Pick up any popular biography of Winston Churchill, and you will hear things like Churchill was almost like a savior who saved the much of the West from annihilation. In fact, that’s one reason why Hollywood has made a movie extolling Churchill as the leader who saved England in particular from Nazi Germany. As Paul Adison puts it, Churchill was “the unexpected hero.”
What popular historians and Churchill sympathizers will not tell you is that Churchill, as David Irving has argued “was almost a pervert.” Churchill, says Irving:
“liked to expose himself to people. You don’t find this in the average Churchill biography. You’ll find it in mine. Such flashes of mature insight were tempered by patches of behavior that witnesses could only describe as infantile. The same general, wearily watching Winston throw yet another tantrum, remarked sotto voce to Hugh Dalton, minister of Economic Warfare: ‘One feels that a nurse should come and fetch him away.’”
Irving moves on to say:
“Some of his fetishes must have had their roots in his unsettled infancy. He had a whimsical habit of exposing himself, just like a naughty child, both to his young male secretaries and to his elders and betters. Each one thought that he was being uniquely privileged, but this happened so frequently that it cannot have been fortuitous.
“No matter how high ranking the personage — with the exception, it seems, of His Majesty — he was likely to find himself received by Britain’s prime minister in a state of total nudity on one pretext or another. Churchill frequently received his ministers or staff officers while sitting in or stepping out of the bath — these blessed folk being referred to afterwards as Mr. Churchill’s ‘Companions of the Bath.’
“He resembled, in the words of Brigadier Menzies, chief of the secret service, a ‘nice pink pig’ wrapped in a silk kimono. ‘Sometimes,’ recalled ‘C’ in 1967, ‘I had to talk to the PM when he was undressed and once, when in the bath, he mentioned he had nothing to hide from me.’
“Not even foreigners were spared this ordeal. On August 26, 1941 he asked the butler at Chequers to bring Elliott Roosevelt to him. ‘I knocked on his door,’ wrote the president’s son, ‘and entered. Churchill was dictating to his male secretary with a large cigar in his mouth … he was absolutely starkers, marching up and down the room.’
“Others were treated with scarcely greater mercy — he would wear his white linen undergarments to receive the Canadian prime minister Mackenzie-King in May 1943: ‘He really was quite a picture but looked like a boy — cheeks quite pink and very fresh.’ (I’m not sure which cheeks he was referring to!)”
Here’s the question: If Hitler actually displayed this sort of behavior, wouldn’t you be surprised if biographers did write about this? Wouldn’t you be shocked if the behavior was completely omitted from lengthy books like William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Ian Kershaw’s Hitler: A Biography, John Toland’s Adolf Hitler, etc.?
So, is it possible that Churchill biographers have been able to whitewash what he did and substitute nice things in order to seduce readers? Just think about that.
-  Paul Addison, Churchill: The Unexpected Hero (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
-  David Irving, “Churchill and U.S. Entry Into World War II,” http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p261_Irving.html.
-  Ibid.