Log in

View Full Version : Would Churchill have supported the BNP?



Red Dreadnought
27th October 2009, 18:58
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." (1919 War Office memo)

"If I had been an Italian, I am sure I would have been entirely with you from the beginning to the end of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism." [To Benito Mussolini in a press conference in Rome (January 1927), as quoted in Churchill : A Life (1992) by Martin Gilbert]

"One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations." ["Hitler and His Choice", The Strand Magazine (November 1935)]

"We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilisation will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the Great Germanic nation." ["Hitler and His Choice", The Strand Magazine (November 1935)]

In 1937, Brigadier Packenham Walsh reported that 'Winston says at heart he is for Franco'.

Two years after the infamous Nuremberg Laws, in 1937, Churchill said that “he hoped Great Britain would have a man like Hitler in times of peril” (quoted in the Times obituary of Leni Riefenstahl, 11 September)

On Hitler's coming to power: 'The story of that struggle, cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy conciliate or overcome, all the authority of resistances which barred his path', said Churchill. Asked about Germany's anti-Jewish laws in 1938, Churchill thought 'it was a hindrance and an irritation, but probably not an obstacle to a working agreement'.

Churchill saw the Soviet Union was a 'tyrannic government of these Jew Commisars', a 'worldwide communistic state under Jewish domination', 'the international Soviet of the Russian and Polish Jew', or just 'these Semitic conspirators'.

On race: Churchill said 'the Indians in East Africa are mainly of a very low class of coolies, and the idea that they should be put on an equality with the Europeans is revolting to every white man throughout British Africa'.

In February 1954, he told the cabinet 'the continuing increase in the number of coloured people coming to this country and their presence here would sooner or later come to be resented by large sections of the British people'.

And from the 'Churchill in perspective' article (Socialist Standard, March 1965):

"..It was he [Churchill] who called out the troops during the Dock Strike in 1911. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer in government which put on the statute book the 1927 Trades Disputes Act, prohibiting strikes by one group of workers in sympathy with another, curtailing the right of picketing, and preventing the Civil Service unions affiliating to the T.U.C....In 1927 he was "charmed,..., by Signor Mussolini's gentle and simple bearing, and by his calm, detached poise in spite of many burdens and dangers."

By way of conclusion, from the same article:

"Churchill was a member of the British capitalist class and he served his class well. He maintained a constant anti-working class attitude throughout his life....In death, as in life, he served our rulers well. The pomp and ceremony of his funeral was a circus for the diversion of the working class. The entire pulpit - religious, political, press and radio - have been loud in his praise. Here was a man, they said, for workers to look up to, to recognise as a leader, and in doing to pay homage to future leaders and the principle of leadership...Where did Churchill lead the workers? Where will any leaders take them? Workers have only to reflect on their experiences - not for Churchill and his class, but for those they dominate, is it a life of blood, sweat, toil and tears. And it will remain so, until the same workers who are deluded into hysterical hero worship of men like Churchill, learn that their interests lie in dispensing with leaders and setting up a social system in which all men stand equally."

Some of these statements and others by Churchill can be found here (http://tinyurl.com/yj21gwt).


From "Socialism or your money back"

Pirate turtle the 11th
27th October 2009, 19:00
He would not have joined the BNP because it does not have the same kind of social status that being a leading member of the torries had.

Pogue
27th October 2009, 19:09
What joe said mixed with it being an absurd question in this day and age and irrelevant.

Axle
27th October 2009, 19:13
Winston Churchill did have a serious thing for British nationalism and xenophobia. Not to mention his huge man crush on Hitler. The BNP's platform sounds like it would be right up his alley.

communard resolution
27th October 2009, 19:16
"Poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes"? Ideologically, the BNP would have been too moderate for Churchill. But whatever his personal beliefs, Churchill preferred to be with the imperialist warlords of the world in practice - so he would probably be in the Labour party today.

Radical
27th October 2009, 19:19
Churchhil wouldent have supported the BNP. He was a Patriot, but not an oppressive Nationalist.

thejambo1
27th October 2009, 20:00
he was an oppressive wanker who hated women voting and hated the working class but i think being a tory suited him. he could have joined moselys lot had he wanted to be an out and out fash.

Dimentio
27th October 2009, 20:33
Mosley was quite Anti-British because Mosley wanted a European Union. I think that was the main difference between Mosley and the British establishment, of which Mosley originally was a member.

Kwisatz Haderach
27th October 2009, 22:30
You cannot compare the politicians of the past with the politics of today. They must be judged in the context of their own times.

Every single respectable, mainstream politician of the 19th century opposed female suffrage, so they would be considered dangerous extremists today. The nationalist rhetoric of all pre-WW1 national leaders would have them branded as fascists today. And so on and so forth.

Demogorgon
27th October 2009, 22:48
You cannot compare the politicians of the past with the politics of today. They must be judged in the context of their own times.

Every single respectable, mainstream politician of the 19th century opposed female suffrage, so they would be considered dangerous extremists today. The nationalist rhetoric of all pre-WW1 national leaders would have them branded as fascists today. And so on and so forth.
That's true. Churchill was a funny case though. Up until becoming Prime Minister he was still calling for the abolition of Universal Suffrage, which was very much a settled issue at that point.* That puts him quite apart from most of his Conservative colleagues of the time.

On the other hand, he would certainly not have supported the BNP. The BNP may be many things but they aren't exactly aristocratic. He may be a UKIP supporter if he lived today though.

*As an aside the BNP also wish to abolish Universal Suffrage though they would limit it on the basis of military service rather than property.

ls
27th October 2009, 23:06
That's true. Churchill was a funny case though. Up until becoming Prime Minister he was still calling for the abolition of Universal Suffrage, which was very much a settled issue at that point.* That puts him quite apart from most of his Conservative colleagues of the time.

On the other hand, he would certainly not have supported the BNP. The BNP may be many things but they aren't exactly aristocratic. He may be a UKIP supporter if he lived today though.

*As an aside the BNP also wish to abolish Universal Suffrage though they would limit it on the basis of military service rather than property.

Spot on, I'm completely confident he would've been a UKIP supporter actually.

Also, I don't think it's very helpful giving the BNP any ammunition, we shouldn't support any notions they have by saying "yeah Churchill was terrible and he belongs in with the ranks of the BNP" same for the troops really by saying things like "yeah they are imperialist slaughterers yeah they deserve to be lumped in with the BNP", it's just an easy way of alienating possible people on the edge of supporting the BNP.

Pogue
27th October 2009, 23:08
he would have been a tory

Zanthorus
27th October 2009, 23:22
Who gives a shit? He was a Reactionary arsehole.

Vanguard1917
28th October 2009, 00:48
I for one thought it hilarious and a little surreal that the illiterates on that Question Time panel (including someone born to Pakistani parents, but barring Nick Griffin, who knows very well what Churchill was about) were trying to defend an arch white-supremacist leader of British imperialism against their favourite non-entity political bogeyman.

Red Dreadnought
28th October 2009, 14:14
Well, when I published that, only wanted to show the reactionary and bloody ideology of a burgeois politician an XX century; the open racism of colonialism and the way ruling classes supported provisionaly Hitler like a respectable and anti-commie politician.

Of course, I agree, there's another context, another time, but XX century is not too away. It's not the same as Roman Emperors or Greek slaveism.

The conclussion is the hypocrytal that ruling class can be, when they consider Churchill like a model of democratic politician who won Hitler (and all the mystifations about "common sense", "patriotism" or "democratism").



Radical; "He was a Patriot, but not an oppressive Nationalist"

:confused:
¿Not opressive?. I think you are justifying Stalinist alliance with "Democracies". Just Stalinism. Just anti-proletarian.

bailey_187
28th October 2009, 21:47
¿Not opressive?. I think you are justifying Stalinist alliance with "Democracies". Just Stalinism. Just anti-proletarian.

Most "Stalinists" dont hold that view. I dont know why Radical said that. I highly doubt the CPGB-ML (especially Harpal Brar) feels that way.

The Idler
28th October 2009, 22:21
As the Weekly Worker said recently, Churchill was too right-wing for the BNP.

Random Precision
28th October 2009, 22:24
Eh I don't think this belongs in History, it's not even trying to deal with Churchill in his context and his much more about the present than the past. Moved to Anti-Fascism until other people can think of a better place for it.

Stranger Than Paradise
29th October 2009, 00:41
Tory or BNP, they are both fascist to me.

The Idler
30th October 2009, 00:15
Tory or BNP, they are both fascist to me.
Just look at the Monday Club (http://www.conservativeuk.com/views.htm)'s own description of its views, let alone the Wikipedia's description.

Even the mainstream Tories co-operate with fascist groups in the EU (http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2009/10/fascism-its-anorak-issue.html)

Das war einmal
30th October 2009, 12:12
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."

Wow, and this guy was chosen 'greatest Britain of all times'?! Ah well Adenauer won the 'greatest German of all times' competition.

Coinneach
6th November 2009, 16:23
Granted the guy may have been a racist, a capitalist and a man who feared communism more than dictators, but its worth looking at some of his other quotes before thinking he'd have joined hte BNP.

Would give a link but post count is too low lol. :D

brigadista
6th November 2009, 17:03
What joe said mixed with it being an absurd question in this day and age and irrelevant.

so are the BNP