During a protest over the killing of George Floyd last year, demonstrators in London targeted the famed statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square. Underneath his name someone had spray-painted the words “was a racist.”
He was! Even our enemies came to this conclusion long ago:
It is the mainstream which has been slowest to recognize the obvious.
But back to the main article:
In his new book, “Churchill’s Shadow,” Geoffrey Wheatcroft takes a literary spray can to the iconic World War II leader, attempting metaphorically at least to recast the many memorials and books devoted to Sir Winston over the years. Churchill, in this telling, was not just a racist but a hypocrite, a dissembler, a narcissist, an opportunist, an imperialist, a drunk, a strategic bungler, a tax dodger, a neglectful father, a credit-hogging author, a terrible judge of character and, most of all, a masterful mythmaker.
Churchill was indeed a complicated figure, one whose stirring defense of Britain at its moment of maximum peril — and by extension that of Western civilization — overshadows less worthy parts of his record.
I see it differently. It is because Churchill was a racist that he was so motivated to defend Western civilization. It was a simple decision of tribal self-interest. Western civilization keeps those of his tribe (whether you consider his tribe to be Jewish or more broadly “white”) at the top. If Western civilization were to fall, those of his tribe would lose their status also.
Ironically, Wheatcroft himself is also the author of a pro-Zionist book:
His book The Controversy of Zion won a 1996 National Jewish Book Award.
in which he argues that most Jews are not racist enough:
British historian Wheatcroft (The Randlords, 1986) admirably covers one hundred years of political, social, cultural, and personal controversy, from Theodore Herzl to Yigal Amir, providing a superior study of Jewish history. As an objective outsider, the author effectively compares the issues of Jewish nationalism with the Irish question. Only a non-Jewish historian might marvel, as Wheatcroft does, at the depth of Jewish self-deprecation and paranoia that continues to inform the relationship between diaspora Jews and Zionism.
So, according to Wheatcroft, Israelis are good guys while Churchill is a bad guy. In that case, why is Churchill celebrated in Israel?
This is why False Left historians cannot be taken seriously. (Wheatcroft even dares to attempt false equivalence between Jews and Irish. Can anyone find statues of Churchill in Ireland?)
But, more importantly, from whose attack was Churchill defending Western civilization in WWII? Hitler’s, of course. This is why Hitler is widely admired by non-Westerners around the world. After all, Western civilization produces people like Churchill:
The bill of particulars is long, if familiar — Churchill’s disastrous Gallipoli campaign in World War I, his fervor for maintaining Britain’s overseas empire, his misguided efforts during World War II to fight in Africa and the Mediterranean rather than invade France, his deadly lack of interest in the famine in Bengal, his support for carpet-bombing German cities and his cynical deals with Stalin, among others. And of course there was Churchill’s racism, animated by theories about “higher-grade races,” which in his mind did not include Africans, whom he referred to by the N-word; Chinese, whom he called “pigtails”; or Indians, whom he dismissed as “baboos.”
False Left historians would rather pretend the wide admiration for Hitler among non-Westerners does not exist, than admit the obvious: not only was Churchill the villain of WWII, but Hitler was its hero.
If you want to help us promote a True Left historical perspective on the colonial era, please join us here: