Winston Churchill — hero or villain?

Another Look at "the Good War"
User avatar
Wahrheitssucher
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon May 19, 2025 2:51 pm

Re: Did the Soviets forge Katyn documents? Yes

Post by Wahrheitssucher »

Eye of Zyclone wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2026 11:44 am
Wahrheitssucher wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2026 11:18 am
Eye of Zyclone wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2026 11:15 am
True.
But Winston Churchill also sincerely believed
that Jewry was a God's chosen master race[snip]
No. That is incorrect!

Winston did not believe there was such a thing as ‘God’. He believed in providence and destiny. But not the Christian idea of deity.
His position on all the organised religions was one of disdain. But he understood that saying so clearly would be an unpopular position to emphasise. Therefore he used ‘religious’ concepts as a rhetorical device to win ‘believers’ to his point of view.
His overall position on theological issues was considerably complicated.

He also used rhetoric on jewry that he knew would appeal to both Christians and ashkenazi jooze.
But as he did not have a clear belief in there being a ‘God’, he thus could NOT have genuinely believed that the European clique of powerful people who deludedly self-identified as belonging to an abstract tribe of übermensch elite called Ashkenazis were “chosen” by some kind of divine being that he didn’t really believe exised.

References:
In a letter to his mother he once wrote: “I do not accept the Christian or any other form of religious belief.”

In his twenties he read and was greatly influenced by William Winwood Reade’s book: ‘The Martyrdom of Man’.
Reade was an atheist who regarded religion as an undignified submission to superstition. After reading Reade’s book, Churchill wrote that a “predominantly secular view” had become “established in my mind”. [~ WSC, My Early Life, pg.129]

Stop quibbling over petty details. That's boring.
I don't care about your celestial imaginary friend.

Churchill's Zionist-Globalist views and actions were clearly derived from the Jewish & Masonic eschatology.
What a shockingly non-comprehending reply.
You clearly have not understood what I wrote.

1. I do not have an “imaginary celestial friend”.

2. You appear unable to accept correction.
A ‘holocaust’ believer’s problem is not technical, factual, empirical or archeological — their problem is psychological.
User avatar
Eye of Zyclone
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2025 3:12 pm

Re: Did the Soviets forge Katyn documents? Yes

Post by Eye of Zyclone »

Wahrheitssucher wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2026 11:49 am What a shockingly non-comprehending reply.
You clearly have not understood what I wrote.

1. I do not have an “imaginary celestial friend”.

2. You appear unable to accept correction.
Here we are again. The local drama queen is up for more hysterical indignations and ad hominems.
You should probably refrain from posting comments during your period.
"Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts and figures."
P
PangaeaProxima
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2025 3:14 pm

Re: Winston Churchill — hero or villain?

Post by PangaeaProxima »

Here a review of the already mentioned book “No More Champagne: Churchill and his Money,” by David Lough in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Of course, there is a disclaimer: "Churchill never gave wealthy Jews anything in return for their money.". Sure...

https://web.archive.org/web/20220606124254/https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2016-09-19/ty-article/.premium/churchills-debts-and-the-money-men-who-saved-him/0000017f-e9a7-da9b-a1ff-edefddc40000 wrote:In 1940, when Winston Churchill was up to his neck in Nazis, his residence’s spending on alcohol soared to double the amount the government had approved. The solution: List booze outlays under “entertainment expenses.” For Britain’s new prime minister, who took over the very day Hitler invaded Holland, Belgium and France, this was a good deal.

But alcohol prices weren’t Churchill’s biggest problem. In the new book “No More Champagne: Churchill and his Money,” British banker and financier David Lough recounts Churchill’s fascinating financial history that ranged from dire straits to great wealth. He mines writings of Churchill and people close to him that had never been revealed. He also crunches the financial data that were a burden for – or unavailable to – previous biographers.

Interestingly, the British legend is an object of veneration for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who himself has stoked a few controversies regarding personal finances. In Netanyahu's office, a portrait of Churchill accompanies one of Theodor Herzl. Netanyahu has even compared himself to Churchill.

In any case, Lough’s book won’t boost anyone’s admiration for the British leader. The man who warned about the Nazis well in advance also accumulated vast debts and got millionaires to cover them.

Churchill gambled heavily at casinos, lost a bundle in the stock market and did everything he could to avoid paying taxes – even when he was chancellor of the exchequer, the head of His Majesty’s Treasury.

Though Churchill was compulsively tardy in paying his debts, he never thought about living a more frugal life. He always knew there would be someone to save the day.

Lough shows how Churchill continued to buy expensive cigars and fine wines even when he couldn’t pay for them. He couldn’t cover his household expenses out of his own pocket and was stung by his huge overdraft.

Churchill liked the company and money of Jewish millionaires, too. One of them, Austrian-born Sir Henry Strakosch, rescued him from two major crises. On June 18, 1940, just one day after 4,000 British soldiers, sailors and civilians were killed when the Germans sank the RMS Lancastria, Strakosch wrote a check for 5,000 pounds. In today’s terms, that’s 250,000 pounds, or 1.25 million shekels ($332,000).

The generous donor didn’t ask for anything in return and kept it a secret. To cover his tracks, Strakosch made out the check to one of Churchill’s close advisers, who in turn signed it over to the big guy. The new prime minister was thus able to pay off the watchmakers, wine merchants and tailors who waited patiently for their due.

Did someone call him schnorrer?

That wasn’t the first time Strakosch had opened his wallet to Churchill; that happened around the time the Germans entered Austria two years earlier. For this he received a thank-you note from Churchill: “This is only to tell you that as Hitler said to Mussolini, on a recent and less worthy occasion, ‘I shall never forget this inestimable service.’”

Churchill actually was a schnorrer from his early days in politics. In 1906, when he was undersecretary of state for the colonies, he was late in paying his private debts. In Lough’s book he's quoted as saying of people waiting to be paid: “They may as well wait a little longer, having already waited so long. I do not want to pay them now unless I am forced, in wh[ich] case I can find the money.”

This was the case regarding his debt to tobacconist J. Grunebaum & Sons, which provided him a dozen cigars a day over five years and never saw a penny. It was also the case regarding the pearl and diamond earrings he gave his wife Clementine on Christmas Eve 1909. Churchill paid fashionably late, three years later. For other items, though, such as champagne (Perrier-Jouet), vermouth and brandy, he made sure to pay on time.

Lough insists Churchill wasn’t an alcoholic, but in the book he quotes an expense report for April-May 1949, during which more than 1,000 bottles of alcohol were ordered for Churchill’s residence including sherry, whiskey and brandy. To Churchill’s credit, remember that by this time he was no longer prime minister, only opposition leader.

A second Jewish millionaire who often came to Churchill’s aid was Sir Ernest Cassel, an old friend of the family. With the help of various money “gifts,” he supported the young Winston.

At the outset of Winston’s public career, Cassel paid for the library in his new home. After World War I, the merchant banker sent him a check to cover housing costs. “My dear Winston: I enclose my cheque for £2,300 in payment for the lease of 2, Hyde Park Street, secured by you on my behalf,” states one of the archival documents cited in the book.

The author comments that “it is unclear whether Churchill repaid Sir Ernest Cassel’s loan of £2,300: no correspondence on the subject with either Sir Ernest or his executors (after his death in 1921) survives.”

The evidence of donations from wealthy Jews could serve as fodder for hatemongers, who often claim that the Jews controlled the British leader. Lough is aware of this and stresses that Churchill never gave wealthy Jews anything in return for their money. He found no connection between Jewish money and Churchill’s efforts against Nazi Germany before the war.

Lough is careful not to criticize Churchill, but in interviews in the British media he has said Winston wouldn’t have survived amid today’s demands for full transparency.

Not only private businessmen paid for Churchill’s hedonism; newspapers and magazines took part in the fun. This came in the form of author’s fees for pieces the politician, minister or prime minister wrote, having found time to pen them even at the most historic moments.

The list includes The Daily Telegraph and Life magazine, which went even further and subsidized vacations in exotic spots around the world so Churchill could concentrate on writing.

Later, Life editor Daniel Longwell wrote: “However, and this we must keep private, they were very lavish trips. Always some of the family went along to get their holiday. He had his cronies with him; he sent for various people from England. He had the best in food and hotels. We paid for his sort of state dinner to noteworthy folk, and the expedition to Marrakech presented an expense account I wouldn’t want anyone to peer into too far. I think it was a good investment.”

Churchill’s fame and glory helped him extricate himself from large debts after the war as well. This was the case regarding an evening on a luxury night train in France in 1949. When he asked for the bill, according to Lough, “Unthinkable said the proprietress. It was the greatest honor they had ever had. Perhaps Monsieur Churchill would sign his name in the book. Monsieur Churchill would; and did.”

Churchill entered World War II nearly bankrupt and came out a rich man. Somehow, not only did he lead the war effort, he wrote memoirs and negotiated the sale of the rights. The fact that to write his books he used government-archive documents didn’t faze him at all.
User avatar
Wahrheitssucher
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon May 19, 2025 2:51 pm

Re: Winston Churchill — hero or villain?

Post by Wahrheitssucher »

PangaeaProxima wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2026 8:16 am Here a review of the already mentioned book “No More Champagne: Churchill and his Money,” by David Lough in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
Of course, there is a disclaimer: "Churchill never gave wealthy Jews anything in return for their money.".
Sure...
https://web.archive.org/web/20220606124254/https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2016-09-19/ty-article/.premium/churchills-debts-and-the-money-men-who-saved-him/0000017f-e9a7-da9b-a1ff-edefddc40000 wrote: [Winston] is an object of veneration for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who himself has stoked a few controversies regarding personal finances. In Netanyahu's office, a portrait of Churchill accompanies one of Theodor Herzl. Netanyahu has even compared himself to Churchill.

In any case, Lough’s book won’t boost anyone’s admiration for the British leader…

Did someone call him a schnorrer?

…Churchill actually was a schnorrer from his early days in politics.

…Churchill entered World War II nearly bankrupt and came out a rich man.
Fascinating.
Thanks for this.

N.b.
schnorrer
(noun)

Schnorrer (שנאָרער) is a Yiddish pejorative term for a beggar who, unlike ordinary beggars, presents himself as respectable and feels entitled for the alms received.

One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others; a parasite.

Sponger (a person who takes advantage of the generosity of others).
A ‘holocaust’ believer’s problem is not technical, factual, empirical or archeological — their problem is psychological.
Post Reply