Okay, so there are lots of claims in this video. I'm going to go through the ones that I feel I can speak about:

Firstly its important to note that Churchill held views that were considered unpleasant even at the time. His views on India were a large part of this and contributed to his time in the political wilderness in the late 1920's.

The second thing to note is that the website from which these claims are drawn is called the Crimes of Britain. It is therefore unlikely that this website is particularly objective in its outlook. This is not necessarily a reflection of the claims but should impact on your consideration of the claims in question.

To take the claims in turn then.

Claim 3: This was written during Churchill's time as a war correspondent. These views while not universally recognised as acceptable by the British public at the time were relatively common, certainly enough so that little concern was raised by the british public. While it is not necessarily the case that we should judge people by the attitudes at the time, it is worth recognising that Churchill was a highly respected journalist and that he had little impact on the conduct of the war. While these views may seem unpleasant by our standards nothing would suggest that these marked him as a genocidal maniac by the standards of the time.

Claim 4: This was also a fairly common view amongst some parts of the british colonial office. The position at the time was that by playing off the various factions in colonies, british rule would be strengthened. Similar policies informed british actions in India and other colonies. Note that the actions that created apartheid in south africa were not the result of the british government and that the establishment of apartheit is what directly led to the South African republic leaving the commonwealth. Again, not directly linked to Churchill, holding unpleasant views is not the same as being a genocidal maniac.

Claim 5&6, I don't know enough to comment about.

Claim 7: Partially true, Churchill did advocate for the use of chemical weapons in Iraq and was in part responsible for the bombings as part of the war office. It was officers of the RAF Iraq command who made the final decisions, although they modeled there actions on the successful RAF pacification operations in Somaliland that Churchill had directed.

Claim 8: The Bengal famine was the result of directing food to british forces in East asia. He unquestionably viewed Indians as lesser than white europeans, it is unclear that the famine was a direct result of this hatred. The military command at the time advocated for the redirection of food, and this would likely have been the result of numerous decision makers, as most war decisions were, rather than Churchill's individual decision making process.

Claim 9: British forces helped in the supresion of the communist insurgency in Greece and the British government had backed the royalist forces in greece over resistance fighters. The exiled right wing government was unquestionably an unpleasent group, they had opposed the Nazi's during the war however.

Churchill's support for the royalist regime in greece was part of a greater campaign against communism in southern europe.

Claim 10&11 I don't know enough about.

On a strictly factual basis the claims in the video are grounded in reality (Or at least the ones I can comment on). This does not in itself inform the claim that Churchill was a genocidal maniac, the video does not examine the motivations of Churchill or the context in which these claims happened.

Happy to answer further questions and to provide sources for further reading:

Sources used:

Masters and Commanders by Andrew Roberts The Daily Mail archives
Churchill by Roy Jenkins Churchill as Warlord by Max Hastings Churchills Empire (Can't recall the author)

Regarding claim 5, the alleged quote to the Peel Commission was that:

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.

In essence, his argument is that holding land for a long time does not make it yours, particularly if also claimed by a "higher race", in this quote. This has been sourced to a few historians I've found and trust, such as Martin Gilbert citing Churchill's testimony through his evidence provided to the Peel Commission, so I feel confident that this quote is accurate. I will note he is not talking about "Palestinians" so much as Palestinian Arabs; at the time, Jews were also considered "Palestinians" to some degree. Churchill was indeed of the belief that Jews were more likely to bring wealth to the area than Arabs, and were more "worldly-wise" as he put it than the Arab population. Churchill's views were also that the Arabs would benefit from Jews controlling the land, in a typical colonial mindset. In the early 1920s, he argued that "...a national center and a national home...[will be] good for the Arabs who dwell in Palestine...They shall share in the benefits and progress of Zionism". His opinions were, in some ways, a mirror to the anti-Semitic arguments of men like Musa Kazim al-Husseini, who headed a delegation meeting with Churchill on the issue of Palestine and Zionism, and claimed that "The Jews have been amongst the most active advocates of destruction in many lands", blaming them for the defeat of Germany in WWI (an argument used by the Nazis as well) and the destruction in Russia in WWI as well. British officials likewise held these opinions about Arabs and Jews, sometimes simultaneously. For example, Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen wrote in his diary that he was interested in upholding Zionism, and that, "...that is the irony of the whole situation, for I am also imbued with anti-Semitic feelings".

I can't find anything on him referring to Palestinian Arabs as a "low manifestation".

Claim 6 is also correct. Churchill meant for the area to become a Jewish state, believing that allowing Jewish immigration would eventually turn it into one. He was a strong believer in a Jewish national home, as mentioned above. To expand on the previous quote, he said:

It is manifestly right that the scattered Jews should have a national center and a national home and be reunited and where else but in Palestine with which for 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated? We think it will be good for the world, good for the Jews, good for the British Empire, but also good for the Arabs who dwell in Palestine...They shall share in the benefits and progress of Zionism."

So yes, he did believe that the Balfour Declaration would create a Jewish state. He stated this in a 1920 article as well:

...if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event will have occurred in the history of the world which would from every point of view be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire

The full quote of Churchill on the subject, made to the Peel Commission as well, is this:

We said there should be a Jewish Home in Palestine, but if more and more Jews gather to that Home and all is worked from age to age, from generation to generation, with justice and fair consideration to those displaced and so forth, certainly it was contemplated and intended that they might in the course of time become an overwhelmingly Jewish State

I hope that answers your question there.

Hi there - we've approved this question, but it would be to your benefit to list some of the specific claims you're questioning, as many of our users do not want to watch a full video (even a four-minute one) to try to judge it as a whole.