Did History Forgive or Has It Been Forgotten

Let's just look back a few decades shall we:


On July 17, 2003, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair addressed a joint meeting of the U.S. House and Senate. The subject of WMD, of course, was on the front burner.
"If we are wrong, then we will have destroyed a threat that was at its least responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering,'' Blair said. "I am confident history will forgive.''
Blair's confidence is justified. History has forgiven U.K. leaders for plenty. How else, for example, could U.S. News and World Report have dubbed Winston Churchill "The Last Hero" in a 2000 cover story? In that article, Churchill was said to believe in "liberty, the rule of law, and the rights of the individual."
As Sir Winston himself declared:
"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."
Churchill had been a strong Zionist practically from the start, holding that Zionism would deflect European Jews from social revolution to partnership with European imperialism in the Arab world.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/churchill-full.html

In 1910, in the capacity of Home Secretary, he put forth a proposal to sterilize roughly 100,000 "mental degenerates" and dispatch several thousand others to state-run labor camps. These actions were to take place in the name of saving the British race from inevitable decline as its inferior members bred.
History has forgiven Churchill for his role in the Allied invasion of the Soviet Union in 1917. England's Minister for War and Air during the time, Churchill described the mission as seeking to "strangle at its birth" the Bolshevik state.
In 1929, he wrote: "Were [the Allies] at war with Soviet Russia? Certainly not; but they shot Soviet Russians at sight. They stood as invaders on Russian soil. They armed the enemies of the Soviet Government. They blockaded its ports, and sunk its battleships. They earnestly desired and schemed its downfall."
Two years later, Churchill was secretary of state at the war office when the Royal Air Force asked him for permission to use chemical weapons against "recalcitrant Arabs" as an experiment. Winston promptly consented (Yes, Churchill's gassing of Kurds pre-dated Hussein's by nearly 70 years).

"I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes,"
In language later appropriated by the Israelis, Winston Churchill had this to say about the Palestinians in 1937:

"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

When not scheming a Bolshevik downfall, gassing the uncivilized, or comparing Palestinians to dogs, Churchill found time to write soulmate Benito Mussolini.
Mussolini's criminality aside, Churchill certainly took note of Axis tactics...cavalierly observing that "everyone" was bombing civilians. "It's simply a question of fashion," he explained, "similar to that of whether short or long dresses are in."
Sir Winston must have been a slave to fashion because he soon ordered a fire-bombing raid on Hamburg in July 1943 that killed at least 48,000 civilians, after which he enlisted the aid of British scientists to cook up "a new kind of weather" for larger German city.
In his wartime memoirs, Winston Churchill forgave himself for the countless civilians slaughtered in Dresden. "We made a heavy raid in the latter month on Dresden," he wrote benignly, "then a centre of communication of Germany's Eastern Front."
Surely the Nazis were hiding WMD there, right?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MIC307A.html

Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16) 12 May 1919 War Office

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
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. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

Henry Gonzalez, US Congressman, referred to this in the House of Representatives on March 24, 1992:
"But there again, where is the moral right? The first one to use gas against Arabs was Winston Churchill, the British, in the early 1920's. They were Iraq Arabs they used them against." http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920324g.htm
"Moral right" is of course the reason this piece of history has now been dredged up again - by people who see contradictions in the pious arguments of Messrs. Bush, Blair et al. And this seems only fair. In 1998 Clinton denounced opponents to his planned attack on Iraq for "not remembering the past".
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html

There's much more history we have for some reason forgotten or do not discuss and unfortunately the players have not changed but will we?