Google+ Followers

Saturday, 21 April 2018

Dear Peter Kyle, What a Sickening Racist You Are

Only Hove’s ‘Labour’ MP could attack the dead for having ‘provoked’ their killers

If Kyle is not reselected then, if Labour gains a majority, Kyle is likely to refuse to support a Labour government under Corbyn
Whatever else you can accuse Peter Kyle, Progress’s  Labour MP for Hove of, it isn’t a sense of humour failure.  Who else could blame the dead for having deliberately gone out of their way to get themselves killed whilst exonerating their killers of all blame? 
According to Kyle this 13 year old boy must have been a terrorist too
As most people will be aware, the situation in Gaza after 11 years of Israel’s siege is a humanitarian disaster. 95% of the water is unfit to drink, because Israel has stolen their water.  Food is in short supply since Israel took care to attack chicken farms and its navy regularly uses Gaza’s fishing boats as target practice.  Suffice to say exports of Gaza’s produce is forbidden and exit is made extremely difficult for medical patients, many of whom have died trying to leave Gaza.
Palestinian Return demonstrators
Suffice to say that the population being at the end of their tether resorted for the past 3 weeks to large ‘Return’ demonstrations near Israel’s security fence.  Their demand is quite simple – since Israel has made their living conditions unbearable and since they come from what is now Israel, having been expelled in 1947-8, they demand the right of return.  However according to Israel’s propagandists, of which Kyle is one, those demonstrating were forced to by Hamas, who like all groups Israel comes into conflict are demonised as genocidal Nazis.

Of course the idea of Palestinian refugees returning home to Palestine is unthinkable to Israel’s racist regime which only allows Jews to ‘return’ despite them never having lived there.
Peter Kyle in the House of Commons
As the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ Israel could not tolerate peaceful demonstrations on its borders.  So it employed 100 army snipers to take pot shots at those who were demonstrating.  The result is at least 36 demonstrators shot dead and over a thousand wounded.

Unsurprisingly Peter Kyle’s constituents have contacted him to ask that their MP express their concern and fury over Israel’s war crimes.  Peter however had different ideas.  Not for nothing is Peter known as a walking  mouthpiece for whatever hasbara (propaganda) Israel has on offer.
Luke Akehurst - arms salesman and Israeli propagandist
After the shooting of the first batch of Gaza’s demonstrators on Good Friday Luke Akehurst, an employee of Stand by Israel and a stalwart of the Labour Right, went into overdrive.  He put out an ‘Urgent Call to Action - email your MP to ask them to condemn Hamas for provoking violence on the Gaza border’.  He titled this OPERATION DEFEND ISRAEL.
Turning things on their head is not unknown in politics see the above Express headline
Lukey also has a well developed sense of humour.  Who else would call the shooting dead of 19 unarmed Palestinians ‘Operation Defend Israel’.  If only Luke  had been around in the second world war then he could have termed the Nazi invasion of Poland ‘Operation Defend Germany’ or the establishment of concentration camps as ‘Operation Defend Jewry’.  Come to think of it the Daily Express did exactly this.  When Jews declared a boycott of Germany the Daily Express ran with a headline on 24th March 1933 ‘Judea Declares War on Germany’. 

Thus when his constituents contacted Kyle they were treated to a long lecture about the evils of Hamas, the group that runs Gaza whereas he signally fails to utter even a single word of criticism of Israel for having murdered what is now 36 unarmed protestors.  

Kyle it is only fair to say is only taking his lead from  Akehurst who wrote that ‘On Good Friday the terror group HAMAS ordered men, women and children to provoke a dispute with Israel.  You see, it wasn’t Israel’s fault at all.  It was all Hamas’s fault for having  provoked’ a dispute with Israel.
Peter Kyle has adopted the above apologia for Israel's war crimes wholesale
One of the criticism that Zionists often make of their opponents is that we believe in conspiracy theories.  Could there be any bigger conspiracy theory than the idea that thousands of Palestinians were ordered to demonstrate and risk their lives because Hamas forced them to?  

Akehurst tells us how many ‘rioters’ were killed (Akehurst has no doubt that all those killed, including those shot in the back, were rioters).  Indeed they ‘were identified as Palestinian terrorists.’  And who did the identification?  Why of course their murderers.

I therefore decided to write to my dear friend Kyle 

Letter I sent to Peter Kyle 20.4.18.

Dear Peter Kyle,

In response to a constituent's concern regarding Israel's shooting dead of over 30 unarmed demonstrators  in Gaza over the past 3 weeks and the wounding of over one thousand more, you wrote a letter criticising Hamas but saying nothing about a state that shoots peaceful protestors.

Your sickening hypocrisy is best demonstrated by your sentence:

'We recognise the plight of the people of Gaza and the dire humanitarian situation they face.'

This is from someone who is on record as supporting the very siege of Gaza, now over 11 years old, that has led to this 'dire humanitarian situation'.

You 'condemn Hamas’ ongoing rearmament, tunnel construction and attempts to launch rocket and terrorist attacks.'  I can only presume you would have condemned the tunnel construction and the attempt to arm of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising? 
Since there have been no rocket attacks by Hamas in recent years, unlike the regular shootings, missile attacks and tank fire by Israel, you have to employ a form of weasel words as in 'attempts to...'

Perhaps you might inform us if you have an opinion on the regular shooting of Palestinian fishermen in Gaza's territorial waters, despite agreements to allow fishing up to 6 kilometers?

 You say that you 'deplore Hamas’ repeated violation of the human rights of the citizens of Gaza' presumably you don't consider the right to clean water, which is a direct consequences of Israeli action in depleting the water table and bombing water purification plants a violation of human rights?  Or the right to live with a roof over one's head, since Israel leveled thousands of homes in Operation Protective Edge? 

I also presume that you don't consider the shooting of unarmed demonstrators to be a breach of human rights either?

I would be interested to know what it is that prevents you ever condemning the actions of the aggressor.  Israel possesses an overwhelming military might.  It is a first world nuclear power, yet you condemn the puny and pathetic response of those living under Israel's daily occupation? 

Yes I know that there are no Israeli military forces in Gaza but when you control its borders, preventing access by sea, land and air in addition to controlling who goes in and out and the population register then you are in occupation.

Your concern for LGBT Palestinians is touching though I am not aware that Hamas is persecuting Palestinian gays in the same way that Israel's friends in Syria, al-Nusra, Jaish al Islam and other jihadist groups are doing. 

Or perhaps you believe that LGBT Palestinians don't drink water or eat food or want to work?  Your pinkwashing is nothing but a disgusting attempt to use the oppression of one group in order to justify Israel's racist and murderous policies which are directed at all Palestinians, gay and straight.

Perhaps you might be so kind as to inform me just what has caused a Labour politician to become such a despicable racist and an apologist for the only Apartheid state in the world.  On seconds thought don't bother.  I think I understand.

Tony Greenstein
This is the propaganda organisation that Luke Akehurst fronts
Dear XXX,
Thank you for your email.
I am absolutely horrified by this situation and fully support the calls by the UN Secretary General, and the EU’s Foreign Affairs representative for an independent international investigation.
The only solution is two states for two peoples and the only path to peace is through negotiation without preconditions. As Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry MP has said, we need “both sides – and the international community as a whole – to now come together as a matter of urgency, end the blockade and humanitarian crisis inside Gaza, end the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and end this senseless cycle of violence by working towards the two-state solution we all want to see, with a secure Israel living in peace alongside a secure and viable state of Palestine.”

As a Labour MP I am proud to have signed the Pledge for Gaza:
-           We recognise the plight of the people of Gaza and the dire humanitarian situation they face;
-           We condemn Hamas’ ongoing rearmament, tunnel construction and attempts to launch rocket and terrorist attacks in Israel and urge respect for the Oslo Accords which stipulate the demilitarisation of the Palestinian territories;
-           We deplore Hamas’ repeated violation of the human rights of the citizens of Gaza, in particular its treatment of women and LGBT Palestinians;
-           We call upon the international community to honour the reconstruction pledges made at the Cairo conference in 2014;
-           We urge the Israeli government to assist with the economic revitalisation of Gaza including supporting Labor MK Omer Bar-Lev’s plans for the construction of a seaport.
I will always do everything in my power to advocate for peace and to promote a negotiated two state solution for two peoples; with Israel safe, secure and recognised within its borders; living alongside a democratic, independent Palestinian state.
I hope this is helpful. Thank you once again for contacting me.
All the best,
Peter Kyle MP 

Marc Wadsworth Victim of a Racist Witch-hunt - Framed by the Jewish Labour Movement & Ruth Smeeth MP

Say no to the victimisation of Black activists at the behest of the world’s only Apartheid State, Israel

Veteran anti-racist campaigner Marc Wadsworth is one of the many members of the Labour Party who have been unjustly suspended from the Labour Party. The National Kangaroo (Constitutional) Committee will decide next Wednesday if Marc should be expelled from the party. Judging by previous cases he can expect no justice.

Marc was first expelled and then readmitted only to be suspended after the launch of the Chakrabarti Report at a press conference 30th June 2016.  

When Marc questioned why Labour MP Ruth Smeeth seemed to be trading information with that well known Labour supporting paper, the Daily Telegraph, he was immediately accused of ‘anti-Semitism’ on the prompting of Kevin Schofield, an ex-Sun journalist.  Marc was making the point about how few Black faces there were at a Press Conference that was supposed to be about racism in the Labour Party.

Although Marc had never, at any time, referred to Ruth Smeeth as Jewish, because he didn’t know that she was Jewish, Smeeth immediately got up on her hind legs screeching ‘how dare you, how dare you’ as if she had been embarrassed by her Black servant in front of polite company.  Immediately the lies started.  Marc had mentioned the press, therefore it was a ‘trope’ about Jewish control of the media.  That is how these people work.

Ruth Smeeth, the Lying Zionist MP who faked Victimhood at the Chakrabarti Press Conference
Ruth Smeeth doing her best to damage Labour and oust Corbyn
This week Smeeth has been the ‘hero’ of the false ‘anti-Semitism’ debate in the House of Commons.  The Tories held the debate in order to give an opportunity to the Labour Right - Smeeth, John Mann and Luciana Berger – to attack their own leader Jeremy Corbyn.  It was a Tory-Labour Right love fest. Smeeth read out 10 messages of ‘abuse’ she had received. Only 1 was explicitly anti-Semitic and all of them revolved  around her support for the Israeli state. 

It is unfortunate and unacceptable that some people react to support for the self-styled ‘Jewish’ state by resorting to anti-Semitism but the blame rests firmly with those who imply that Israel is acting on behalf of all Jews.  

See 50 Years After Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood Speech’ Parliament Debates Fake ‘Anti-Semitism’ and Applauds Zionist MPs Luciana Berger and Ruth Smeeth
Luciana Berger, Zionist anti-Corbyn MP
Smeeth is a senior officer in the Jewish Labour Movement.  The JLM is the British wing of the Israeli Labour Party, a Jewish supremacist, segregationist party responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.  It is a Zionist party which supports Benjamin Netanyahu’s attempt to deport 40,000 Black African refugees from Israel.

Smeeth is an ardent Zionist.  Her allegations of 'anti-semitism' against Marc Wadsworth are a smear whose real purpose is to undermine the Corbyn leadership of the Labour Party and to outlaw criticism of the world’s only apartheid state.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-Semitism.
Stephen Lawrence
As viewers of BBC 1’s documentary on Stephen Lawrence will have seen this week, Marc was an integral part of the campaign to uncover the truth about who killed Stephen and to hold the Metropolitan Police to account.

Thanks to the long campaign, two of his killers, Gary Dobson and David Norris, were eventually gaoled. The MacPherson Inquiry which was held labelled the Metropolitan Police institutionally racist.  Despite having played no part whatsoever in this campaign the JLM attempted to hijack and pervert the conclusions of this Inquiry to suggest that Jewish Zionists, i.e. the supporters of settler colonialism, should be allowed to define themselves as victims of ‘anti-Semitism’ even though Jews in this country, unlike Black and Asian people, do not suffer from state or Police racism. In other words Jews who are Zionist and who object to criticism of Israel can then turn around and say they are a ‘victim’.
Gary Dobson (left) and David Norris - gaoled for life for the murder of Stephen Lawrence 
This is identity politics gone mad.  Imagine what use might have been made of this nonsense if White Afrikaaners had taken advantage of it. They could have proclaimed themselves the victim when people criticised Apartheid.  Indeed that is what the National Front and BNP tried to do with their 'Rights for Whites' campaigns.
Stephen Lawrence's Family
At the moment the false anti-Semitism campaign is in full cry.  It was started off by another professional Israel supporter, Luciana Berger MP who produced out of a hat a 6 year old Facebook post by Jeremy Corbyn concerning a mural in the East End that was alleged to be anti-Semitic.  Berger and Smeeth’s main concerns are for the Israeli state rather than their constituents.  Smeeth has been exposed by Wikileaks as a source for the US Embassy.
According to the logic of identity politics, since Jewish Zionists are now a protected minority so should White racists be 

This lobby is extremely important.  It is high time that we derailed this campaign of destabilisation aimed at Corbyn.  It is a tragedy that Momentum, 40,000 strong – is actually aiding and abetting the witchhunt with the active connivance of Jon Lansman.

Please come along to the Lobby and make your voice heard: Solidarity with Marc!

Wes Streeting ‘shouts in Dianne Abbott’s face’ and arranges march against ‘Windrush child

Centrist MP for Ilford North Wes Streeting's week has resulted in him being accused of having 'questions to answer' about a 'worrying pattern of behaviour'.
Streeting has clashed twice with Labour front-bencher Diane Abbott - and has sent an email inviting colleagues and others to join him next week in a show of strength against a black Labour activist and 'Windrush child'.

Diane Abbott
Labour's Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott has suffered the most vile abuse - receiving almost half of all abuse received by female MPs in the run-up to the General Election. She has spoken movingly of the terrible hate-messages she receives on a daily basis.

On Tuesday, she had just spoken in a parliamentary debate - about personal abuse she has received, the seriousness with which Labour treats the issue of antisemitism and the measures the party is taking to combat it. Ms Abbott also made a number of points that the Haredi Jewish community had asked her to raise - and for which the community praised her later.
As Home Secretary Amber Rudd began to respond, Streeting made an intervention - to side against his own party - and against Abbott's representations on behalf of the Jewish community in her constituency.
(left to right)  Wes Streeting, Diane Abbot, Marc Wadsworth
Mr Streeting wasn't finished. In a parliamentary corridor, Streeting is alleged to have literally shouted in Ms Abbott's face, standing toe to toe with her and screaming 'not my party!', in front of a number of onlookers.
Witnesses described Streeting's behaviour as so intimidating that he had to be physically steered away from the Labour front-bencher.
Marc Wadsworth, left, introducing Stephen Lawrence's family to Nelson Mandela

Marc Wadsworth is a veteran black Labour activist. He featured in the BBC's documentary about Stephen Lawrence, "Stephen, the murder that changed a nation" this week, when he was seen introducing Stephen's mother Doreen to the late South African president Nelson Mandela.
Wadsworth was suspended by the party last year after challenging Labour MP Ruth Smeeth at the launch of the Chakrabarti report, who then walked out of the meeting.
Ms Smeeth quoted Wadsworth as accusing her of a 'media conspiracy', a well-known antisemitic trope, but video evidence showed that Wadsworth had not said that.
His exact words were:
I saw that the Telegraph handed a copy of a press release to Ruth Smeeth MP so you can see who is working hand in hand. If you look around this room, how many African, Caribbean and Asian people are there? We need to get our house in order, don't we?
Wadsworth's complaint was about the lack of representation for BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) people - an issue he continues to fight for in spite of his suspension, as he was instrumental in the recent launch of the Grassroots Black Left group.
Wadsworth was initially summarily expelled from the Labour Party but reinstated and suspended after his lawyers wrote to Labour’s compliance unit pointing out that it had acted unlawfully and not in accordance with the party’s rules.
Neither the expulsion letter nor the suspension notification mentioned allegations of antisemitism – that charge was added over six months later, in January 2017.
Since then, he has remained suspended – in spite of a public letter of support printed in the Guardian from twelve prominent supporters including black and Jewish activists - and Wadsworth has felt so severely attacked that he felt compelled to crowdfund to have full legal representation at his disciplinary hearing next week.
In the same week as his issues with Diane Abbott, Wes Streeting sent the following message to parliamentary colleagues:
Apologies for the impersonal message, but I wonder if I can enlist you to provide some practical moral support for our friend and colleague Ruth Smeeth next Wednesday morning (25th April)?
She is giving evidence against Mark Wadsworth - the guy who abused her at the antisemitism inquiry launch - and we expect there to be a protest outside against her.
To give Ruth some moral support and solidarity, I am assembling a group of Labour MPs and Peers in Westminster Hall at 940am. We will then walk with Ruth to Church House nearby. We won’t be allowed in with her, but I can’t tell you how much a strong turnout will mean to her - and how much better it would be if we outnumber the protesters.
So, if you can make it let me know by email or text.
Wednesday 25th April
Westminster Hall
Thanks for your support,
Wes Streeting
Readers will judge for themselves whether the video above of Wadsworth's challenge to Ms Smeeth constitutes 'abuse'.
But while it is clear that no abuse of Ms Smeeth en route to the hearing can be condoned, Streeting's email also represents an attempt to counter demonstrations in support of a suspended black activist's attempt to clear his name of allegations he insists are unfounded.
Wadsworth told the SKWAWKBOX:
It's ironic that in this week of media attention on the Tories' abuse of the Windrush generation, I find Wes trying to organise a parliamentary protest against me, in spite of the evidence.
My dad came to this country from Jamaica at his own expense during World War Two to join the RAF to fight against the nazis. He went back in 1946 but then came back to the UK on the Windrush in 1948 - I'm a Windrush child.
Given his two or three tweets this week condemning the government's treatment of the Windrush generation, I'd have hoped Wes would be supporting a Windrush descendant who's fighting for the representation of black and Asian people in the Labour Party, but it seems that's not going to happen.
Taken together with his clashes with Diane Abbott this week, it represents a worrying pattern of behaviour and Wes has questions to answer.
The SKWAWKBOX contacted Mr Streeting for comment. At the time of publication, he had not responded.

Thursday, 19 April 2018

Winston Churchill – a Mass Murderer to whom history was very kind

Out of over 2,400 posts in 10 years of this blog this post has received the second highest number of hits ever - over 56,000 so far.  Make of that what you will!

As a child I lived in Merthyr Tydfil, South Wales for a year.  One of the things that has stuck with me since that time was the hostility amongst Welsh working class people to Churchill as a result of his sending the troops and police into the valleys to help the coal owners defeat the striking miners, some of whom were shot.

But Churchill’s reputation was made primarily in imperial affairs. It is indisputable that Churchill was primarily responsible for the slaughter at Gallipolli in 1915.  Prior to that there was his period as Home Secretary when he took personal control of the Sydney Street siege in January 1911.   Two Latvian revolutionaries were holed up there and they were besieged by police and troops.  When the building caught fire he ordered the fire brigade not to put the flames out and allowed those inside to burn to death.  As Colonial Secretary he presided over Partition in Ireland and over the beginning of the Mandate in Palestine.  In Palestine he introduced the murderous Black and Tans who had seen bloody service in Ireland.
Churchill saw very early the potential of Zionism as an antidote to Communism amongst Jews
Adam Jones, editor of the Journal of Genocide Research, calls Churchill "a genuine genocidaire", noting that he called Indians a "foul race" and said that the British air force chief should "send some of his surplus bombers to destroy them."  [Jones, Adam (2016-12-16). "Chapter 2 State and Empire; War and Revolution". Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge]

Whether it was sending in the army to protect the coal owners in Wales or presiding over the famine in Bengal in 1942, Churchill was a mass murderer.  Churchill’s whole career had been dedicated to the preservation of the Empire.  In January 1931 he resigned from the Conservative Shadow Cabinet over self-government for India.  Churchill was a died-in-the-wool supporter of the British Empire.
Churchill made his reputation in the second world war, primarily through his fighting speeches.  However his opposition to Hitler was not from an anti-fascist perspective.  He saw Hitler as a threat to British interests.  Initially he had welcomed Hitler as an anti-communist.  During the War Churchill was distinguished by his refusal to do anything to alleviate the position of the Jews including the bombing of Auschwitz and the railway lines leading up to it.  He was however a die hard Zionist and that is why Zionist supporters treat him kindly, despite his undoubted anti-Semitism. 
Striking up a familiar pose
During the war he advocated the mass bombing of German cities like Dresden and Nuremburg.  Thousands  died as a result yet the war itself was advanced.  These were undoubtedly war crimes.  When Greece was liberated he put the local Nazi collaborators back in power as his main goal was keeping the Greek Communists out of power.

His most famous tract Zionism and  Bolshevism was published in the Illustrated Sunday Herald on 8 February 1920.  Suffice to say that Churchill was not overfond of revolutionary Jews!  He wrote of the ‘International Jew’ as being responsible for all the ills his class suffered from, including the French Revolution!
Churchill enjoying himself at the Sydney Street siege
‘The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race.... This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. ... It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century;...
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews.. ...
Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character.’
Churchill like most of his class saw Zionism as an alternative to the attractions of revolution for Jews. Those who see that the origins of Zionism were progressive are very much mistaken. 
Churchill's Police confront the miners in South Wales
It was also during his period as Prime Minister that Britain engaged in the most horrific use of torture and concentration camps against the Mau Mau people in Kenya.  Victims included Hussein Onyango Obama, the grandfather of Barak Obama.  See Revealed: Britain's torture of Obama's grandfather and Sir Winston Churchill: Zionist hero

Tony Greenstein

A statue of former British prime minister Winston Churchill is silhouetted in front of the Houses of Parliament in London in 2015., Luke MacGregor/Reuters
History,” Winston Churchill said, “will be kind to me, for I intend to write it myself.” He needn’t have bothered. He was one of the great mass murderers of the 20th century, yet is the only one, unlike Hitler and Stalin, to have escaped historical odium in the West. He has been crowned with a Nobel Prize (for literature, no less), and now, an actor portraying him (Gary Oldman) has been awarded an Oscar.

As Hollywood confirms, Churchill’s reputation (as what Harold Evans has calledthe British Lionheart on the ramparts of civilization”) rests almost entirely on his stirring rhetoric and his talent for a fine phrase during World War II. “We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. … We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets. … We shall never surrender.” (The revisionist British historian John Charmley dismissed this as “sublime nonsense.”)

Words, in the end, are all that Churchill admirers can point to. His actions are another matter altogether.
Blenheim Palace where Churchill was born
During World War II, Churchill declared himself in favor of “terror bombing.” He wrote that he wanted “absolutely devastating, exterminating attacks by very heavy bombers.” Horrors such as the firebombing of Dresden were the result.

In the fight for Irish independence, Churchill, in his capacity as secretary of state for war and air, was one of the few British officials in favor of bombing Irish protesters, suggesting in 1920 that airplanes should use “machine-gun fire or bombs to scatter them.

Dealing with unrest in Mesopotamia in 1921, as secretary of state for the colonies, Churchill acted as a war criminal: “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against the uncivilised tribes; it would spread a lively terror.” He ordered large-scale bombing of Mesopotamia, with an entire village wiped out in 45 minutes.

In Afghanistan, Churchill declared that the Pashtuns “needed to recognise the superiority of [the British] race” and that “all who resist will be killed without quarter.” He wrote: “We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation. … Every tribesman caught was speared or cut down at once.”
In Kenya, Churchill either directed or was complicit in policies involving the forced relocation of local people from the fertile highlands to make way for white colonial settlers and the forcing of more than 150,000 people into concentration camps. Rape, castration, lit cigarettes on tender spots, and electric shocks were all used by the British authorities to torture Kenyans under Churchill’s rule.
But the principal victims of Winston Churchill were the Indians — “a beastly people with a beastly religion,” as he charmingly called them. He wanted to use chemical weapons in India but was shot down by his cabinet colleagues, whom he criticized for their “squeamishness,” declaring that “the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable.”

Churchill’s beatification as an apostle of freedom seems all the more preposterous given his 1941 declaration that the Atlantic Charter’s principles would not apply to India and the colored colonies. He refused to see people of color as entitled to the same rights as himself. “Gandhi-ism and all it stands for,” he declared, “will, sooner or later, have to be grappled with and finally crushed.”
In such matters, Churchill was the most reactionary of Englishmen, with views so extreme they cannot be excused as being reflective of their times. Even his own secretary of state for India, Leopold Amery, confessed that he could see very little difference between Churchill’s attitude and Adolf Hitler’s.
As a dedicated racist  Churchill was a strong believer in racial purity and selective breeding - eugenics
Thanks to Churchill, some 4 million Bengalis starved to death in a 1943 famine. Churchill ordered the diversion of food from starving Indian civilians to well-supplied British soldiers and even to top up European stockpiles in Greece and elsewhere. When reminded of the suffering of his Indian victims, his response was that the famine was their own fault, he said, for “breeding like rabbits.”
Madhusree Mukerjee’s searing account of Churchill’s role in the Bengal famine, “Churchill’s Secret War,” documents that while Indians starved, prices for foodgrains were inflated by British purchases and India’s own surplus grains were exported, while Australian ships laden with wheat were not allowed to unload their cargo at Calcutta (where the bodies of those who had died of starvation littered the streets). Instead, Churchill ordered that grain be shipped to storage depots in the Mediterranean and the Balkans to increase the buffer stocks for a possible future invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia. European warehouses filled up as Bengalis died.

This week’s Oscar rewards yet another hagiography of this odious man. To the Iraqis whom Churchill advocated gassing, the Greek protesters on the streets of Athens who were mowed down on Churchill’s orders in 1944, sundry Pashtuns and Irish, as well as to Indians like myself, it will always be a mystery why a few bombastic speeches have been enough to wash the bloodstains off Churchill’s racist hands.

Many of us will remember Churchill as a war criminal and an enemy of decency and humanity, a blinkered imperialist untroubled by the oppression of non-white peoples. Ultimately, his great failure — his long darkest hour — was his constant effort to deny us freedom.

Shashi Tharoor is author of “Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India.” He chairs the Indian Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee.

Not his finest hour: The dark side of Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill is rightly remembered for leading Britain through her finest hour – but what if he also led the country through her most shameful hour? What if, in addition to rousing a nation to save the world from the Nazis, he fought for a raw white supremacism and a concentration camp network of his own? This question burns through Richard Toye's new history, Churchill's Empire, and is even seeping into the Oval Office.
George W Bush left a bust of Churchill near his desk in the White House, in an attempt to associate himself with the war leader's heroic stand against fascism. Barack Obama had it returned to Britain. It's not hard to guess why: his Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and was tortured on Churchill's watch, for resisting Churchill's empire.
Can these clashing Churchills be reconciled? Do we live, at the same time, in the world he helped to save, and the world he helped to trash? Toye, one of Britain's smartest young historians, has tried to pick through these questions dispassionately – and he should lead us, at last and at least, to a more mature conversation about our greatest national icon.
Churchill was born in 1874 into a Britain that was washing the map pink, at the cost of washing distant nations blood red. Victoria had just been crowned Empress of India, and the scramble for Africa was only a few years away. At Harrow School and then Sandhurst, he was told a simple story: the superior white man was conquering the primitive, dark-skinned natives, and bringing them the benefits of civilisation. As soon as he could, Churchill charged off to take his part in "a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples". In the Swat valley, now part of Pakistan, he experienced, fleetingly, a crack of doubt. He realised that the local population was fighting back because of "the presence of British troops in lands the local people considered their own," just as Britain would if she were invaded. But Churchill soon suppressed this thought, deciding instead they were merely deranged jihadists whose violence was explained by a "strong aboriginal propensity to kill".
He gladly took part in raids that laid waste to whole valleys, destroying houses and burning crops. He then sped off to help reconquer the Sudan, where he bragged that he personally shot at least three "savages".
The young Churchill charged through imperial atrocities, defending each in turn. When concentration camps were built in South Africa, for white Boers, he said they produced "the minimum of suffering". The death toll was almost 28,000, and when at least 115,000 black Africans were likewise swept into British camps, where 14,000 died, he wrote only of his "irritation that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men". Later, he boasted of his experiences there: "That was before war degenerated. It was great fun galloping about."
Then as an MP he demanded a rolling programme of more conquests, based on his belief that "the Aryan stock is bound to triumph". There seems to have been an odd cognitive dissonance in his view of the "natives". In some of his private correspondence, he appears to really believe they are helpless children who will "willingly, naturally, gratefully include themselves within the golden circle of an ancient crown".
But when they defied this script, Churchill demanded they be crushed with extreme force. As Colonial Secretary in the 1920s, he unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland's Catholic civilians, and when the Kurds rebelled against British rule, he said: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes...[It] would spread a lively terror."
Of course, it's easy to dismiss any criticism of these actions as anachronistic. Didn't everybody think that way then? One of the most striking findings of Toye's research is that they really didn't: even at the time, Churchill was seen as at the most brutal and brutish end of the British imperialist spectrum. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin was warned by Cabinet colleagues not to appoint him because his views were so antedeluvian. Even his startled doctor, Lord Moran, said of other races: "Winston thinks only of the colour of their skin."
Many of his colleagues thought Churchill was driven by a deep loathing of democracy for anyone other than the British and a tiny clique of supposedly superior races. This was clearest in his attitude to India. When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back." As the resistance swelled, he announced: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." This hatred killed. To give just one, major, example, in 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused – as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved – by the imperial policies of the British. Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for "breeding like rabbits". At other times, he said the plague was "merrily" culling the population.
Skeletal, half-dead people were streaming into the cities and dying on the streets, but Churchill – to the astonishment of his staff – had only jeers for them. This rather undermines the claims that Churchill's imperialism was motivated only by an altruistic desire to elevate the putatively lower races.
Hussein Onyango Obama is unusual among Churchill's victims only in one respect: his story has been rescued from the slipstream of history, because his grandson ended up as President of the US. Churchill believed that Kenya's fertile highlands should be the preserve of the white settlers, and approved the clearing out of the local "blackamoors". He saw the local Kikuyu as "brutish children". When they rebelled under Churchill's post-war premiership, some 150,000 of them were forced at gunpoint into detention camps – later dubbed "Britain's gulag" by Pulitzer-prize winning historian, Professor Caroline Elkins. She studied the detention camps for five years for her remarkable book Britain's Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya, explains the tactics adopted under Churchill to crush the local drive for independence. "Electric shock was widely used, as well as cigarettes and fire," she writes. "The screening teams whipped, shot, burned, and mutilated Mau Mau suspects." Hussein Onyango Obama never truly recovered from the torture he endured.
Many of the wounds Churchill inflicted have still not healed: you can find them on the front pages any day of the week. He is the man who invented Iraq, locking together three conflicting peoples behind arbitrary borders that have been bleeding ever since. He is the Colonial Secretary who offered the Over-Promised Land to both the Jews and the Arabs – although he seems to have privately felt racist contempt for both. He jeered at the Palestinians as "barbaric hoards who ate little but camel dung," while he was appalled that the Israelis "take it for granted that the local population will be cleared out to suit their convenience".
True, occasionally Churchill did become queasy about some of the most extreme acts of the Empire. He fretted at the slaughter of women and children, and cavilled at the Amritsar massacre of 1919. Toye tries to present these doubts as evidence of moderation – yet they almost never seem to have led Churchill to change his actions. If you are determined to rule people by force against their will, you can hardly be surprised when atrocities occur. Rule Britannia would inexorably produce a Cruel Britannia.
So how can the two be reconciled? Was Churchill's moral opposition to Nazism a charade, masking the fact he was merely trying to defend the British Empire from a rival?
The US civil rights leader Richard B. Moore, quoted by Toye, said it was "a rare and fortunate coincidence" that at that moment "the vital interests of the British Empire [coincided] with those of the great overwhelming majority of mankind". But this might be too soft in its praise. If Churchill had only been interested in saving the Empire, he could probably have cut a deal with Hitler. No: he had a deeper repugnance for Nazism than that. He may have been a thug, but he knew a greater thug when he saw one – and we may owe our freedom today to this wrinkle in history.
This, in turn, led to the great irony of Churchill's life. In resisting the Nazis, he produced some of the richest prose-poetry in defence of freedom and democracy ever written. It was a cheque he didn't want black or Asian people to cash – but they refused to accept that the Bank of Justice was empty. As the Ghanaian nationalist Kwame Nkrumah wrote: "All the fair, brave words spoken about freedom that had been broadcast to the four corners of the earth took seed and grew where they had not been intended." Churchill lived to see democrats across Britain's dominions and colonies – from nationalist leader Aung San in Burma to Jawarlal Nehru in India – use his own intoxicating words against him.
Ultimately, the words of the great and glorious Churchill who resisted dictatorship overwhelmed the works of the cruel and cramped Churchill who tried to impose it on the darker-skinned peoples of the world. The fact that we now live in a world where a free and independent India is a superpower eclipsing Britain, and a grandson of the "savages" is the most powerful man in the world, is a repudiation of Churchill at his ugliest – and a sweet, ironic victory for Churchill at his best.