Churchill's
faults. His subordination of political aims to military
planning. Churchill made war for the sake of making war, with
little regard for the political results that follow. He once
even told Asquith that his life's ambition was "to command great
victorious armies in battle." And World War II was his
opportunity. Churchill and Roosevelt were both willing to do
anything to destroy the menace of Nazi Germany, at a time when
Hitler had killed perhaps several hundred thousand, and to do so
they would ally with Hitler's former ally in the invasion of
Poland, Joseph Stalin (the Soviet Union had even been invited to
join the Axis in 1940), who had already murdered tens of
millions. But why is it conventional wisdom that compromise with
one dictator at a vital period would have been immoral while
collaboration with an even greater dictator with genuine global
ambitions was the mark of greatness?
The truth is Churchill cared for nothing but Britain. The
lives, homes and cultures of non-Britons he took and destroyed
without a care or second thought. What sort of 'conservatism'
requires the murder of millions of defenseless innocents?
Winston Churchill was a man who along with Roosevelt, Hitler and
Stalin, probed just how far Western Civilization could fall in
just six short years of time.
Churchill threw British support to the Communist Partisan
leader Tito. What a victory for Tito would mean was no secret to
Churchill. When an aide pointed out that Tito intended to
transform Yugoslavia into a Communist dictatorship on the
Stalinist model, Churchill retorted: "Do you intend to live
there?" What a humanitarian.
Of course, in Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt were confronted
with a man who had an overall political aim for the war. Stalin
knew what he wanted to achieve from the destruction of Germany.
For Churchill, his only aim was to beat Hitler, and then he
would start thinking of the future of Britain and Europe.
Churchill said it in so many words: "It was to be the defeat,
ruin, and slaughter of Hitler, to the exclusion of all other
purposes, loyalties and aims."
Churchill's aim was in his words, the "indefinite prevention
of their [the Germans'] rising again as an Armed Power." Not
surprisingly, instead of making every effort to encourage and
assist the anti-Nazi resistance groups in Germany, Churchill
responded to the feelers sent out by the German resistance with
silence, thus helping to prolong the war and the killing. Even
more shockingly, Churchill had nothing but scorn for the heroic
officers after their failed assassination attempt on Hitler in
July 1944, even as Hitler was enjoying their filmed executions.
In the place of help, Churchill only offered Germans the
slogan of unconditional surrender, which only prolonged the war
further. And instead of promoting the overthrow of Hitler by
anti-Nazi Germans, Churchill's policy was all-out support of
Stalin. Returning from Yalta, Churchill told the House of
Commons on February 27, 1945 that he did not know any government
that kept its obligations as faithfully as did the Soviet Union,
even to its disadvantage.
That Churchill committed war crimes—planned them, aided and
abetted them, and defended them—is beyond doubt. Churchill was
the prime subverter through two world wars of the rules of
warfare that had evolved in the West over centuries.
At the Quebec conference, Roosevelt and Churchill adopted the
Morgenthau Plan, which if implemented would have killed tens of
millions of Germans, giving the Germans a terrifying picture of
what "unconditional surrender" would mean in practice. Churchill
was convinced of the plans benefits, as it "would save Britain
from bankruptcy by eliminating a dangerous competitor." That the
Morgenthau Plan was analogous to Hitler's post-conquest plans
for western Russia and the Ukraine was lost on Churchill, who
according to Morgenthau, drafted the wording of the scheme.
Churchill even brainstormed dropping tens of thousands of
anthrax "super bombs" on the civilian population of Germany, and
ordered detailed planning for a chemical attack on six major
cities, estimating that millions would die immediately "by
inhalation," with millions more succumbing later.
But Churchill's greatest war crimes involved the terror
bombing of German cities that killed 600,000 civilians and left
some 800,000 injured. Arthur Harris ("Bomber Harris"), the head
of Bomber Command, stated "In Bomber Command we have always
worked on the assumption that bombing anything in Germany is
better than bombing nothing."
Churchill brazenly lied to the House of Commons and the
public, claiming that only military and industrial installations
were targeted. In fact, the aim was to kill as many civilians as
possible. Hence the application of "carpet" bombing in an
attempt to terrorize the Germans into surrendering.
Professor Raico described the effect of Churchillian
statesmanship: "The campaign of murder from the air leveled
Germany. A thousand-year-old urban culture was annihilated, as
great cities, famed in the annals of science and art, were
reduced to heaps of smoldering ruins. . . ." No wonder that,
learning of this, a civilized European man like Joseph
Schumpeter, at Harvard, was driven to telling "anyone who would
listen" "that Churchill and Roosevelt were destroying more than
According to the official history of the Royal Air Force:
"The destruction of Germany was by then on a scale which might
have appalled Attila or Genghis Khan." Dresden was filled with
masses of helpless refugees running for their lives ahead of the
advancing Red Army. The war was practically over, but for three
days and nights, from February 13 to 15, 1945, British bombs
pounded Dresden, killing as many as 135,000 people or more in
three days. After the massacre, Churchill attempted to disclaim
responsibility; even casually saying "I thought the Americans
The terror bombing of Germany and the killing of civilians
continued as late as the middle of April, 1945. It only stopped,
as Bomber Harris noted, because there were essentially no more
targets left to be bombed in Germany.
In order to kill a maximum number of Germans, Winston
Churchill dismissed politics or policy as a 'secondary
consideration,' and on at least two occasions said that there
were "no lengths of violence to which we would not go" in order
to achieve his objective. In fact he said this publicly in a
speech given on September 31, 1943, and again in the House of
Commons, on February 27, 1945, when unbelievable lengths of
violence had already taken place. If Hitler had uttered this
phrase, we would all cite it as more evidence of his barbarism.
Yet, when Churchill utters it, his apologists palm it off as the
resoluteness required of a great statesman, rather than
describing it as an urge for mass, indiscriminate murder.
Of course, Churchill supported the atomic bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which resulted in the deaths of another
200,000 civilians. When Truman fabricated the myth of the
"500,000 American lives saved" to justify his mass murder,
Churchill felt the need to top his lie: the atomic bombings had
saved 1,200,000 lives, including 1,000,000 Americans. It was all
just another of Churchill's fantasies.
Yet, after all this slaughter, Churchill would write: "The
goal of World War II [was] to revive the status of man."
Churchill and the Cold War
Among Churchill's many war crimes, there are also those
crimes and atrocities for which he is culpable that occurred
following the war.
These include the forced repatriation of some two million old
people, men, women, and children to the Soviet Union to their
deaths. Then there were the massacres carried out by Churchill's
protégé, Tito: tens of thousands of Croats, Slovenes and other
"class-enemies" and anti-Communists were killed.
In the wake of the armies of Churchill's friend and ally, the
mass deportations began. But Churchill was unmoved. In January
1945 he said: "Why are we making a fuss about the Russian
deportations in Rumania of Saxons [Germans] and others? . . . I
cannot see the Russians are wrong in making 100 or 150 thousand
of these people work their passage. . . . I cannot myself
consider that it is wrong of the Russians to take Rumanians of
any origin they like to work in the Russian coal-fields." Here
Churchill, the great friend of liberty as Bush described him,
approves of slavery. About 500,000 German civilians were
enslaved to work in Soviet Russia, in accordance with the Yalta
agreement where Churchill and Roosevelt agreed that slave labor
constituted a proper form of "reparations."
Then there was the great atrocity of the expulsion of 15
million Germans from their ancestral homelands in East and West
Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania, and the Sudetenland, pursuant to
Churchill's mad plan to violently uproot the entire polish
population and move Poland westward, which he demonstrated with
a set of matchsticks, and to Churchill's acceptance of the Czech
leader Eduard Benes's plan for the ethnic cleansing of Bohemia
and Moravia. Around two million German civilians died in this
process. An entire ancient culture was obliterated. This sort of
cultural jihad used to be something conservatives opposed.
Today's neoconservatives instead, who evidently embrace the
Marxist doctrine of sweeping away the past, would surely argue
that in order to create, one must first destroy, or in that old
Stalinist phrase, to make an omelet, you must first break a few
A large factor in the litany of Churchill's war crimes was
his racism. Churchill was an English chauvinist, a British
racist, and like Wilson, loathed the so-called "dirty whites,"
the French, Italians and other Latin’s, and Slavs like the
Serbs, Poles, Russians, etc.... Churchill professed Darwinism,
and particularly disliked the Catholic Church and Christian
missions. He became, in his own words, "a materialist to the
tips of my fingers," and fervently upheld the worldview that
human life is a struggle for existence, with the outcome the
survival of the fittest.
In 1919, as Colonial Secretary Churchill advocated the use of
chemical weapons on the "uncooperative Arabs" in the puppet
state of Iraq. "I do not understand the squeamishness about the
use of gas," he declared. "I am strongly in favor of using
poison gas against uncivilized tribes." Some year’s later,
gassing human beings to death would make other men infamous.
An example of Churchill's racial views are his comments made
in 1937: "I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the
Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do
not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact
that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise
race, has come in and taken their place."
In Churchill's single-minded decades-long obsession with
preventing a single hegemonic power from arising on the European
continent that would pose a threat to the British Empire, he
failed to see that his alliance with Stalin produced exactly
that. "As the blinkers of war were removed," John Charmley
writes, "Churchill began to perceive the magnitude of the
mistake which had been made." Churchill is alleged to have
blurted out after finally realizing the scale of his blunder:
"We have slaughtered the wrong pig!"
But it was too late. For decades Churchill worked for the
destruction of Germany. Yet only after Stalin had devoured half
of Europe did this "great statesman" realize that destroying the
ability of Germany to act as a counterbalance to Russia left
Europe ripe for invasion and conquest by a resurgent Russia.
By 1946 Churchill was complaining in a voice of outrage about
the Iron Curtain of tyranny that descended on Eastern Europe.
But Churchill helped to weave the fabric.
With the balance of power in Europe wrecked by his own hand,
Churchill saw only one recourse: to bind America to Europe
permanently. Thus Churchill returned to his tried-and-true
strategy, embroiling the United States in another war. This time
a "Cold War" that would entrench the military-industrial complex
and change America forever.
With his lack of principles and scruples, Churchill was
involved in one way or another in nearly every disaster that
befell the 20th century. He helped destroy laissez-faire
liberalism, he played a role in the Crash of 1929, he helped
start WWI, and by bringing in America to help, prolonged the war
and created the conditions for the rise of Nazism, prolonged
WWII, laid the groundwork for Soviet domination, helped involve
America in a cold war with Russia, and pioneered in the
development of total war and undermining western civilized
Chris Matthews described Churchill as the "man who save[d]
the honor of the 20th century." Rather than this great accolade,
Winston Churchill must be ranked with Karl Marx, Woodrow Wilson,
Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Herbert Hoover and
Franklin Roosevelt as one of the destroyers of the values and
greatness of Western civilization.
And it is fitting that the Library of Congress exhibition is
entitled "Churchill and the Great Republic" because few men have
done more to overthrow the American Republic(s) and institute
the great centralized global war machine that has taken its
Adam Young is co-founder of The Resume Store, a
Canadian-based service offering resumes and cover letters. Send
him MAIL, and see his Mises.org
- Raico, Ralph. "Rethinking Churchill." In The Costs
of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories. All
parts of this important article reprinted on LewRockwell.com.
- Massie, Robert K. Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and
the Coming of the Great War.
- "Roosevelt and the First Shot: A Study of Deceit and
Deception." John V. Denson, and "Despotism Loves Company:
The Story of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Josef Stalin." Yuri
N. Maltsev and Barry Dean Simpson. Both in
Reassessing The Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State
and the Decline of Freedom. 2001. ed. by John V. Denson
- Mises, Ludwig von. .
- Morris, Jan. Farewell The Trumpets.
- Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third
Reich: A History of Nazi Germany.
- Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Erik von. Leftism Revisited: From
de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot.
- Rothbard, Murray N. .
America's Great Depression. (Helping Britain, pgs