RACIST or Man of his time? - Winston Churchill - Forgotten History

Many world leaders became legends in their own time due to circumstances, where revered or reviled, for better or worse. The 20th Century perhaps had the greatest collection of political villains and heroes and World War II brought all of them to the forefront. Winston Churchill rose to the occasion among global turmoil and major controversies which did not end with his various terms in political office, nor did they end after his death. Myth and legend seemed to blend together so let’s set the record straight. Written and hosted by Colin D. Heaton. Forgotten History is a 10th Legion Pictures Production.
====================================================================
Patreon page: / forgottenhistorychannel
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @forgottenhistorychannel
====================================================================
Listen to our Podcasts on Spotify or Apple here:
open.spotify.c...
podcasts.apple...
====================================================================
Thanks for watching. Please subscribe using the link below so we can continue making new content. Your subscription to the channel means a lot to us! / @forgottenhistorychannel
====================================================================
About us: Host/Military Historian/Film Consultant/US Army and USMC Veteran - Colin Heaton
www.heatonlewi...
Screenwriter/Director/Producer/US Marine Corps Veteran - Michael Droberg
For collaboration and advertisements contact: [e-mail]
www.michaeldro...
www.10thlegion...
Editor - Alexander Keane
[e-mail]
====================================================================
Associated channel for sci-fi, fantasy, comedy, and film related topics:
/ 10thlegionpictures
====================================================================
-COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER UNDER SECTION 107 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT 1976
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976,
allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. #forgottenhistorychannel

[@craxd1]

The way I heard it, FDR and Stalin kept Churchill out of most of the meetings. FDR and Stalin became very cozy, which led to members of the D Party, who were Trotskyites and also known as the New York Intellectuals, leaving the party. Guess who they became. Britain has had a problem with socialism, via Labour, for many long years, which is why it's in a mess today.

[@tamadeus7189]

Nobody - British, American or otherwise - wants to admit that socialism is nothing more than bribes for votes by corrupt politicians owned by international financiers.

[@jurgschupbach3059]

C Woke Tory

[@joebrooks4448]

Agreed

[@AOT_HxH95]

The neocons.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching

[@dashriprock9092]

All cultures are tribal, tired of hearing the word racist

[@BANANA42k]

Prejudice and discrimination are not the same as racism. Every human has prejudices, it takes a racist to act on them.

[@beasport505]

@@BANANA42k crock of BS

[@BANANA42k]

@beasport505 feel free to tell me why I'm wrong

[@1wongatonga]

@@BANANA42k EXACTLY! 👏👏👏

[@joetrey215]

@BANANA42k You are wrong because you do not understand the definition of racism in the context that you are intending to use it. It is not based on "acts". Definition: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group"

[@jakeroberts7435]

He sure liked flashing those horns, oh wait, l mean "V" for victory.

[@Trump2024asw]

It's basicly the middle finger.

[@nicolestimothy9921]

@@Trump2024asw bro flip the bird to everyone. 😅🤣

[@seandobson499]

I was eleven years old when Winston Churchill died in 1965 and my school had a special assembly to give thanks for the life of Winston Churchill and all the teachers who had served in world war two and other conflicts up to the death of Churchill were wearing their medals as a show of respect to Churchill and I saw many men and women of the wartime generation wearing their medals, many of them shedding tears on a bitterly cold late January day. Many of my family members have served in our forces before, during and after world war two, as did I and none of us have the slightest doubt that without Churchill as our prime minister, we would have surrendered to the Nazis.

[@YouT00ber]

One of the great men of history

[@seandobson499]

@@YouT00ber He most certainly was, and thank God he was the right man in the right place at the right time.

[@brndxt]

I am a Canadian who was born and raised in Hong Kong, then still a British colony. WW2 has been my hobby and interest since childhood. I agree that the Allies and Free World was fortunate enough to have Churchill. Note that he took office after France collapsed in 1940, oversaw the Dunkirk evacuation saving precious troops, and stood alone, the landlease notwithstanding, against Nazi Germany until December 1941 when the US formally joined the war after Pearl Harbor. If not for him, WW2 might have taken a different path. If so, I might not have been born.

[@seandobson499]

@@brndxt Myself and many others as well, with millions in the UK being used as slave labour and others murdered. Churchill, like any human being, had his faults and he was a man born in Queen Victoria's reign with Victorian attitudes to some aspects of life but without him as Prime Minister, I would not be here, free and large parts of the world would be a very different place and not for the better either.

[@existential.psychopath8053]

Well done to them, they didn’t give up. But today you surrendered to the ISLAMISTS and Africans, who are slaughtering your children in broad daylight.

[@John8_43-44]

Alcoholic or just a drinker? Cripto or just financed and controlled? Evil or just wicked? Traitor or just drunk, wicked, and controlled? There are many questions surrounding this protagonist!

[@SeanMurphy00]

And those are all great questions to ask about him.

[@TheUnknownCountry]

Yet No one seems to ask these questions about FDR when they are just as valid in regards to him.

[@kma3647]

It's nice to see an honest telling of the history of the man and a fair evaluation of his contribution to it. So often he is regarding as a hero or a Bond villain and, as with most things in politics, the truth is somewhere in the middle. There are no angels among men. We're not perfect, but Churchill never pretended to be either.

[@2H2521]

He was a man of his time & a hero! I’m sick of people who know absolutely nothing about history trying to rewrite it! Not talking about you either Colin, you know your stuff better than anybody.

[@beasport505]

Exactly 💯 AND whose to say we are even told the correct history when the elites and oligarchs rewrite it for their own gain and control

[@ilduce5874]

As swinish as Boris Johnson is, he wrote a really good book about Churchill, who’s one of my personal heroes. Winston was already off tha chain before he was 21.

[@gregsmith7949]

Churchill was a larger than life character that was the right person at the right time as British PM. Who knows what would have happened to Britain if he we not the Prime Minister during the war. He also had a legendary sense of humor. On being accused of being drunk by an upper class lady, he supposedly replied "I may be drunk, but you're ugly, and in the morning, I'll be sober."

[@Johnny-rj9on]

Who knows, indeed...

[@joecaner]

_"History is a set of lies agreed upon."_ ― Napoleon Bonaparte

[@paulinecook7265]

He was the right Man at the right time

[@christophermaclean8555]

He traded the whole of the British Empire for winning a war against a nation that should never have been his enemy. What’a worse, he was drunk the entire time. Had Britain left WWII in 1940, it would have remained a world power, the USA would not have been able to carve up swathes of the empire, Germany and the USSR would have been left to destroy each other (perhaps the better of the two would have won instead), and British people would have come out of the war on amazing footing. The Churchill myth is a sham. He destroyed his own country.

[@rcha2024]

Yes except the fact that he nearly lost the ENTIRE British armed forces right at the start of the war. Thank god for the little dinghy boats though, they came at the right time too, and the Americans, and Russians. Otherwise he was p e r f e c t !

[@walterdebnam8021]

Another excellently researched presentation of history, and of a man who did his part to free and stabilize world events against those who would enslave others. Hopefully people will take these examinations to heart, and overcome the saying that, people learn nothing from history. Thank you again.

[@brndxt]

I am a Canadian who came from Hong Kong, then still a British colony. Speaking as an ex-colonial subject, I have largely fond memories of those days. WW2 has also been a hobby of mine since childhood. Its endings still influence much of today's geopolitics, directly or indirectly. I am glad that there was Churchill, taking over the helm in 1940 when France capitulated. He saved precious troops via the Dunkirk evacuation. He led Great Britain to stand alone against Nazi Germany (and Fascist Italy) for a year and a half before the US formally entered the war in December 1941 after Pearl Harbor. Not a small feat, the US landlease notwithstanding. Did Churchill have character flaws? Of course, all humans do. Had he made mistakes in WW2? Of course, he had. Nonetheless, he had the sense to make more good calls than bad ones. He did great things despite all the flaws and challenges. Without him, WW2 might have taken a very different path, even if one still assumed an Allied victory in the end. Without him, I might not even been born.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

God points

[@RP-ks6ly]

Favorite history Channel covering one of my favorite historical figures, what a great Monday morning!

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@collectiveconsciousness5314]

6:35 People should read the piece he wrote on them, he lays bare their identity. Trouble is, he had people he was in debt to who cancelled all of them for a huge price…

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching

[@jackremington3397]

Outstanding!!!

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Glad you like it!

[@richardcorwin1828]

Think what you may of Churchill he was most definitely the man the world needed at the time of War II.

[@keithammleter3824]

He definitely was the man Britain needed. The World, not so much. Churchill had been very keen on pressuring the USA to impose economic sanctions on Japan as punishment for invading China. These sanctions put Japan in a nasty corner facing ruin, and like a cornered rat, they struck out, bombing Pearl Harbour, thereby starting the War in the Pacific. Japan saw that as their only option. Because of the Tripartite Treaty previously signed by Germany, Italy, and Japan, this more or less automatically brought the USA into the War in Europe as a fighting force too. Before Pearl Harbour the USA had only been selling equipment to Britain. The Pearl Harbour bombing was the most marvelous news for Churchill - he knew very well the Britain could not win the War against Germany on her own, but with America fighting, backed by its immense population and industrial capacity, winning was assured. Churchill was both ruthless and cunning - it was probably his intention in pressuring for sanctions to get the USA into the war, notwithstanding its neutrality policy. The Japanese were quite aware that all the men Australian could train and equip had been sent to North Africa and so Australia could be assumed to be defenseless. Not true in practice as it turned out, but that was the picture the Japanese had. Thus, without Churchill, there probably would not have been a war in the Pacific, Britain would have lost to Germany, and possibly Germany later would have lost to the USSR. And the USA and the rest of the World would have carried on quite happy, but for the Chinese being enslaved by the Japanese.

[@richardcorwin1828]

@@keithammleter3824 I had forgotten that. Thank you for the edification.

[@rcha2024]

Other than the fact that he nearly lost the ENTIRE British army in Dunkirk at the start of the war, and by an impossible stroke of luck 300.000 armed personnel were rescued at the last minute, and then the Americans, AND the Russians came to his help before his country was totally destroyed ....other than that he was perfect !! Stellar !!

[@keithammleter3824]

@@rcha2024 That's not accurate - you have mis-interpreted the facts. The German action that led to the Dunkirk fiasco stared 10 May 1940 - the very same day the King appointed Churchill prime minister and in effect British commander-in-chief. Thus the near loss of the British Army was something Churchill inherited, not created. In any case, the fiasco came about largely due to a useless French command - they didn't do what they were supposed to do - coordinate with the British and defend their country. In regard to the Americans, Churchill was always well aware that Britain could not win against Germany. It wasn't Churchill who declared war on Germany, it was the idiot who was prime minister before him. Churchill's strategy all along was to use, persuasion, trickery, and any strategy possible to get around the US policy of not taking sides and get them into the War. Britain could not win against Germany, but the USA certainly could. The USSR being on the same side certainly helped - helped a lot, but the USA would have prevailed anyway - possibly less than a year later. Thus Churchill was the man who won the War, by the strategy he adopted, he deliberately got someone else to fight for Britain - it didn't just happen. Britain never suffered anywhere near the level of destruction that was heaped on Germany - a fact that came about due to the very smart fast response way the RAF controlled its fighter aircraft, Goering's incompetence, and Churchill's unique support for the Bletchley Park team decoding German radio communications. British military officers typically didn't believe in eavesdropping the enemy communications, but Churchill did, made available all the resources needed, and disciplined generals who ignored the information gained.

[@Nursebakr]

Excellent as always.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks again!

[@cheri238]

@@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL Thank you, also sir.

[@paulbegley1464]

Personally I don't care if he was a racist or not. He was the right man for the right time And he understood the Soviet threat sooner than FDR

[@JohnDoe-uc4uu]

@@paulbegley1464 He was an alcoholic pos and his legacy is that of costing millions of lives and helping the soviets.

[@crusader2112]

Patton understood it as well.

[@juliusevolvere6835]

None of the above understood it as well as Uncle Adolf. The man was so ahead of his time on so many issues most people today who consider themselves “well read” or “historians” are still playing catch-up and will still spend the rest of their lives never seeing the truth.

[@lamontpearce170]

Europa The Last Battle, take a look at it.

[@robinknowles4013]

Patton is a true hero and is one of America's treasures ❤🎉​@@crusader2112

[@JamieLedweather]

I like Winston Churchill and admire him greatly. I do not care about any racist aspect. Humans grow and evolve. You can't hold it against somebody from 100 goddamn years ago

[@kylek1556]

You can say the same about the other side then.

[@JamieLedweather]

@@kylek1556yeah, you can say that about all humans. Good job. I'd give you a star sticker if I could

[@QuarantineCody]

Yes you can

[@QuarantineCody]

@@JamieLedweatherno there were stand whites at the time, that’s like saying you can’t judge a Nazi for his beliefs since it was almost a hundred years ago. Gandhi was a pedo and Churchill was a racist

[@timothydunn438]

​@@kylek1556Thinking someone is inferior, while not a great trait is wholeheartedly different than trying to wipe them off the face of the earth.

[@billotto602]

He was a boyhood hero of mine & I'm American ! God bless you sir & RIP. 🙏♥️🙏♥️🙏♥️ 🫡 🇬🇧 🇺🇸

[@JuanCarlosNunez-gu4yz]

Your decisions and Character, served the Whole World to this Date. Thank you again, Sir!!!

[@Sniper_Cat_71]

Churchill was definitely a product of his time. It's important to remember that he lived from just 9 years after the end of the US Civil War, and the indian war period until the space age and nuclear age. That is a colossal amount of change in that time frame.

[@theimperialist2686]

People ignore the fact Winston Churchill had attitudes that may be seen as racist, but this was due to his background of being a high society member of the British Empire. At the end of the day, he was the Prime Minister needed for WW2 unlike Chamberlain.

[@JohnDoe-uc4uu]

Not really, all he did was cost millions of lives and assisted the soviets. Chamberlain would have made a better call

[@theimperialist2686]

@@JohnDoe-uc4uu Except what Chamberlain did made things worse.

[@theimperialist2686]

@@JohnDoe-uc4uu Really, Chamberlain would have made a better call according to you? Please explain how appeasing Hitler is to you, a better call.

[@nateez3898]

@JohnDoe-uc4uu and you would have surrendered to the Germans and folded like a lawn chair.

[@JohnDoe-uc4uu]

@@nateez3898 I would have made peace with him and half of europe and asia get swallowed by communism. Not even including how they infiltrated and run the west current day. Yall are holding on to an ignorant view point that only believed to he right because of cradle to grave propaganda. Nevermind the muslim vs native conflict in Britain this weekend or a literal rothschilds banker running france

[@peter9180]

The Russians, at their Yalta meeting with Roosevelt and Churchill for the press, provided a chair for Churchill that purposefully had shorter legs making him sit lower in the photo with Stalin and Roosevelt, the meaning being that the British Empire's sun had set. The photo went worldwide, Churchill can be seen in a video taken at the time of seeing his chair as he climbed the steps, he turned around to his his aides but it was too late, the US and USSR had made their point.

[@John3.36]

Why would the UK guarantee Poland's borders? Had they not done that the world would have likely been very different.

[@kurt9395]

I would suggest you look up the entry in Navy Secretary James Forrestal's diary for December 27th, 1945 for the answer to that question. It didn't help that Hitler never had an appreciation for the kind of pressures that politicians in democracies had to deal with. Hitler pretty much sawed the legs out from under Chamberlain when, after the split between Czechia and Slovakia in March 1939, Germany took over the rump Czech state and turned it into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, a clear violation of the Munich Pact. Hitler later admitted it was one of his biggest mistakes. This gave Chamberlain's enemies, specifically Churchill, the ammo needed to undermine Chamberlain and paint him as weak and naive.

[@jyy9624]

​@@kurt9395so you posit that Hitler would have done diplomacy

[@michaelhowell2326]

Winston Churchill is one of the greatest heroes in the English-speaking world. He was the definition of gentleman and wiley operator.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching

[@footonearthchris8028]

I didn't realise that the determination to fight the Nazis, came so strongly from Churchill. If he hadn't been there, there might have been all sorts of treaties and agreements and our history might have looked quite different. Thank you

[@602br61458]

To read of his changes of opinion about the British Empire over his life is interesting. For a man born in the end or beginning of the end of the Empire he evolved to what is now considered a modern belief. All great men and women have feet of clay in my opinion. Enjoy your work.

[@henrysara7716]

Thank you, such a great clip full of non-known details.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Our pleasure!

[@Isgonesomewhere]

Great work as always friend, all the best to you and take care

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for the visit

[@Niftynorm1]

Very good and balanced bio of a very important man who influenced history.

[@campbellpaul]

He was the best writer of the 20th century IMO

[@jakeroberts7435]

History will be very kind to me for l am writing it.....the bloody wank even stole that quote.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching

[@robinknowles4013]

I think I would like to read some of his work?!?

[@thomasb.smithjr.8401]

Like his contemporaries Kipling and Rhodes, Churchill was the last glittering jewel in the former British Empire. What is happening now in the UK is sadly akin to latter day Vandals and Visigoths, picking over the remains of a once former noble patriciate, reduced to fashion plates living out their lives in scandal sheets and paparazzi hounds. 🇬🇧☹

[@jamesgpevans9421]

Churchill was great leader, was he flawed yes, but his leadership kept Britain going when others wanted to sue for peace with Nazi Germany. Great video ✌️✌️✌️

[@Historyrepeats6728]

Love your content. Always excited when new videos come out. Really like these ww2 characters

[@-Brent_James]

I am sick and tired of the word racist.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Me too

[@IceWhiteice22]

Why?

[@microchrist6122]

Ok Bot

[@rcha2024]

Take an aspirin.

[@Harikarikillboy]

Best channel on youtube, hands down! Nice work Colin!

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Glad you think so!

[@GarrettsGear]

Churchill was extremely important, the man had at least had a backbone. I don't understand british politics very well at all, but what i can say is that I'm on the side of native british people. One thing we have in common is a horrible illegal immigration problem...

[@travistaylor4342]

So this is how we're gonna remember the man that gave the english people the strength they needed in their darkest hour this man is a hero

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching

[@MetalHead-ks9zq]

We are all a little bit racist to one degree or or another and if you denied that you are a complete liar

[@davidhudson5452]

You are correct you you what ever you are

[@Tearsofsoil]

If racism means to love our own more than others, Love our kin and kith more than any other random person or group. Then this is natural and actually biological evolved essential feature of human evolution.. and i am proudly racist. If it means to exploit people of other races just because you think they are inferior to you in their value of life, then I am not a racist.. Love has meaning only when it is particular. Even God loves His beleivers and promised Heaven only to them. Love is always particular. You love your wife.. you love your daughter. You love your mother. You cannot love all women equally as you love your wife, daughter or mother... Else it is meaningless. Coal has no value. Diamond has . Even both are made of carbon. I think u get the point.

[@Percyalleline]

Exactly. Ty for saying it. Pocs complain about racism and when they get in the same positions they do exactly what they accuse non-poc ppl of doing.

[@scottbivins4758]

Racist no. Prejudice oh you best believe it 🤣🤣

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

👨🏽‍💻 not really. I would just say his views are contemporary of a majority of British of his time. I don't think he is particularly anymore egregious than his peers? Personally, I pretty much like most people in the rainbow.

[@hellbilly6532]

How will people judge the “leaders “ of today a hundred years from now??

[@beasport505]

hypocrites, greedy, narcissistic tyrannical self absorbed ruch entitled however if they own everything $$ Noone will know the truth in future

[@robinknowles4013]

I shudder to think about the politicians here in the good old US of A!! It's bad enough looking at some of the escapades from TWO WEEKS ago!!

[@guyh9992]

The Australian government and military had lost all faith in Churchill's judgement by April 1942 (after Dakar, Greece/Crete, Tobruk, Syria/Lebanon, Malaya/Singapore and the attempt to divert the AIF to Burma) and they were not the only ones to have doubts. He was forced to answer two motions of no confidence in British parliament in 1942, Canadian PM Mackenzie King and CIGS Alan Brooke expressed their opinions of Churchill the strategist in their war diaries and Americans sidelined him from any influence over strategy by establishing the Combined Chiefs of Staff Committee in Washington to make all the important decisions. Churchill's relationship with Australian PMs Menzies, Fadden, Curtin and Chifley was equally toxic. He never visited the Empire east of India throughout his lifetime and declined all invitations to visit Australia and NZ after WWII. The British had to scratch around to find other high profile Brits to thank them for all the help provided in two world wars. For someone reputed to be a supporter of the Empire he was reluctant to visit it, apart from Canada and the West Indies, after the first decade of the 20th century. He was also unduely willing to leave millions of British subjects under the brutality of the Japanese occupation for four years until the defeat of Germany. If Churchill really wanted to save the Empire he would have followed an Empire First strategy not Europe First. The result was that the British never recovered Imperial prestige after the war.

[@keithammleter3824]

Exactly right, although Britain's prestige went down hill also because she wanted Dominions to keep buying British manufactured goods, and those goods by post-war standards were of poor quality and delivered late or never due to strikes. Armaments supplied by Britain to Australian forces in North Africa were of poor quality. For instance, British-made tanks broke down far too much, and would loose their tracks on turns. When the Australians had run out of operable tanks, they got American tanks as replacements. In theory these tanks were inferior - they were lighter and had smaller guns. But Australian crews called the "honeys" because they only broke down if a German gun actually got a direct hit. They didn't loose their tracks in the tightest turns, so they could race in, get a few shots off and mess up a few enemy vehicles, then turn around and clear off quick before the enemy gets himself organised and fires back. I used to know Australian aircrew who first flew British aircraft in the War and then changed to American aircraft. They all said the US planes were easier to fly, more reliable, and much easier to fix when they did go wrong. When a British fighter plane was delivered, in its crates, it took several skilled mechanics a couple of days to get it in flying condition. They could have a crated American fighter flying within an hour, using one trained mechanic assisted by a couple of untrained helpers.

[@coling3957]

I feel that you don't really understand the war at all, or indeed political history. what areyou talking about lumping all of those countries together in paragraph one, they were all as different as eachother... ??? Greece would not allow Allied assistance until the Germans were lining up on the frontier. UK could only send forces from Egypt to help Greece. insufficient forces and the British commander advised the Greeks to shorten their lines to defend most of their country,. instead they tried to cling on to everything and were overwhelmed all along their northern border. Crete was only held by troops mostly evacuated from Greece - their NZ commander mismanaged the defence despite being advised of airborne assault by ultra intercepts. Syria and Lebanon were held by Vichy France and they had allowed the Luftwaffe to use their airbases!! a quick British invasion with Free French forces brought them both over to Allied side... Malaya and Singapore were lost because in 1941 we simply did not have sufficient forces to defend them while fighting Germany at same time.. once the Japanese reached the causeway separating Singapore , they cut off the water supply. a million civilians were on the island as well as troops. the commander had no option but to capitulate to save lives of these ppl.. Churchill could not fight an Empire First war because the Americans were loath to help us regain our colonies! they refused to even supply landing craft in 1945 so British Empire troops could assauly Malaya and Singapore after defeating Japan in Burma .. that was the reality, the Yanks controlled the Allied war effort.

[@coling3957]

@@keithammleter3824 yet Australia still used Matilda tanks in 1945 and flew British aircraft - successfully - throughout the war...... from Spitfires to Beaufighters. you seem to be showing more of an anti-British attitude that applied historical knowledge. you forgot to mention that Australia had a 2 stage war - those up to 1942 and those after.. up to 1942 the Aussies were highly respected and high quality troops. afterwards not so much - the Americans did not rate them highly in SE Asia and dock workers in Australia were often on strike or working to rule - leaving US troops to unload shipping. an awful lot of Australian refused to serve abroad, so occupied useless jobs at home while their more courageous mates served in combat

[@keithammleter3824]

@@coling3957 Yes, they did use British aircraft and other equipment successfully.- because that's what they had. it does not imply equipment quality. And the Spitfire was somewhat special. It had exceptionally good handling in the air -pilots could push it to its limits, confident that they would survive. My mother bought a Moriis car, because it was easier to park than father's big Chevrolet. But the Morris wore out faster and had a fault rate about double that of the Chev. So the Morris was successfully driven but it sure didn't have the Chev quality. It is true that US Generals including Macarthur did not regard available Australian troops highly. That was because the British blocked the expeditious return of Australian troops from North Africa to fight the Japanese. Macarthur had to send in Australian troops that had just been recruited and had completed only half their basic training. They never the less defeated Japanese troops in New Guinea and won respect for that. Another factor in American attitudes was that Australians were trained on British lines - the star-level officers were all British trained. This caused problems at all levels - at grunt on the ground level, incompatibility of methods, at general officer level, a lack of strategic thinking. The poor quality of officers trained by the British, who were very nearly defeatist, was recognised by the Australian government, who asked the US to send a general to take over. The US sent a spare one that had reached retirement age - Macarthur. Macarthur proved so much better than the British trained officers it was a joke. Your claim that Australians refused to serve abroad needs verifying. In 1939 almost all males of suitable age were recruited and sent to North Africa at British request. However British officers and Churchill never forgave Australia for sending troops to New Guinea and elsewhere to fight the Japanese instead of to the European theatre. Churchill couldn't care less about the Japanese threat - wasn't his problem.

[@keithammleter3824]

@@coling3957 You are clearly totally wrong about Singapore. Singapore was lost because Churchill ignored Australian warnings and left an incompetent general in charge. This fool did not position his forces properly and surrendered way too quickly. It is on record that the Japanese were shocked when they found out how many British and British Commonwealth troops were suddenly their prisoners. The Japanese were clearly outnumbered - the British should have been able to quickly defeat the Japanese and prevent a siege situation - they had three times as many troops and more than adequate guns, transport, and ammunition. Australia had been listening to Japanese radio communications and knew the Japanese were coming, and by what route. This was urgently communicated to Churchill, he had time to react, but he ignored it. When the fight started, Churchill sent a message - "fight to the last man". This told the British officers that no help was coming and demoralised them. British officers as a class then were not keen at putting their own selves at risk.

[@shanenolan5625]

Thanks Colin.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Very welcome

[@shawngilliland243]

Thank you for a detailed account of Churchill's long years of government service. He was certainly not the only imperialist in the government of the British Empire - and why would he be? It is not historically sound to judge people of the past by modern politically correct "standards". Without Churchill, Western Civilization may not have survived. He remains one of the greatest men in history for his leadership of Great Britain during the Second World War.

[@tml721]

LIfe Mag gave Hitler man of the century honors and was deeply criticized for it, Churchill should have gotten that honor.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching. I think they make those choices by how much influence and impact a person had.

[@wildcat8598]

I’m not sure what kinda person he was but I know he was the man that the Brits needed at that time. If it weren’t for Men like him we’d all be speaking German.

[@grandcanyon-d4d]

this man literally called Stalin a killer

[@bathhatingcat8626]

Churchill saw the threat of the communism and the Soviet union before most and had the influence to speak about it to warn us of its danger; no matter how we may judge him today, or what faults we may now find in the decisions he made during the war, he will always be a great man to me for this single issue.

[@kylek1556]

So did the “other guy” Churchill fought against. Would you say he was a great man also? Patton said we fought the wrong guys.

[@nicolestimothy9921]

​@@kylek1556 imagine using Patton quotes after a long war, and easily says "oppsie". How many more deaths to end this conflict??

[@darrenlesueur4785]

im pretty sure everyone world wide was familiar with the bulshavik revolution.

[@nicolestimothy9921]

@@darrenlesueur4785 despite the fact it was Germany itself protecting this Commie and allow them to travel back to Russia.

[@bathhatingcat8626]

@@darrenlesueur4785 because the western allies and Soviets fought on the same side in the Second World War, I’d say a fair amount of people didn’t see the Soviet Union, even under Stalin, for what it really was.

[@AOT_HxH95]

I say Gallipoli was the biggest black mark on Churchill's record. But after that disgrace, he volunteered for frontline service on the western front.

[@avagrego3195]

thank you very much for this informative lecture.

[@woodshed_moments]

I have to thank you for opening my eyes on a couple of things from a certain perspective... We admire people throughout history, but truth is, we don't know these people, many people don't realize figures such as Mahatma Gandhi and unfortunately Winston Churchill, we're not only known as just bigots - they were phenomenal bigots. I'm talking on par with Woodrow Wilson bigotry. Winston Churchill might have even been eugenic in a lot of his policies... Churchill's outlet down, because I really admire the a lot of what he did to keep his country together, and as an ally during the Great war, made a lot of sense about a lot of things politically - none of those things negated the ability to be a bigot. I'll always respect his perspective on socialists, he had them nailed... also as the progenitor of one of my favorite size cigars, after his name's sake: the tubby, and equally indomitable 'churchill' size cigar... short of that, good friggin night.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching

[@abrahamstein9073]

This was very entertaining and informative. You Sir were a former Marine, historian, Author, and a former Sniper, is this true?

[@bocefusmurica4340]

Just became a channel member and paid subscriber on Patreon. Great content as always. More than the quality I’m impressed with the choices of subject matter! Consider a treatment of Commander George Lincoln Rockwell?

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thank you. We really appreciate the support! Great suggestion. We will consider!

[@markchapman2585]

Love this channel 👍🏻

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Much appreciated!

[@Isgonesomewhere]

It doesn't matter. He lead us to victory with his strength and unifying voice, and courage. People who want to tear down the past are spiteful that their side lost because they joined the wrong side of history. Whether out of opportunity, duress, or truthful belief and intent. Nothing else, not everybody fought and some stayed completely neutral throughout

[@collectiveconsciousness5314]

“We defeated the wrong enemy.” -Gen. Patton

[@juliusevolvere6835]

He led us to ruin. We joined the wrong side.

[@scrawnyserf9298]

It's funny how no one remembers the famine he caused in India where almost 4 million died. I guess since they aren't Europeans it's not a problem, and he is considered a good person or a hero

[@collectiveconsciousness5314]

@@scrawnyserf9298 And they still have the gall to parrot the “good guy” official narrative of that conflict.

[@13aceofspades13]

I love it when people argue that someone was a evil person based on actions taken DECADES ago based on a modern perspective. They then take all the awesome things that person did, and completely invalidate them because a few of someones actions, that lined up with the general publics viewpoint at the time, is evil by the standards of today. And today it's legal to things that when I was in High School 15 years ago, was not only very socially unacceptable, but illegal. And now some are even arguing for sympathy for people who are "overly fond of children." Let that sink in.

[@abunchahooey]

I agree completely.

[@kylek1556]

Does that work for the other side as well?

[@LeeAdams-kj2tr]

I loved reading his book. “History of the English Speaking People”.

[@tallyforeman3145]

Great video Mr. Colin! Thanks 🇺🇸

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@cherimolina2121]

I believe Churchill was the only honest one of the lot.

[@seanmcdonagh6237]

You can be both racist and a man of your time, and Churchill was both

[@rewereset1584]

Rays sis ??? But the turks were enslaving anything that moved yet all of a sudden Churchill is what they are even today ??? Are you sure your ok upstairs ???

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching

[@kylek1556]

So was the other guy.

[@patriotsunite7963]

Excellent, Collin More, please

[@penduloustesticularis1202]

Plane went down in 1947 and was discovered between 1998 and 2002. So not 30 years old. More like 50 plus years.

[@dshingle6]

Peaky Blinders has quite a few references and the Shelby family had more than a few interactions with Winston Churchill of the 1920s. They seem to avoid painting him in a bad light but at the same time avoided painting him in a good light. Though I did feel he was an opportunist when it came to his own political ambitions after watching that series.

[@henrysara7716]

@@dshingle6 mostly all políticians, apply go that.

[@stephenchappell7512]

Rather than being allied to the fictional 'Shelby's' Churchill employed them to take out the same enemies they coincidentally shared

[@banquo60615]

Who did Winston Churchill really save, Great Britain and France, or Stalin and the Soviet Union?

[@pearlluber5849]

Thank you for this talk.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

You bet!

[@samcotten2416]

The dissolution of the British Empire led Churchill to conclude that he had achieved “nothing” in life.

[@andysnyder4603]

We can honestly say that he saved the United Kingdom from being conquered by Nazi Germany and he helped save the West. For that alone, he should be remembered as a great man who stood firm when everything that was facing him looked bleak. he was the epitome of the British Lion.

[@kurt9395]

"I had not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire." - Winston Churchill. Yet that's exactly what happened. During the Atlantic Conference in August 1941 between Churchill and Roosevelt, at one point in their discussions, Roosevelt went into a dissertation of what he called "de-empiring", the dismantling of the European colonial empires. Churchill didn't think Roosevelt's comments included the British Empire, but If Churchill had half a brain, he would've sailed straight back to England and cut a deal with Hitler. Later, at the Casablanca conference, Roosevelt said, "I’ve tried to make it clear to Winston-and the others-that while we’re their allies, and in it to victory by their side, they must never get the idea that we’re in it just to help them hang on to the archaic, medieval Empire ideas." Roosevelt's son Elliot wrote. "That’s why Winston is so anxious to keep de Gaulle in his corner. De Gaulle isn’t any more interested in seeing a colonial empire disappear than Churchill is. ... Great Britain signed the Atlantic Charter. I hope they realize the United States government means to make them live up to it."

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching

[@richardlincoln8438]

Thank You again for Your efforts Colin. Judging historical figures by modern values seems questionable. Best Wishes to You and Your Family.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Much appreciated

[@maxmiller2503]

God blessed the world with Churchill. He was definitely the Man of the Century.

[@kevinjenner9502]

Churchill was an important voice, and the UK an equal partner, in Eisenhower’s decision to overthrow the Iranian government via CIA Coup in 1953. (Operation Ajax..MI6 Operation Boot 1953)

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching

[@JoshuaTraffanstedt]

Weird that we judge people from the past with modern lenses. People dont understand that theyd own a slave or 50 if they lived 200 years ago.

[@Spitfire515O]

Even at the height of slavery in America, only the wealthiest

[@seansimms6693]

Christian morals haven’t changed since Jesus lived…

[@IceWhiteice22]

@@seansimms6693Amen, people making excuses for being a bad human being.

[@VincentComet-l8e]

‘Winston Churchill - racist or man of his time?’ I think the basic premise of this question is fundamentally flawed, and invalid. Because it makes no sense at all to judge somebody born in the 19th century by the standards of the 21st. What exactly does it prove, other than that standards and customs change, which is hardly groundbreaking news over a period of 150 years. However, it is a very useful for those currently seeking to manufacture weapons with which to undermine and replace the British State with some other radical ideology. The only way to objectively judge a person is by the standards prevailing in their particular period. Otherwise we could, quite literally, find ourselves criticising & denigrating everybody who has gone before us in history. By all means note that he did not hold the views that are current today, but that’s as far as it goes, and is not a smoking gun with which to traduce and rubbish a reputation…

[@HangOnAMinute1]

Precisely 😊

[@JackFetterman]

didn't Churchill also participate in the battle of Omdurman?

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Yes, that was part of the same campaign

[@reserva120]

Hero - Next question.,

[@rocketmanintn188]

Colin, I certainly agree Churchill was anti-Bolshevik. But I don't think he was anti-socialist. It is what made him "controversial". In most of the world far left is defined as communist and far right as nazi. Both of these are forms of socialism. They represent the two potential socialist economic systems (total state ownership of capital vs total state regulation of capital) described by Marx in the Manifesto that bears his name. Not so in the American political paradigm. The European far right is the center of our political paradigm. It is the current position of US politics. In the United States the far right is Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, G. Washington, Patrick Henry (et al) who are currently being erased from history. Churchill was an Illuminist and a lifelong friend of The Fabian Society (a great topic for a video). Keep in mind we are told many times daily the US is a democracy, and we are supposed to be somewhere in the middle of the European paradigm. AKA, socialists. Veritas vos Liberatis.

[@sid2112]

No we are not supposed to be in the middle of the European paradigm. Europe is stuck in a socialist spiral based on European tendencies towards cowing to authority. America is composed of all the Europeans that wouldn't put up with kings and nobles. The fact that we are moving towards that is indicated by the insanity of our politics these days.

[@lamontpearce170]

The US is a C 11:47 onstitutional Republic .

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Good point, I believe Churchill was opposed to that "socialism" that he could not embrace.

[@cellospot]

I would rather be faced with outright racism than the deceptive racism of DEI. At least then I know I can trust the outright racist because he's not trying to hide it.

[@keithammleter3824]

I was surprised that Heaton quickly glossed over Churchill's and Harriss's policy of bombing German cities willy-nilly. In this Churchill was a war criminal, causing death and hardship on a vast scale in Germany, but having negligible impact on Germany's ability to fight and no effect at all on the German leadership's desire to fight. The British area bombing of residential and light commercial areas greatly disappointed US military leadership because strategically it was pointless. When the War in Europe ended, a major independent investigation was commissioned by the US President, and this confirmed that the British bombing had little significance in winning the War. Churchill sacrificed all those RAF men for nearly nothing. You cannot blame Churchill for the RAF bombing at night, however. British bombers could fly only at fairly low altitudes, and were not very nimble in handling. They had to bomb at night to have any chance of getting home or even reaching the target area. American aircraft could fly and bomb accurately at twice the altitude, rendering German anti-aircraft guns much less effective.

[@JeffreyHornick-ep3si]

It might be argued that bombing German civilians was with a twofold purpose. First, there could be infrastructure that supported the war efforts that were legitimate targets, and the Germans were responsible for the safety of their citizens. Additionally, as the Nazis bombed British civilians indiscriminately there could be a justification for it.

[@keithammleter3824]

@@JeffreyHornick-ep3si No. The British made no attempt to bomb infrastructure that supported the German war effort, except for a few special missions, such as the skip-bomb dam busting. Hitler and his generals were the sort that were neve once swayed by the suffering of his people. Churchill thought fighting a war was about punishing the enemy people. In contrast, the American leadership thought that fighting a war was about strategicaly crippling the enemy's ability to fight. The British bombed houses and block of flats, whereas the Americans bombed oil refineries and industrial estates. Hitler gave orders that the Luftwaffe bomb only military targets in Britain. He only changed that order after the British started bombing residential areas willy-nilly.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

No gloss over, just not focused upon Bomber Command policy

[@keithammleter3824]

@@JeffreyHornick-ep3si By Hitler's direction, the Germans only attacked military targets in Britain until the RAF started their carpet bombing of German residential areas. Hitler THEN ordered civilian targets in England to be bombed in retaliation. So there was no justification for the British attacks. They started it.

[@keithammleter3824]

Heaton startled me at 11:40 when he said that Churchill won prime-ministership. "Win" in this context means win in an election, which Churchill did not do. The King appointed him PM as the elected party had no leader who knew how to win the War. Churchill did. Heaton claimed at 16:45 that Lend-Lease supply of equipment was a violation of US strict neutrality laws. This is not so, since an amended Neutrality Act had been passed (the 1939 version), permitting the sale and delivery of equipment of a commercial basis - essentially buy now, pay on easy terms, as TV salesmen used to say. In theory, Germany was free to buy arms from the US as well on a commercial transaction basis. Of course, if Germany did, the British Navy would never have allowed delivery. This is also how Britain got equipment before Lend -Lease came into effect - again a commercial transaction, this time on a cash on the barrel basis. In any case, Lend -Lease was created by the 1941 Lend-Lease Act passed by the US Government - so it was legal anyway. Heaton seems to think Churchill was not heartless. Churchill was certainly ruthless. That's how he got the War won in Europe - get the Yanks in, and forget about British colonies and dominions in the Pacific theater - if they fall to Japan, too bad. However, Australia wisely had other ideas. Churchill and Stalin got on well with each other. That's because each saw himself in the other - both ruthless bastards, prepared to do whatever it takes.

[@coling3957]

Actually Churchill did WIN the premiership - in Parliament.. the MPs sided with Churchill and decided Chamberlain had to go in april 1940. there was a Vote of No Confidence in the Commons. when it was clear that the parties - including Labour and Liberals were all for Churchill, as well as a good many Conservatives, he was invited by the King to form a govt. ALL Prime Ministers must show they have a majority in Parliament. the King doesn't simply choose someone - and hasn't since the 18th century - based on his own preferences. Churchill was not heartless, but he was pragmatic.. he did not long dwell on losses. instead he plowed on "when you're going through Hell - keep going!" was one of his sayings. Churchill knew what Stalin was, but knew he needed the USSR in war against Hitler. Stalin respected that - whereas the Americans were completely blind-sided. Roosevelt's govt had a lot of far-left who saw USSR through rose-tinted spectacles.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Lend Lease became illegal under the laws of neutrality when the US provided weapons and munitions as well as naval escorts for British convoys. Had they only provided food, fuel, etc, there would not have been an issue. See our part 2 video on FDR

[@keithammleter3824]

@@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL : You are utterly wrong. Illegal under exactly which laws (name of act and date)? In your Part 2 on FDR you made the same claim, I posted there explaining why it was not illegal in a little more detail than I did above. You then posted in reply that it was illegal but did not explain why. Just making an unsubstantiated claim is no good - you need to back it up. The US 1939 Neutrality Act is known as the "Cash and Carry" act simply because it permitted US firms to sell arms and equipment to belligerent nations on a normal commercial transaction basis provided it was on a cash on the barrel basis and the goods were shipped by normal commercial means, which they were. When Lend Lease came into effect in 1941, it allowed time payment and allowed the US government to provide the credit. Nothing illegal about it. In Churchill's 6-volume history of World War 2 he explained that he had to have British firms place normal commercial purchase orders or contracts directly on US firms and pay cash up front in order to conform with US neutrality law then in place. This is what sent Britain bankrupt - stumping up the cash. The cash and carry provision of the Act was never tested in court. If there was any possibility that selling arms to Britain was illegal in some way (usually laws are illegal if they violate the Constitution), one would expect it to reach court. There was objection raised in Congress, with some opposing members claiming the Act was illegal, but that is what opposition members do all the time. That's how democracy works - the party in power presents laws and policies, and the opposition objects, causing debate, which teases out any real problems. Then they all vote on it, and if its passed, it's legal..

[@joaopedrobaggio4475]

Excellent, this channel is amazing, we must remember that all human beings commits mistakes and that there will never be the perfect leader. One more thing, when you will make a vídeo about Ronald Reagan presidency?

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

We have one.

[@skylineXpert]

Mahatma Gandhi was the hero of Hindustan yet he wasnt perfect either. Churchill wasnt perfect & although some of his actions were bad then he managed to keep calm when needed.

[@lightweight1365]

No one cares about a smelly conquered people.

[@richardgrant418]

Such a lame question: why would it be racist OR man of his time Both

[@kurt9395]

With every great figure in history, there is much to admire and much to despise. When it comes to Churchill, the more you find out, it becomes less of the former and more of the latter. "History will be kind to me because I intend to write it." - Winston Churchill "I had occasion to become acquainted with Churchill in the First World War, and later with Baldwin and Chamberlain. Intellectual integrity was not Churchill’s strong point; it was the outstanding quality of the other two. Churchill possessed a surpassing power of oratory and word pictures; the other two lacked both these qualities. Churchill’s character was absolutely ruthless; the other two were men of scrupulous regard for the rights of others. Churchill was irresponsible in statement; while the other two statesmen were the soul of honest presentation. They were, therefore, no equal for Churchill in the arts of demagoguery. Churchill has imprinted on the world the notion that these two statesmen were inept, without courage, supine, and without direction in their policies. Nor was Churchill the 'Liberal' which he called himself. He had opposed the Wilson program of a democratized Europe at the time of Versailles. Churchill of course, was opposed to Communism, but future historians must assess upon him some responsibility in bringing on the war between the Western Democracies and Hitler and, as such, being a powerful supporter of Stalin. One of the most difficult problems with which the objective historian will need to deal is Winston Churchill’s account of the origins of World War II in 'The Gathering Storm'. His position to command material, his brilliant style, his dramatic descriptions, carry confidence. But his personal prejudices, his constant rationalization after the events with a persistent misstatement and evasion of facts and realities, are much short of objective truth. He ignores his own published attitudes at the time of events and, when it suits his purposes, he ignores the vital and fundamental forces of the time." - Herbert Hoover, "Freedom Betrayed", 1964

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching

[@Viewer372]

One wonders how much more Churchill could have accomplished without the booze.

[@shantanusapru]

Both. These are not mutually exclusive conditions. Cue the apologists...

[@sw00sh9]

History teaches us all that no heroes are perfect. The bravest, courageous, and hero complex men have always been imperfect. Heroes are only perfect in films and comic books. It is imperfect men who have taken the responsibility and changed the world for the better. Whether people accept that or not.

[@jukkasarilo7573]

WW2 was a more complilcated thing than written. There were places, where people lived fairly peacefully between front lines.

[@zackman5348]

When I think of a cigar-smoking badass, I don't go to Schwarzenegger or Stallone. I see Winston Churchill.

[@sid2112]

I see him in Coventry when he toured the city after it was destroyed. His eyes looked haunted, he was seeing ghosts everywhere that day. He knew the Germans bombers were coming but couldn't do anything because if he did, Germany would know England had broken the Enigma code. That's the hard choice, that's the kind of choice a real leader can make. Man I'm not sure if I could have done it. It was the right call, but Christ, what cost.

[@2H2521]

Arnold has become a total phony, love Sly though!

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

LOL. Thanks for watching

[@Ibby.M.I.786]

I think it's some of his don't care attitude decisions that made me hate him a bit in his early career (like the actions in World War 1 - the failed Gallipoli campaign and him turning a blind eye to the Lusitania, knowing that it would have been a target) - but racist? I highly doubt it. Either way, I still respect him for his efforts in attempting to make things better for the world.

[@davidjackson2690]

Both. Like it or not.

[@misaghkhosravi4541]

I SUPPOSE ITS ALL MATTER OF STRATEGY , IN MOST CASES WE DONT CHOOSE OUR SIDE

[@otfriedschellhas3581]

Don't care what his racial attitudes were, but this warmonger in his hatred of Germany carried on a fight he could not win, so he buddied up with Stalin and drew in the US to "win". The cost: Eastern Europe , including Poland , the root of the war; the dissolution of the British Empire and British bancrupsy (still had food stamps into the fifties). Some win.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching

[@aafife499]

How would the alternative timeline where Winston was never involved in the 20th century have worked out for the SJWs?

[@benjaminjordan2762]

In my studies, I have come to believe that eugenics, In one form or another, was taught quite heavily in both Europe and North America. I believe this to be the reason for the use of race, and racism appears in history. We are all of the human race. We have differing ethnicities, but are all of the human race. Remember the divide and conquer process. Setting human against human. What do you think Colin? I say this now because of Mr. Churchill's "racist" leaning mentioned in this video. BTW, great video.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

He had his opinions, which were not unusual, but he was not a genocidal fanatic.

[@grantsapain]

Hero. I'm so sick of revisionist history directed at people who are no longer here to defend themselves...

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching

[@johnroddy8756]

You said he Supported the Irish Free State.He sent the Black and Tans to Ireland.Many unemployed ex soldiers, criminals.These guys has full power to shoot,burn rape as they did.Cork City was burned to the Ground.The formation of Free state divided the country,limited independence with three ports in the south still in British ports.Treaty ports as they were known.He was dragged screaming to the idea of any independence to any former Colonial country.He was a imperialist and proud of it.

[@quintinsmith5400]

My ancestors were at the boer war as kiwis, I might have some medals somewhere. Alot off WW1 & 2.

[@NorwayT]

6:08 - There is an error in the script here, FORGOTTEN HISTORY. The Right Honourable, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was the First Lord of the Admiralty ('Secretary of the Navy') by the time he started the development of the Tank. And, just as with his Gallipoli Idea, the idea about the Tank was to break the Stalemate and Meat Grinder that was the Static Trench Warfare. BUT - as First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill had to be creative to meddle in warfar on land. So, in his usual boyish enthusiasm, in February 1915 he formed THE LAND SHIP COMMITTEE…! 😂 Chaired by Eustace Tennyson d’Eyncourt, Director of Naval Construction at the Admiralty, the Committee was composed mainly of naval officers, politicians and engineers. But fear of giving the game away, made the committee change its name to "The D.N.C.'s Committee" by December 1915. As for Churchill's "Racism", it was common for his generation of Victorians to be proud of the Empire's Achievement. The fact that he admired SOME aspects of Fascists and National Socialists' handling of crisis like the FDR Created Depression has - extremely regrettably - been used against him after his Death. Personally, I find it disgraceful how a united Left has been allowed to chip away at the Magnificent Savior of Western Civilization's Reputation and Legacy! Although I understand FORGOTTEN HISTORY's aim at painting a nuanced picture of Sir Winston Churchill, it is impossible to do such a portrait justice in only 26 minutes! And I feel that Winston's extremely complex personality, and his magnificently flexible mind, which - quite frankly - is highly unusual for a Politician, is unjustly being used against him. SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE EPISODES: Sir Winston Churchill's Legacy is of such a caliber and such an importance, that I believe it ought to be covered In Depth and Fairly by FORGOTTEN HISTORY. You make such MAGNIFICENT, TRUE TO REAL HISTORY Documentaries, that I hope you will find Churchill's Vital & Pivotal Role in World History as fascinating and interesting as I do, and make a more In-Depth Documentary about him, or feature him in a series. It takes quite some effort to make my Real Live Viking Blood boil. But I must say that the Presentist Onslaught against Churchill's Life & Legacy by Marxist Film Makers the past many decades (with the notable exceptions of 'The Gathering Storm', 'Into the Storm' and 'Darkest Hour') has gotten my blood way past a mere simmer! And any and all Fair and Nuanced counter balances to this Marxist Propaganda is IMPORTANT! I could make out a long list why I find this important. But I will stick to one main point: - If we don't know where we're coming from - we will lose our bearings and where to go to. The senseless tearing down of statues in America, even important statues of Robert E. Lee and the rewriting of History in Students' History Books is a Clear and Present Danger to the very survival of Free and Open Societies and one of the most important Weapons in Communist China and the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party - a Trans-National Criminal Organization, ‘Unrestricted Warfare’! As such, In-Depth Analysis of Giants like Winston Churchill becomes important Weapons in propping up our Judeo-Christian Western Civilization and giving it a fair chance of carrying our Younger Generations into the Future! Just consider this: We know that the Nazis had an intercontinental ballistic missile on Werner von Braun's drawing board. We also know that the Nazis detonated one, possible two, Low-Yield U-235 Fission Devices. If Winston Churchill hadn't spurred his Nation on to Victory in the Battle of Britain, chances are that the Nazis would have had total domination of most of the World, and that would have placed America squarely in the Nazi's crosshairs, either as a target for Nuclear Weapons, Invasion or both. For that very reason alone, this Great Man's Legacy deserves a proper display!

[@SDsc0rch]

we say "racist" today because it is a fad fads come and go see maher on "presentism"

[@dougearnest7590]

Bill Maher, I presume? It's interesting that the wacko Left's biggest cheerleader for decades, in his quest to appear relevant, should say such profound things but never apologize for being on the wrong side himself.

[@TheKulu42]

Agreed. It's fashionable to dub people of the past racist. It's easier to do that than actually address today's problems.

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching

[@ijm1963]

Just a minor point the Sudanese Campaign was about putting down a rather bloody Islamic uprising which was intent on and had slaughtered all that opposed it. It was just one experience that led Churchill to have a negative and hostile view of Islam. Best leaving your modern ideology to one side when trying to judge him.

[@MyYTchannel.thenationalrazor]

To be an imperialist you have to be racist. The concept of imperialism is predicated on the subjugation of other peoples who are deemed inferior as evidenced by the fact they were conquered in the first place (in the imperial mind). Winston said it himself after all. Imperialism isn’t of course only racism, but it’s a strong component. Lastly, history writing is subject to personal bias for the most part. “Setting the record straight” is opinion. There is objective history, somewhere, sometimes, but don’t look for it on KZbin. That’s my free speech educated opinion (MA history)

[@FORGOTTENHISTORYCHANNEL]

Thanks for watching

[@danielwatson1521]

History is always a lot more grey than good vs bad. We shouldn’t look at it with idealistic glasses: