Vague rumors of smallpox blanket genocide predate Churchill, but have never been substantiated against the US. Churchill appears to be responsible for fabricating all of the most crucial details of his Mandan story. If he has a source that gives these details, he didn't cite it. Meanwhile, the sources he did cite all disconfirm his story, as does the specialist literature he ignored, as do the primary sources. They all agree that the epidemic was accidental, and that once it broke out, the feds sent in vaccine to try to stop the epidemic. So at the very least, Churchill is guilty of falsifying his sources. At worst--and more likely--he is additionally guilty of fabricating all of the crucial details of his story. He did this in at least three different books--including his notorious "roosting chickens" book--as well as in a legal brief to get himself off in a court proceeding.
Which of Wiener's examples is worse than faking a genocide? And why should I keep quiet about Churchill's research misconduct, just because right-wingers don't like his insults to the 9/11 dead?
Thomas