Thread by @AndreasKoureas_

Sir Winston Churchill is known for his heroic leadership in leading the campaign of resistance against Nazism & fascism.

Unfortunately, he is under frequent attack by historically illiterate political activists.

🇬🇧🧵 Tearing apart the most common lies against the British Lion.

Sources are cited at the end of this thread.

Below are the topics covered:

1) South Africa - Camps
2) Bombing of Coventry
3) Chemical Warfare.
4) Antisemitism
5) Dresden
6) India & the Bengal Famine
7) Welsh miners at Tonypandy, Wales.

Some topics I've covered in previous threads, so I've copied & pasted them in here - as there's no repeating myself.

Please do be sure to share this & follow me for more history content on Churchill!

(I'm also currently working on a book for @barnthorn:

'Churchill: Marching Through The Fire, May 1940 - June 1941.' )

Let's begin.

1) South Africa - Camps

People accusing Churchill of having some involvement in setting up concentration camps in South Africa during the Second Boer War truly puzzle me.

Churchill’s only relation to camps in the Second Boer War is that he himself was in a prison camp - as a prisoner of war.

On the 15th November 1899, an armoured train was derailed by Boer forces who had blocked the tracks and opened fire, via snipers.

The location of the attack being just off Frere, not far from Chieveley.

On this train was Churchill, acting as a war correspondent for the Morning Post.

Here he demonstrated great bravery by leading the unblocking of the railway line and the train, whilst carrying the wounded

inside the armoured locomotive - despite being fired at by Boer snipers throughout.

Churchill simply ignored the bullets shooting around him and was subsequently captured as a prisoner of war.

For reference, as he was a civilian armed he ran the risk of being shot by

a field court-martial.

Just under a month later, whilst being a POW in Pretoria, on the 12th December 1899, Churchill escaped and travelled through 300 miles of enemy territory. During this gallant mission,

he had to hide in a mineshaft and when his candle let out, he felt rats scurrying across his face.

This is a story of immense bravery, courage and drama - how historically illiterate muppets blame him for instigating concentration camps during this time, I do not know.

2) Bombing of Coventry

A typical lie spread online is that Churchill allowed Coventry to be bombed by the Luftwaffe so as to prevent the Germans from finding out that Britain had cracked the Enigma code.

Contextually, on the 14th November 1940, 300 German bombers dropped 33,000 incendiary bombs, 500 tons of explosives and dozens of parachute mines onto Coventry.

To the surprise of online conspiracy theorists, Churchill didn’t ‘just let this happen.’

Here’s the timeline:

9th November 1940 - German pilot is shot down, later to be interrogated.

12th November 1940 - Enigma decrypts suggested a major bombing raid. No clue as to German bombing location.

12th November 1940: Churchill receives Air Intelligence Report of five possible targets: Central

& Greater London, the Thames Valley, or the Kent or Essex coasts.

14th November 1940: Air Staff Summery shows that the interrogated German pilot stated that a major raid would be conducted against Coventry and Birmingham between the 15th-20th November.

This information was considered doubtful as it contracted the later information available to Squadron Leader Humphreys.

Nevertheless, in the report Churchill received in the morning of the 14th November 1940, regardless of the attack,

- the usual countermeasures would be instigated.

As such, when later that evening, the detected German radio beams made it clear that Coventry was the intended target, 8 British bombers were ordered to bomb the aerodromes (south of Cherbourg)

with a continuous fighter patrol kept above the city.

Moreover, fire engines & civil defence personnel were immediately brought in from the surrounding areas.

3) Churchill & Chemical Warfare:

He has been accused by many for advocating the use of lethal gases during riots.

However, this is a prime example of detractors not reading the full quote. He actually advocated using tear gas to suppress riots, something the police use today.

Taken from a departmental minute of the War Office on the 12th May 1919, this is what Churchill said in full:

"It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am...

strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.

The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum…

" It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

'Lachrymatory gas' is tear gas.

The context is in relation to rebel tribesmen in Iraq. It is very, very annoying watching activists and journalists disgustingly attempt to relate Churchill's tear gas policy with harmful & murderous ones like chlorine or phosgene by purposely ignoring the full quotation.

4) Churchill & antisemitism.

The accusation that Sir Winston Churchill was antisemitic, usually made by clueless journalists, is deeply ironic given that Churchill was the opposite.

He was both a philosemite and a zionist, uncommon for someone of his aristocratic background.

From an early age, Churchill had an affinity to the Jewish cause for liberation.

Part of the reason for Churchill's philosemitism was that he grew up with Jewish role models.

Churchill went on holiday with Jewish friends, he had received great support from,

mentors who were Jewish. For example Sir Felix Semon, who had helped Winston Churchill with his slight speech impediment.

Semon would later further help Churchill by finding him another professional to help Winston with his pronunciation of ’s'.

Between 1904-1908, Churchill was the MP for Manchester North.

Though under 1% of the UK population at the time was Jewish, his constituency has a large Jewish community - with about 1/3 of the population of Manchester North being Jewish.

Churchill was involved and supported,

the Jewish community there.

He had joined and supported many of the city's Jewish organisations.

This included subscribing to: the Manchester Jewish Soup Kitchen, the Jewish Amateur Dramatic Society, the Jewish Lads' Club & the Manchester Jewish Cricket and Tennis Club.

Moreover, Churchill had gone and visited the local Jewish school and hospital.

In 1905, Churchill opposed the antisemitic bill in parliament that was designed to prevent Jews fleeing from the pogroms in Tsarist Russia.

On the 30th January 1908, writing from the Colonial Office,

Churchill proclaimed that,

"I am in full sympathy with the historical aspirations of the Jews. The restoration to them of a centre of true racial and political integrity would be a tremendous event in the history of the world."

Between February 1921- October 1922, Churchill was secretary of state for the Colonies.

In Palestine, Churchill sought to protect Arab and Jewish rights - the goal of peaceful coexistence.

Perhaps his goals are best described by the eminent historian, Sir Martin Gilbert,

who wrote and completed the majority of the official biography of Churchill:

Churchill had "sought to satisfy zionist aspirations by building up of a Jewish national home in Palestine whilst at the same time seeking to satisfy Arab aspirations by…

the installation of Arab interests in Iraq and transJordan and the safeguarding of Arab rights in Palestine."

During this period, In March 1921 specifically, the parliamentarian visited Jerusalem for the first time.

Here, he plants a ceremonial tree on Mount Scopus, the land,

which is later used to build the future Hebrew University.

It was here that he famously told a crowd that,

"I believe that the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine will be a blessing to the whole world and a blessing to great Britain [...]

I firmly believe it will be a blessing to all the inhabitants of this country without distinction of race and religion.'

Moreover, during this trip, Winston had told an Arab delegation that it 'is not in my power to do so nor if it were in my power would it be my wish' after…

they requested Jewish immigration to Palestine is halted.

The following year, the fate of the future Jewish state hung in the balance.

The reason being that the fate of the Balfour Declaration itself was under deep threat.
2/3rds of the House of Lords had just voted to…

repudiate the declaration. Had the House of Commons followed suit, there would almost certainly be no Israel today.
Churchill, the lifelong friend of the Jewish people, wouldn't have this.
So, on the 4th July 1922, Churchill rose in the House & gave one of his greatest speeches.

In it, he pleaded,

"I appeal to the House of Commons not to alter its opinion on the general question, but to stand faithfully to the undertakings which have been given in the name of Britain,

And interpret in an honourable and earnest way the promise…

that Britain will do her best to fulfil her undertakings to the Zionists."

Moreover, the political genius and brilliance of this speech was that Churchill cleverly used the words of fellow MPs against themselves.

Allow me to explain,

A key example is that of Sir William Joynson-Hicks who was the driving force behind the attack against the Balfour Declaration.

Churchill thus recounted Joynson-Hicks' own words from 1917, making him look the fool:

"I will do all in my power to forward the views of the…

Zionists, in order to enable the Jews once more to take possession of their own land."

Churchill's speech had its intended effect over the House.

The Commons voted 292-35 in favour of continuing the Palestine policy set by Balfour.

The importance of this speech cannot be…

understated. It overturned the ruling of the House of Lords.

As the late historian Paul Johnson said of this, 'Without Churchill, it is very unlikely that Israel would ever have come into existence.'

In 1926, Churchill received a letter from Ernest H Schiff,

It was one of thanks and praise as he had attended a festival dinner on Jewish religious education.

Schiff, the society president wrote,

"On behalf of the whole Jewish Community who I know most gratefully appreciate the compliment you paid them by coming.”

Fast forward to August 1932, Winston Churchill is in Munich for his biography on his ancestor - the first Duke of Marlborough.

It is here that he almost met Adolf Hitler. Bear in mind, Hitler would not take power till the following year.

Churchill had met Hitler's press secretary, Hanfstaengl, who had suggested a meeting between the two of them. Churchill had made it clear that he would challenge Hitler's antisemitism, "Why is your chief so violent about the Jews?" later adding that,

"What is the sense of being against a man simply because of his birth?"

Once this was message was told to Hitler, he then refused to meet Churchill.

Hitler would go on to call Churchill a has been and that no one would ever hear of him again.

Ironic, just wait for May 1940.

In November 1935, Churchill wrote an article in the Strand Review, pleading the world to not ignore the Nazi threat to Jewish citizens,

"No past services, no proved patriotism, even wounds sustained in war, could procure immunity for persons whose only crime was that their,

Parents had brought them into the world. Every kind of persecution, grave or petty, upon the world-famous scientists, writers, and composers at the top to the wretched little Jewish children in the national schools, was practised, was glorified, and is still being practised,

and glorified."

Throughout WW2, Churchill stressed the importance of protecting and aiding the Jews.

On the 29th October 1942, Churchill wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury that,

"The systematic cruelties to which the Jewish people— men, woman, and children…

- have been exposed under the Nazi regime are amongst the most terrible events of history, and place an indelible stain upon all who perpetrate and instigate them.
Free men and women denounce these vile crimes, and when the world struggle ends with the enthronement of human…

rights, racial persecution will be ended."

Moreover, throughout the war, Churchill was in favour of (& continued pushing) for a Jewish Brigade.

In his correspondence with his long time friend Chaim Weizmann, who became first president of Israel,

Churchill informed him of the Jewish Brigade's flag being approved by the War Cabinet and that it will be flown when the Brigade lands in Italy.

In fact, Churchill's life-long Zionism transcended his imperialism.

A paternalistic Imperialist, Churchill,

had always hoped that a Jewish homeland would exist within the British Empire in Palestine - where Jews and Arabs could live side by side in peace.

Nevertheless, he was willing to transcend his imperialism if it made it easier for a Jewish national homeland to exist.

In a draft letter to Weizmann, he admits that if it is better for the US to ensure a Jewish homeland mandate, then so be it.

"It has occurred to me for some time, reading all the attacks in the American papers on the way Britain has behaved in handling the Zionist question…

The it might be a solution of your difficulties if the mandate were transferred from Britain to the United States who, with her great wealth and strength and strong Jewish elements, might be able to do more for the Zionist cause than Great Britain…

I need scarcely say I shall continue to do my best for it. But, as you will know, it has very few supporters, and even the Labour Party now seem to have all zeal.

As leader of the Opposition, Churchill was upset that the Attlee Administration had not recognised the state,

the state of Israel.

Though the British Mandate ended in May 1948, by December 10th - only 19 countries recognised the state of Israel. Britain was not one of them.

That day Churchill told the house that,

"It seems to me that the Government of Israel which has been set up at Tel Aviv cannot be ignored and treated as if it did not exist."

Recognition would unfortunately be delayed by Britain till January 1949.

So, where do the accusations of antisemitism come from.

In 1920, Churchill released an article called 'Zionism vs Bolshevism'

This article is what is frequently taken out of context by Churchill's detractors to try to show that he was antisemitic.

However, had they read the article they would see that contextually,

Churchill was ONLY talking about Jews who were Bolsheviks, not Jews overall.

In this same article Churchill wrote that,

'Some people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question...

the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world."

Churchill's overall point was that though many Bolsheviks were Jews, few Jews were Bolsheviks.

Of course, as is often the case with Churchill detractors, they…

don't actually read the material they cite.

Moreover, pair this with the rest of what I explored above, it is clear that Churchill was not an antisemite.

He was a philosemite.

5) The bombing of Dresden.

This is another one of those bizarre conspiracies made against Churchill where Winston really had nothing to do with it.

But it seems to be making its way around the internet -
a good example being how when CNN wrote an article on me some months back.

The historically illiterate ignoramus who wrote the article on me was unimpressed on a previous thread of mine that had gone viral regarding Churchill & the Bengal Famine - my primary research focus for the past year and a half.

Here they mentioned Dresden too,

or some reason? Anyway, a brief summary:

The death toll was higher than expected in part because the Gauleiter (Nazi regional leader) hadn't created bunkers for the civilian population.

The USSR demanded the bombing as Dresden operated as a railway nodal point, where the…

Nazis were transferring troops from the West to the Eastern front.

Though the morality of such Allied carpet bombing is debated amongst historians, you cannot blame Dresden itself on Churchill specifically.

Why?

Because was signed off by Clement Attlee, not Churchill.

Churchill was away for Yalta. (You twits over at CNN
News 18 should read more.)

Moreover, Churchill himself would raise the question,
"The moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts,

should be reviewed [...] destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing."

This was in a memorandum to General Ismay.

6) Churchill, India & the Bengal Famine.

I have no doubt, that just like in the past, there will be those who accuse me of only using 'British sources.'

This is not true. I have primary sources written by Indians as well as papers by Indian academics.

On October 16th 1942, a cyclone hit Bengal & Orissa, wiping out the rice crop harvest in the process.

Surrounding areas previously used to purchase foodstuff to alleviate famines/shortfalls had all,

fallen to Japan. This being Burma, Malaya, the Philippines & Thailand.

The cyclone also damaged roads, telecom systems and railways - tracks needed to move food were washed away.

Another byproduct of the cyclone was that it stopped the normal winter harvest in Northern India,

preventing this food aid internally. Japan maintained a military presence in the Bay of Bengal from April 1942.

From submarines to battlecruisers & carriers, these posed a threat, to merchant shipping.

Enemy submarines didn't just sink ships in the Bay of Bengal but also in,

the Arabian Sea, the South East African coast and Australia.

Dated 01/03/1944, Churchill's copy of a paper for the Chiefs of Staff Committee of the War Cabinet demonstrated the closeness of potential Japanese battleship/carrier raiding force in the Bay of Bengal.

They had surrounded the region from near the Maldives all the way to the south coast of Burma.

Japan had invaded India, Imphal & Kohima and was conducting many Eastern/Southern bombing raids.

These raids worsened the shortages as they destroyed shipping at the ports.

In Dec. 1943, severe backlogs were at the ports in Calcutta from Japanese bombing.

Accidents worsened the crisis - April '44 a ship caught fire & blew up. 36,000 tonnes of foodstuff lost.

Constitutionally, the famine was a responsibility of the local administration,

majority Muslim natives. They failed to deal with it. Lack of grain supply paired with general inflation crisis encouraged hoarding.

So how did Churchill respond? The news of the severity of the famine did not reach Westminster till August of 1943.

Immediately upon hearing of this, Churchill and his administration authorised 100,000 tons of barley from Iraq and 50,000 tons of wheat from Australia.

Leo Amery, secretary of state for India, would write to Wavell, later Viceroy, that he ‘may come back to the Cabinet if that...

fails to help the situation.’ From there Churchill summoned the war cabinet on many occasions to discuss the famine, relief and aid.

This is despite the Japanese threat to shipping during, a shipping crisis of the Allies, where resources were deeply stretched.

For example, on 10th November 1943, war cabinet authorised 100,000 tons of food grain to be shipped first 2 months of '44.

From August 1943- end of 1944, over 900,000 tons of grain is shipped to India, under orders of the war cabinet.

So given this, why do so many people pretend the opposite happened?

Well, for one it has to do with Mukerjee's ahistorical text: Churchill's Secret War.

In his analysis for Hillsdale College, @ZareerMasani accurately summaries Mukerjee's conspiratorial text,

@ZareerMasani "Even Mukerjee never blames Churchill for actually causing the Bengal famine, but for compounding it by refusing to allow shipments of grain from Australia…

and Canada, bound for Europe, to be diverted there.”

What we have seen before, paired with what comes later in this,

@ZareerMasani thread, completely destroys this outrageous, ahistorical claim.

(However, for those wondering, Hillsdale College is a private liberal arts college in the US. It is one of the leading institutions on research on Sir Winston Churchill.

They completed & now print the official,

@ZareerMasani biography of Churchill, the longest biography in history - 8 biography volumes and 23 companion volumes (primary sources).

My own work for them can be found below:

@ZareerMasani My academic review of a new book on Churchill and India that misrepresents & misinterprets his views on the subject.

I also cover the subject of the Bengal Famine in it:

)winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/rana-churchill…

@ZareerMasani Those who haven’t bothered reading the primary sources but consider themselves experts nonetheless (in other words, twitter intellectuals) try to refer to the events of November 1943 as evidence that Churchill ‘refused grain aid’ from Canada. The truth is starkly different:

@ZareerMasani Correspondence between Churchill & M. King in Nov 1943 (PM of Canada) shows that rather sending 100,000 tons of grain from Canada where shipping was stressed, he would have it sent from Australia as it would India quicker and was less of a logistical nightmare.

@ZareerMasani Churchill did his best to aid India despite the shipping crisis and time constraints.

Had shipments gone from Canada it would take up to 2 months compared to 3-4 weeks from Australia.

As Churchill wrote in his telegram to M. King on the 4th November 1943:

@ZareerMasani "Your offer is contingent however on shipment from the Pacific Coast which I regret is impossible. The only ships available to us on the Pacific Coast are the Canadian new buildings which you place at our disposal.

These are already proving inadequate to fulfil our...

@ZareerMasani existing high priority commitments from that area which include important timber requirements for aeroplane manufacture in the United Kingdom and quantities of nitrate from Chile to the Middle East which we return for foodstuffs,

@ZareerMasani for our Forces and for export to neighbouring territories, including Ceylon.”

Then adding in the same telegram,

"Even if you could make the wheat available in Eastern Canada, I should still be faced with a serious shipping question. If our strategic plans are not...

@ZareerMasani to suffer undue interference we must continue to scrutinise all demands for shipping with the utmost rigour.

India's need for imported wheat must be met from the nearest source, i.e. from Australia. Wheat from Canada would take at least two months to reach India whereas it...

@ZareerMasani could be carried from Australia in 3 to 4 weeks. Thus apart from the delay in arrival, the cost of shipping is more than doubled by shipment from Canada instead of from Australia. In existing circumstances this uneconomical use of shipping would be indefensible."

@ZareerMasani During this period, after the famine’s severity became apparent, there was an equal transfer of grain for rice between the Raj and British Ceylon.

This, however, wasn’t diverting stocks away from India - it was an attempt to alleviate shortfalls in the entire region,

@ZareerMasani (hence why the war cabinet ensured the transfer was replaced).

So what of Churchill’s supposed hatred of Indians which drives a large part of the conspiracy that he caused/worsened the Bengal Famine?

@ZareerMasani In order to fully understand Churchill’s views on race, India & Empire, we must first place him in his historical context.

People must be judged by the confines of their times.

Churchill was born in 1874 when the concept of a hierarchy of races was considered,

@ZareerMasani scientific fact in the West.

We know that to be rubbish & ludicrous today but it was the normal view then.

Context, the Civil Rights Act wouldn't pass till the end of Churchill's life.

Though Churchill believed in this hierarchy, he was a paternalist.

@ZareerMasani He saw Britain's Empire as a way and moral obligation to uplift its peoples and natives.

Yes, this is deeply condescending. But it was far benign compared to many of his contemporaries.

@ZareerMasani For example, the Neo-Darwinists like Hitler who thought that inferior races could be enslaved murdered. Churchill saw Britain as a positive force in India.

Yes, today most people would disagree but that's because the Empire Churchill defended is not the Empire we discuss today.

@ZareerMasani His early travels throughout India in the late 1890s, further vindicated his paternalistic, romantic view of British imperialism.

Three quotations, all from his autobiography 'My Early Life', demonstrate this:

@ZareerMasani “On the whole, after forty-eight hours of intensive study, I formed a highly favourable opinion about India.”

“We certainly felt as we dropped off to sleep the keenest realisation of the great work which England was doing in India and of her high mission to rule,

@ZareerMasani these primitive but agreeable races for their welfare and our own.”

Again, this is without question extremely condescending and based upon the then accepted idea of a hierarchy of races.

However, it wasn't genocidal - though many pretend it to be.

@ZareerMasani Moreover, Churchill saw the low number of Britons running India as proof of stability of the Indian Empire,

“The great triangular plateau of Southern India comprise the domains of the Nizam and the Maharajah of Mysore. The tranquillity of these regions, together about the size,

@ZareerMasani of France, is assured in the ultimate resort by two British garrisons of two or three thousand troops apiece at Bangalore and Secunderabad.”

Churchill was in favour of Indian self-governance within the British Empire (Dominion status) but he believed this process shouldn't be,

@ZareerMasani ushed - and if it were to be done properly, the process probably wouldn't be completed during his lifetime.

Churchill wanted power devolved to the Raj "with sureness and safety."

@ZareerMasani He opposed federal Home Rule “until the provinces have proved that they can govern themselves well."

Another example of Churchill's paternalism is where he speaks of what he views the outcome of too hastily removing British authority,

@ZareerMasani "If that authority is injured or destroyed, the whole efficiency of the services, defensive, administrative, medical, hygienic, judicial; railway, irrigation, public works and famine prevention, upon which the Indian masses...

@ZareerMasani depend for their culture and progress, will perish with it.” Another concern for Churchill was Brahmin oppression of the Untouchables (ie, within the caste system) and religious violence, between the Hindu and Moslems.

@ZareerMasani Given that all were British subjects, he viewed it as a dereliction of British duty to allow such prejudice and violence to occur.

His reasoning was that British governance suppressed such issues,

“To abandon India to the rule of the Brahmins would...

@ZareerMasani be an act of cruel and wicked negligence. It would shame for ever those who bore its guilt. These Brahmins who mouth and patter the principles of Western Liberalism, and pose as philosophic and democratic politicians,

@ZareerMasani are the same Brahmins who deny the primary rights of existence to nearly sixty millions of their own fellow countrymen whom they call ‘untouchable’, and whom they have by thousands of years of oppression actually taught to accept this sad position.

@ZareerMasani They will not eat with these sixty millions, nor drink with them, nor treat them as human beings.”

All of this paired together is why Churchill was so vehemently against the India Act 1935.

It's not because he had this cartoon villain like hatred of Indians.

@ZareerMasani Perhaps most representative of Churchill's views on India & its peoples is in his meeting & later correspondence with the Indian industrialist GD Birla.

Birla, an important connection to members of the independence movement first met Churchill in August 1935,

@ZareerMasani After the India Act 1935 had been passed. Despite Churchill losing his political battle against this Act, he nonetheless invited Birla to lunch at his country home, Chartwell and was hospitable & friendly.

@ZareerMasani Birla wrote to Gandhi that his lunch with Churchill was, “one of my most pleasant experiences.”

Though he saw Churchill as uninformed on India, he saw him as a 'remarkable man’.

Birla then passed on a message to Gandhi from Churchill who said he'd be,

@ZareerMasani “delighted if the Reforms are a success. I have all along felt that there are 50 Indias. But you have got the things now; make it a success and I will advocate your getting much more.”

Churchill’s paternalistic mindset is further shown in his later correspondence with Birla.

@ZareerMasani In a letter to Birla on the 30th April 1937, Churchill wrote that,

"If Great Britain were persuaded or forced for any cause, Indian or European, to withdraw her protection from India, it would continuously become the prey of Fascist dictator nations, ...

@ZareerMasani Italy, Germany or Japan, and then indeed with the modern facilities there would be a severity of Government even worse than any experienced in bygone ages.

The duty of the Indian electorate and of Congress is to take up the great task,

@ZareerMasani which has been offered them, and show that they can make India a happier country; and at the same time do everything they can to win the confidence of Great Britain,

and offer to her gratitude and loyalty for being the guardian of Parliamentary government and Indian peace.”

@ZareerMasani Again, this is without question very condescending. However, to pretend (as some do) that this was in some way genocidal, is wholly wrong.

Furthermore, post-WW2 Churchill opposed the Attlee administration's policy of rushing out of India without much of a care,

@ZareerMasani to what happened to the citizenry (ie, partition etc.)

On 12 December 1946 Churchill spoke of the need for,

“agreement between the Indian races, religions, parties and forces.” He deplored “the ruthless logic to quit India regardless of what may happen there.”

@ZareerMasani Later, in his war memoirs, Churchill would call the Attlee administration’s policy of a swift exit, “a violently factional view.”

Moreover, as Churchill would recount in his war memoirs, ‘The unsurpassed bravery of Indian soldiers and officers, both Moslem and Hindu...

@ZareerMasani shine forever in the annals of war [...] the response of the Indian peoples, no less than the conduct of their soldiers makes a glorious final page in the story of our Indian Empire."

Factor all of this in when we look at the few outlandish,

@ZareerMasani and wrong comments he blurted when angry in the war cabinet.

This does not excuse his language, but it shows that Winston did not hate India, he was stressed.

Churchill had a tendency of lashing out when having a mental breakdown in the war rooms.

@ZareerMasani According to Amery's diaries, Churchill had accused Indians of breeding like rabbits in a Famine meeting.

However, he immediately asked afterwards what could be done to help Indians.

The later part shows he didn't actually believe his outlandish statements.

@ZareerMasani Another example is when Churchill said that he hated Indians and their beastly religion.

Contextually, this was after the Quit India movement refused to compromise over Independence when Japan was launching an invasion of the subcontinent.

@ZareerMasani Of course these comments are racist and wrong. However, when you factor in all above, it is clear that he did not hold this genocidal hatred towards India, as some of his detractors try to say.

@ZareerMasani Those hell bent on making the case that Churchill held hatred over Indians can at best, in my view, claim that he greatly disliked upper class and caste Brahmins who wanted to expel the British from India.

That is below 5% of the Indian population. To generalise that to all,

@ZareerMasani Indians seems intellectually dishonest.

Moreover, can't we forgive a man in bad health at the centre of a world war for saying a few stupid things?

It's also important to note that many quotations attributed to Churchill, he never said or wrote.

@ZareerMasani For example, he never asked why Gandhi hasn't died yet. He actually wrote,

"Surely Mr. Gandhi has made a most remarkable recovery, as he is already able to take an active part in politics. How does this square with the medical reports upon which his...

@ZareerMasani release on grounds of ill-health was agreed to by us? In one of these we were told that he would not be able to take any part in politics again."

Furthermore, we must separate words from policy.

@ZareerMasani As the eminent historian Tirthankar Roy wrote of Churchill & the famine (in his academic text, 'How British Rule Changed India’s Economy: Paradox of the Raj’):

“Churchill's reactionary views on the empire notwithstanding, the context for almost everything he said about...

@ZareerMasani Indians and the empire was related to the Indian nationalist movement.

Negotiating with the Indian nationalists during the war could be pointless and dangerous because the moderate nationalists were demoralised by dissensions and the radical nationalists wanted the axis…

@ZareerMasani powers to win on the eastern front. Racist or not, no Prime Minister would be willing to fight a war and negotiate with the nationalists at the same time.”

@ZareerMasani 7) Crushing the Welsh miners at Tonypandy, Wales.

In November 1910, Welsh coalminers went on strike in Rhondda Valley.

Churchill has been accused on sending in soldiers to kill the miners. Some going as far to say he sent tanks - tanks wouldn't be invented till 1915.

@ZareerMasani In reality, rather than sending the military in (as riots had broken out),

Churchill met with Richard Haldane (Secretary of State for War) and agreed to only send police constables.

Churchill's restraint was based on his belief that soldiers would be inappropriate.

@ZareerMasani He was even in favour of having the strikers get a meeting with the Board of Trade.

However, the riots did not end. Instead, it expanded into the near town Tonypandy.

63 shops were looted/damaged.

Calls for soldiers were made by the officer in command of the Southern Command.

@ZareerMasani Churchill responded on the 8th November that,
“In no case should soldiers come in direct contact with rioters unless and until action had been taken by the police."

The soldiers then dispatched would stay in the area till October 1911. However, the soldiers did not kill anybody.

@ZareerMasani Part of the problem with discussing Churchill is that he has become so enveloped in the culture wars. Those who want to completely destroy the statesman's reputation based on ahistorical conspiracies are just as bad as those who pretend Churchill was a flawless, god-like man.

@ZareerMasani Winston had many faults and failures. Be it Gallipoli, the abdication crisis, women's suffrage, the fudging of the gold standard - just to name a few.

We, of course, need to remember these.

But we cannot make ahistorical accusations to further our political motivations...

@ZareerMasani which is what I think is happening with those who are committing character assassination on the man.

Furthermore, none of this negates from his achievements.

Sir Winston Churchill was, and will always be, a great man.

@ZareerMasani He held the light of freedom whilst the world descended into one of its darkest periods in history.

Below are the relevant sources.

If you found this informative please be sure to share & drop me a follow. Thank you :)