Churchill: a war criminal who ruined Britain

A recent report on the Evening Standard website told of how a North London mural depicting Britain's wartime leader, Sir Winston Churchill, has had to be removed following repeated vandal attacks, writes Christopher Goff.

The Cultural Marxists have been at it again, this time in the Finsbury Park area of North London and where they have apparently been behind a number of successful attempts at defacing a mural of Britain's wartime leader, Sir Winston Churchill, according that is to a story titled "Winston Churchill Blasted as 'Imperialist Scum' as Themed Café in North London Forced to Remove Vandalised Mural" which recently appeared on the London Evening Standard website (24 January 2018). And whereas I might usually view the work of Cultural Marxists with contempt, this time around I am not going to, but I would add most certainly not on any basis of this particular mural serving as some kind of reminder to Britain's Imperialist past.

Amongst your Union Flag-waving vapid citizens of democracy, Sir Winston Churchill is, and as one might expect, still a very popular figure. In many people's eyes, he was the man who, along with Joseph Stalin and Franklin D. Roosevelt, brought about the defeat of National Socialism on the continent of Europe. And indeed, most of the people reading this will have heard of a new movie called Darkest Hour, released in the UK on 12 January 2018, and which, at least I am told, pays great homage to someone who is probably Britain's most favourite member of its liberal-Establishment.

But for nationalists, Churchill remains a deeply divisive figure whom many choose to view very differently to how the history books like to portray him, David Irving's hugely insightful Churchill's War (1988) excepted, that is.

Some nationalists say that Churchill was a warmonger and war criminal, and someone who towards the end of World War II was on a private mission to destroy the German people. An analysis which is difficult to disagree with given his aerial bomb attack on the historic German city of Dresden, in February 1945, during which it is believed that as many as 200,000 civilians might have been killed, this being something which might have constituted the single most outrageous atrocity of the entire Second World War.

The now infamous Arthur 'Bomber' Harris, a keen proponent of indiscriminate 'blanket bombing' and who because of this became better known amongst his own colleagues as 'Butcher' Harris, coordinated Churchill's attack on Dresden in his role as head of the RAF's Bomber Command, an attack which was said to have involved repeated raids by 1,249 heavy bombers from both the RAF and United States Army Air Force.

On 13 May 1940, during Churchill's very first speech he gave to the House of Commons in his role as Prime Minister, he made perfectly clear his intention to wage war against Germany having already abandoned any idea of negotiating for peace. It is a speech which became known as his 'Blood, toil, tears and sweat' speech, and in it Churchill said: "You ask, what is our policy? I will say: it is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime" and, "… without victory there will be no survival".

You will note that by all accounts Churchill had no compunction whatsoever in entering into partnership with Joseph Stalin and his murderous Bolshevik hordes, better known as the Red Army, and that communism killed far more people than National Socialism ever did is something that no history book will ever tell you.

Thinking back to those events one wonders just how much of Britain's decision to enter into war with Germany was actually her own, and by this I mean a decision of the British people.

Like lots of other patriotic-minded people at the time, both of my grandfathers fought in the war on the basis of nothing more than a concern that their homeland was about to be invaded, and like many of their generation they understood little of what National Socialism actually was. I have to say, if they were both still alive today I think they would be most surprised at the contemporary interpretation of events which says that the Second World War, far from being an exercise to protect ones homeland from invasion, was actually about confronting a political ideology the main objective of which was furthering their own kind.

And this is not to gloss over the misfortune of the Jews during the time that the National Socialists were in power in Germany. However, of this misfortune I would say that one really needs to understand that whilst at the start of the war people were certainly aware of the hardships that Jews were facing, nothing was known of the concentration camps, and of course no one could have foreseen the devastating outbreaks of typhus which were to ravage these camps towards the end of the war when systems of food supply and healthcare broke down after Allied bombing of supply routes.

And seen as mention of concentration camps has been made, lets not forget the special place that Britain has in their history. During the Boer War (1899-1902), Britain put more than 100,000 mostly women and children into concentration camps. Whilst there, on account of inadequate food, poor sanitation and disease, particularly typhus, mass death took place exactly the same as it did in Germany in the final days and weeks of World War II.

During its Civil War (1861-1865), America had also established concentration camps for those civilians deemed hostile to the Federal Government, and during its war to acquire the Philippines (1899-1902) had also set up concentration camps in that country which reportedly caused the deaths of more than 200,000 Philippine civilians. Poland had also created concentration camps in the period leading up to the start of the Second World War and when, under the leadership of Józef Pilsudski, it needed a way of disposing of political opponents. And of course, communist Russia had by this same time created a vast network of concentration camps which became more simply known as the Gulags – but again, this was not something that deterred Churchill from entering into partnership with the mass-murdering barbarian, Joseph Stalin.

So, if it was not the decision of ordinary British people to enter into war against National Socialism, who decided on that ruinous course of action? Or more accurately, who were the people at that time agitating so energetically for the outbreak of war against Germany?

In Germany, Hitler's National Socialism had demoted the Jews from ascendancy, and so the powerful Jewish lobby in Britain, but more importantly in the United States, became an important factor in bringing about the onset of war. News of the experiences that Jews were suffering in Germany, as well as those countries that Germany was sometime later to occupy, began to travel westwards carried by a tidal wave of Jewish emigrés, and it was in large part this which prompted a mobilization of World Jewry against Hitler and his National Socialists. One of the key successes of organized Jewry at this time was that of persuading the Americans to abandon their policy of isolation, something not thought possible without the influence of Jewish-owned finance and media businesses based in the U.S.

Around this same time, Britain's liberal-elite felt unable to stand idly by in the face of mounting evidence of the poor treatment of Jews, their feelings augmented by a powerful Jewish lobby by now in control of much of Britain's mass media and making calls for Britain to act. However, one person alone spoke out against this prevailing orthodoxy and of his desire for Britain not to enter into what he thought would be a ruinous war with Germany, and this was of course Sir Oswald Moseley, then leader of the British Union of Fascists, and who in December 1938 wrote the following in his Action! newsletter:-

"Supposing that every allegation were true … supposing it was a fact that a minority in Germany were being treated as the papers allege, was that any reason for millions in Britain to lose their lives in a war with Germany? How many minorities had been badly treated in how many countries since the [First World] war without any protest from press or politicians? … Why was it only when Jews were the people affected that we had any demand for war with the country concerned? There was only one answer … that today Jewish finance controls the press and political system of Britain. If you criticize a Jew at home – then jail threatens you. If others touch a Jew abroad – then war threatens them".

In his book The Eleventh Hour (1988), John Tyndall elaborates on Moseley's analysis, writing the following:-

"Moseley was touching upon another factor that came into the reckoning among those forces driving us to war with Germany and the act of national suicide that that involved … Jewry could not possibly have persuaded our political leaders, whatever the methods of pressure used in that persuasion, to adopt an anti-German attitude were not such an attitude fundamentally in keeping with the view of the world that had developed in the minds of the British ruling class over the previous decades and which saw all great international issues not in terms of a rational calculation of British interests, but in the 'goodie and baddie' perspectives of children's fiction".

Tyndall continues, launching an attack on this mindset which was to cost Britain so dear:-

"… the itch of Britain to interfere in the affairs of her neighbours became a positive St. Vitus Dance. The great obsession of the ruling orthodoxy in the 1930s was that of 'stopping Fascism'. We witnessed the dreary procession of old-gang figures mounting the platforms to cluck-cluck their indignation, first against Mussolini for marching into Abyssinia (where no British interest was threatened), then against Franco for averting communism and chaos in Spain, and without cease against Hitler, first for proclaiming the outrageous doctrine that Germany should belong to the Germans, then for marching into his own backyard in occupying the Rhineland, then for going to the rescue of his kinfolk in Austria and Czechoslovakia".

And how interesting it is that Britain by this time had control over vast areas of land in Africa, the Middle East, Central America and the Far East under its programme of Empire-building, and so was in no position to protest if Germany was now using these same methods to acquire land on its very doorstep of only a fraction of the size.

The only valid reason I can think of for Britain going to war with Germany in order to prevent Hitler's expansion into Eastern Europe would have been the belief that afterwards he might have turned westwards and done the same thing. However, this was a fatally flawed belief because Hitler was only interested in acquiring living space for Germans in the east. So, while Hitler undeniably had in mind the settling of Germans in parts of Poland, for example, he had no similar plans to settle Germans in, say, parts of France, or for that matter in any other country lying to the west of Germany.

It would be timely at this point to remind anyone reading this of the fact that Britain and America declared war against Germany – their pretext being Hitler's invasion of Poland – and not the other way around. And also, if the French had found their own version of Franco or Mussolini, well then most likely a single German soldier would never have set foot on French soil.

To say the decision to declare war against National Socialist Germany was the greatest mistake that Britain has ever made might be understating it somewhat. The immediate cost to Britain of war was one of crippling magnitude. In addition to the huge loss of servicemen and civilians, enormous damage was done to her economy, and which in the aftermath of war reduced Britain to a begging borrower at America's door, sunk in indebtedness to the finance houses – many of them Jewish-owned, I would add – now lining New York's Wall Street.

Britain had entered the war with perhaps the mightiest navy of any nation, but had ended it deprived of her naval supremacy and on the way to being shortly deprived of her Empire. Britain's foreign debts had increased 600% during the course of the war, which resulted in her having to sell off about a third of her overseas assets, and her exports had declined by nearly 70%. Not only that, but a few days after the conclusion of the war the U.S. ended its Lend-Lease system of financial support forcing Britain into the repayment of an enormous loan from that country, after which Roosevelt also forced her into a series of humiliating deals aimed at liberalizing trade agreements and making sterling a convertible currency, in the process surrendering the ability to protect Britain's manufactured goods against foreign competition both at home and across her Empire.

In summary, the disastrous decision to wage war against Germany had the effect of destroying both our military and financial might, with the loss of Empire perhaps being the most immediately tangible effect of this great diminishing of Britain's strength. However, when we also take into account all that Britain has had to suffer since its 'victory' in the war, one can quickly find oneself questioning just how much of a victory it actually was.

If my two grandfathers who both fought in the war ostensibly on account of their belief that their homeland was about to be invaded were alive today and walking the same inner-city streets in Birmingham that they grew up in, well then I don't think either of them would see another white face such has been the scale of migration by non-Europeans into Britain during the post-war period. Not happy with giving her Empire away, Britain has also given away the very thing that was once seen as being so under threat: homeland.

But not only that, if I could somehow tell my grandfathers that some of the people whom we have in a more recent timescale invited to come and live in this country were now setting off bombs in exactly the same cities that Hitler's Luftwaffe used to attack during the war, well that would have them turning in their graves. My point here being that the mistake of mass immigration is one which has its roots in Britain's earlier mistake of going to war with National Socialist Germany – one assumes the contemporary demographic of the rest of Western Europe would also be very different today had the Second World War never have happened.

And following the defeat of National Socialist Germany do we feel free just like we were supposed to feel free? Free that is in the capitalist-communist, velvet-gloved dictatorship that Britain has now become, and where if you say unkind things about exactly the same group of people whom the National Socialists said held sway in Germany before Hitler's rise to power, you can go to prison?

Of this illusion of freedom, one can say that Hitler in his time never threatened the freedom of the British people. Instead, the only threat to freedom that we have ever had to contend with has been the one posed by those betrayers of the British people in our midst, and I am thinking here in particular of those members of Britain's liberal-Establishment who on the one hand talk of 'stopping fascism', but who on the other seek to deny its people exactly those freedoms that the fascists would supposedly deny us were they ever to come to power.

Victory was never supposed to taste so bitter. Britain has become a country where merely the saying of unkind things about certain minority religious or ethnic groups, or as is increasingly the case homosexuals, can land a person in prison, something which does not have to be the case if one just looks at the example set by the Americans and who have the First Amendment to their constitution protecting the right of U.S. citizens to say what they believe in.

Whereas Hitler's Germany fought against communism in defence of the freedom of its people, Britain has in the aftermath of 'victory' proceeded to absorb a creeping kind of communism as advocated by leftists and members of the liberal-Establishment, and which is nowadays better known as political correctness. This is the Marxist creed which has at its core the false notion of 'equality', and with it a focus on combatting 'racism', 'sexism' and 'homophobia', alongside which operates a Police State where perfectly law-abiding opponents of Cultural Marxism are branded 'hate criminals' and are routinely subjected to acts of police harassment and intimidation.

In a recent article of mine titled 'When the Police Become a Danger to Society (Wild Boar; 21 August, 2017), I wrote of the activities of one of Sussex Police's Hate Crime Officers, explaining how it was one of the responsibilities of this individual to run a network of informers, otherwise known as Hate Crime Ambassadors, each of whom is tasked with the job of sniffing out people in society who might, shall we say, be anything less than enthusiastic about embracing the new Marxist hegemony. Comparisons between the activities of Britain's most Marxist Police Force, Sussex Police, and the former East German Secret Police, known amongst ordinary East Germans at the time as the Stasi, would not be amiss.

It is a very hard truth, but leaders should be judged on what in their time they managed to do for their own kind. This is where the aristocrat, Sir Winston Churchill, got it so badly wrong, for the decision to wage war against National Socialist Germany is one which time has shown to have ruined this once great nation and changed the destiny of Europe forever. Churchill did nothing for the British people.

Copyright © Christopher Goff
Tag: History
Uploaded: 30 January, 2018.