Churchill Was Not A Hero - The World at War (1973) Discussion

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bloody-3 9 years ago

Churchill fits the Nuremberg trial definition of a war criminal in that he deliberately targeted civilians. Under his orders Bomber Command was told to hit German civilians as a priority even at the expense of military targets. This was known as The Lindemann Plan -
http://whale.to/b/lindemann_h.html
http://whale.to/b/kollerstrom.html
http://whale.to/b/bombing_ger.html
Hitler offered to stop the bombing of civilian targets and only attack military targets and factories producing arms and armaments if the British did the same. This is confirmed by British air ministry official J M Spaight in his 1944 book Bombing Vindicated -
http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2015/volume_7/number_1/bombing_vindicated.php
Churchill refused this humanitarian gesture.
During the Bengal famine he refused to send food relief to help starving Indians which greatly increased the death toll. He referred to Indians as "a beastly people with a beastly religion" -
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8241
He also thought nothing of handing Poland over to Stalin at the Yalta Conference in 1945 knowing full well that the Soviets were mass murderers and were responsible for the Katyn massacre -
www.katyn.org.au
World War 2 ended 70 years ago and this tv show is over 40 years old so it's about time people realised the true nature of Churchill.

reply

[–] GorchBrother 9 years ago

What a moron. At no point in the World At War is Churchill depicted as a hero or as if he was perceived as one by the majority of Britons.

Idiot.

"I don't need to believe it's real. I just need to believe it."

reply

[–] bloody-3 9 years ago

You're the moron. And you are also the only idiot here. You also can't read. I never wrote that the title of this thread came from this tv show. My choice for this thread came from the Veterans Today article I linked to in the OP.
www.veteranstoday.com/2015/09/24/churchill-was-a-mass-murderer-and-worshipped-mammon/
THE WORLD AT WAR may not call Churchill a hero but at the same time does it offer any serious criticism of him and his policies? I don't think so. It doesn't mention that he was a racist and an imperialist -
www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/25/winston-churchill-britains-greatest-briton-left-a-legacy-of-global-conflict-and-crimes-against-humanity/
It doesn't mention that he was financially destitute in the 1930's and agreed to have his debts paid for if he became a paid agitator to campaign for war against Germany. In other words he was paid to become a warmonger -
www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/Waley_Cohen.html
www.shoah.org.uk/2015/08/03/churchill-lied-about-hitler
This explains why he had no principles or ideals. Supporting the declaration of war against Germany for invading Poland on September 1 1939 but not the Soviet Union when they invaded Poland on September 17 1939 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
Handing Poland to Stalin in 1945 which made a mockery of the reason for going to war in the first place.
Condemning Hitler for being a dictator while supporting the dictator Stalin. This had nothing to do with the outbreak of the soviet-nazi war as Churchill wrote to Stalin asking the USSR to join the war on Britain's side in 1940.
It also doesn't mention that Churchill earlier stated that the Jews created communism which is something he didn't want to talk about during World War II because it sounded similar to what the Nazis were saying - www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html
Churchill was not made prime minister by the public he was voted to that position by other politicians. When the general public had the chance to vote in the general election of 1945 he was thrown out.

reply

[–] ib011f9545i 9 years ago

Churchill was obviously a hero to much of the world during the second world war,not a hero to pro axis people now or then.

reply

[–] tplast 9 years ago

I remember reading in a book about Joe Kennedy Sr. (Sins of the Father, I think) that while in England as US Ambassador he used liquor/women to bribe a low level clerk in the cipher office to let him read cables between Roosevelt and Churchill. He discovered the two were talking to each other privately about how to get into a war with Germany to get their respective countries out of the economic doldrums misnomered as the great depression, with the view of Churchill one day being Prime Minister of course.

For Roosevelt, it was shameless duplicity, telling America he wouldn't send American boys to fight in another European war. For Churchill, however, it was treason. Treason in Gr. Britain defined as having an affect on any matters of state (including and especially foreign policy with a dangerous military opponent like Germany) without the express approval of the sovereign power, Commons in Parliament and its elected Prime Minister.

Kennedy kept this information from the public and it is thought he did so to keep Roosevelt and his FBI director Hoover at bay regarding income tax law violations being considered against Kennedy.

Before the war, the Duke of Windsor was known by British foreign intelligence to be in residence in a French (Paris, I think) hotel in which Errol Flynn and a known German intelligence agent entered. Not hard to guess who they were visiting. This casts a considerable different light on the claim of (later) Prime Minister Churchill that it was best for the constitutional monarchy/kingdom of Britain to let Windsor go to the Bahamas during the war and he had altruistic reasons for this. Churchill could not afford to be on the bandwagon accusing Windsor of treason, considering his own.

reply

[–] ib011f9545i 9 years ago

no offence but I think you have the wrong story here.
The lowly cipher clerk was called TYLER KENT and he was pro nazi,he was jailed by the US for gathering information useful to a foreign power.

Kennedy was not just evil he was stupid,his anti British prejudice meant that he could not see that Britain was getting ready for a big fight,so he gave wrong information to his government suggesting that Britain would quickly collapse.

FDR would have been happy to allow the British and French to fight the Axis with American equipment but without American men but events did not allow that.

Would you rather America First had kept America out of the war?
I am British and am grateful for the role of FDR in World War 2.

reply

[–] tplast 9 years ago

I am pretty sure of the story that Kennedy Sr was aware that Roosevelt/J. E. Hoover were after him for tax violations in order to remove Kennedy as a political rival. That Kennedy used a clerk to get cables between Roosevelt/Churchill that showed the two wanted to get into a conflict with Germany because, as everyone knew going back to the end of WW1, the next European conflict would be a Material-Schlact as the Germans called it. Which WW2 ended up being.

I, of course, have never read these cables; it would be interesting. I don't believe that the clerk's political leanings/proclivities impugn any of that story from the book Sins of the Father by Ronald Kessler.

I haven't really gleaned anything about what exactly Kennedy's idea of what good gov't was. I would, if I had been alive and voting age back then, been leary of him being US President. This book Sins of the Father was clear that being elected President seemed to be an end in itself for Kennedy and not a means to an end (good or bad). I've never gotten it straight whether Kennedy was just against Britain and therefore was on the side of Britain's adversaries (however odious). Or, if Kennedy was of the belief that Hitler and the Nazis were the right, or at least best at the moment, political force for Germany, given the situation facing Germany.

Either way, Kennedy effectively ended his political aspirations for being President via the public statements he made and the US news media's love of Roosevelt such that they would go after anyone (Kennedy) who was in conflict with Roosevelt. Kennedy Sr. had to pass his political ambitions on to his oldest son Joe Jr., who of course was killed in the war.

Would you rather America First had kept America out of the war?

Absolutely. I am American and I believe that America had no business in either of the world wars. There was no compelling national interest for America in those wars. Roosevelt knew his new deal socialism was not bringing America out of the economic recession (it was not as great as supposed) of the 1930s. Hell, his administration propped up the currency/credit to keep it from contracting and is responsible for it lasting as long as it did. His own Treasury Sect. Morgenthau testified to Congress that the new deal programs were not having anywhere near the intended affect. The surfeit of manufacturing during war promised to diminish the economic troubles of the 1930s.

I won't speak for Britain but if pressed I would question what national security interest Britain had in guaranteeing Belgium's sovereignty in WW1, given that WW2 only happened because WW1 and its final outcome. I know Britain/England had an interest in Belgian sovereignty going back to the Middle Ages due to the cloth weaving trade in Belgium that used British wool. That was long gone by the year 1900. But, like I said, that's Britain's call. I do believe that all of the western world (especially the USA) are responsible for the rise of Hitler.

I don't believe anymore, after all I've read/discovered, that Hitler' Germany was the bigger threat to world peace than Stalin's USSR. Communism was the bigger threat. First it spread to China, then to N. Korea & N. Vietnam. From N. Korea it tried to spread to S. Korea and nearly succeeded. From N. Vietnam it spread to S. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. It also went to Cuba who then spread it to parts of Central America and South America. There are still forms of Marxism alive and well in South/Central America, just not as blatantly out in the open about it as Cuba was/is.

Fascism, German Nazi or otherwise, is dependent on the one person rule it is built upon. When that leader is gone, for whatever reason, it diminishes or even collapses. It is confined to the nation it rose up from. Clearly not the threat that communism is, which has much more international appeal. Or more precisely, it can be adopted by many different nations/cultures.

I am British and am grateful for the role of FDR in World War 2.

True. It was a fairly good partnership regardless of the merit of the war. I'm sure the two were not as altruistic toward each other as we're lead to believe, though. For example, America (Roosevelt) required Britain to give up its gold reserves to get the Lend Lease. I never once heard that while taking history in public schools, had to find that out with my own reading.

Dang! Sorry about the long post.

reply

[–] ib011f9545i 9 years ago

I don't think Britain gave up its gold reserves but World War 2 cost Britain a lot of money and a lot of it was paid to the USA.
Our gold reserves spent the war in a vault in Montreal I think.

People still argue about the new deal but it was as much about promoting hope and belief in democracy as economic revival,communism and fascism did not proper in the USA during the depression (nor in Britain.)

We are entitled to our opinions but the idea that an aggressive power could overrun north west europe and not worry a British government seems odd to me.
If the channel ports were occupied by a hostile power Britain would not be free.

Leaving aside the fact that we had treaties with France and Belgium (Britain entered World War 1 due to a treaty promise to ensure Belgian neutrality,not for economic reasons)I think geography meant no British government could ignore events on the continent.

So it follows from what I say that I think Hitler was a bigger threat to Western Europe than Stalin,the USSR killed millions of people but it did not drop bombs on my parents.
I think you have been reading Pat Robertson and people of his ilk.

reply

[–] tplast 9 years ago

I don't think Britain gave up its gold reserves

I heard otherwise.

People still argue about the new deal but it was as much about promoting hope and belief in democracy as economic revival,(nor in Britain.)

Complete bunkum. It was about the political LEFT establishing (and quite successfully) socialism in the USA. By subverting the US Constitution. Roosevelt stacked the US Supr Ct and then repassed the new deal legislation (which had been struck down by the US Supr Ct as unconstitutional in his first term) and imposed it on America anyway. There was no 3/4 of state gov'ts ratifying any amendment to the US Const. giving the national/federal gov't the authority to do such things.

The US Const. is changed democratically, yes. But by a super majority of state gov'ts, not a majority of life tenured and unelected court judges. You talk about democracy. Well, it must mean majority vote. There was no majority vote for any authority for the national/federal gov't to do all that.

I don't know what makes you think democracy was a pillar of the new deal. It wasn't.

communism and fascism did not proper in the USA during the depression

If you meant prosper, I don't believe I ever said those two did.

We are entitled to our opinions but the idea that an aggressive power could overrun north west europe and not worry a British government seems odd to me.
If the channel ports were occupied by a hostile power Britain would not be free.

Speaking of opinion. That Germany was an aggressive power before, during and after WW1 is a first class opinion. Not much to substantiate such a thing.

Germany had no desire to over run north west Europe in either world war. In WW1, France threatened to come into the conflict in eastern Europe between Germany/Austria vs Russia/Serbia. France was already mobilized since its defeat in the 1970 Franco Prussian war. Russia would take time to mobilize. Germany. France had no business in that problem between Germ/Aust. vs Russ/Serb.

I asked before ... what national interest did Britain have in that conflict that would cause them to guarantee Belgian sovereignty? Britain's economy was based on its overseas colonies, not mainland Europe.

Leaving aside the fact that we had treaties with France and Belgium (Britain entered World War 1 due to a treaty promise to ensure Belgian neutrality,not for economic reasons

Is not that what I said before? Well, words close to that. I take it you are now agreeing with me. About that at least.

So it follows from what I say that I think Hitler was a bigger threat to Western Europe than Stalin,

No. Hitler was a threat to western Europe because France and Britain were determined to get into a war with Germany over things like Czech/Polish nations had significant German populations that Germany wanted reunited with them.

the USSR killed millions of people but it did not drop bombs on my parents.

Your parents helped elect a gov't that was determined to get into a war with Germany over things that were in no way affected British national interests. And Germany offered a peace treaty with Britain and France after the Polish campaign and another one to Britain after France had fallen.

I think you have been reading Pat Robertson and people of his ilk

people of his ilk???? Hmmm???? The insults begin.

You seem to have fallen for the propaganda that western academia and news media have spouted for decades. And that news media and academia are very largely populated by jews.

Yes, I said jews. They are not some sacred cow who cannot be disagreed with, even about WW2 and before. They are the ones who have determined the western world's viewpoint of what WW2 was about. So, that viewpoint is largely the jewish one. And that viewpoint is crumbling. Slowly/slightly at first, but it will become larger in the future. Thanks to the internet.

I can sense the vituperation, for publicly opposing jewish viewpoint of history, coming my way.

reply

[–] ib011f9545i 9 years ago

so where did you hear otherwise about Britain's gold reserves?
From some recently discovered but solid historical source or from some other source.
I think if Britain's gold reserves had all been handed over to the US someone in Britain might have noticed before now.

Opinions are fine but when talking about history it is pointless to say stuff you can't justify.

The idea that Imperial Germany and later Nazi Germany were not a threat to Western Europe is a position only supported by a small minority of people following the ideas of Harry Elmer Barnes and people like him.

Obviously Germany occupied parts of Belgium and France in World War 1 and treated the people whose nations they occupied badly,they occupied nearly all of western europe 1940-1944 and treated people worse,even if you don't mention the jews.

I would not know about the jewish viewpoint of history because I am not jewish

the fact that you bring up the jews tells us about your viewpoint.

I am going on holiday to France and Belgium soon,Paris and Brussels have streets named after Churchill and FDR,they don't have any streets named after Hitler .

reply

[–] tplast 9 years ago

so where did you hear otherwise about Britain's gold reserves?
From some recently discovered but solid historical source or from some other source.
I think if Britain's gold reserves had all been handed over to the US someone in Britain might have noticed before now.

Where have you heard what you have claimed? Academia??? Hardly the objective source of history. Academia is just another opinionated source. Their academic credentials no longer are taken as unimpeachable orthodoxy.

Opinions are fine but when talking about history it is pointless to say stuff you can't justify.

That applies equally to you. And also academia, who routinely or at least when possible, and when it suits their purpose, cherry pick historical facts/sources.

The idea that Imperial Germany and later Nazi Germany were not a threat to Western Europe is a position only supported by a small minority of people following the ideas of Harry Elmer Barnes and people like him.

Not before the beginning of hostilities. Germany had no desire for western Europe before WW1 or WW2. In both instances, Britain and France wanted a war with Germany over something not in those two's national security interest.

Obviously Germany occupied parts of Belgium and France in World War 1 and treated the people whose nations they occupied badly,they occupied nearly all of western europe 1940-1944 and treated people worse,even if you don't mention the jews.

None of which invalidates the least bit of what I previously said. Good straw man argument.

I would not know about the jewish viewpoint of history because I am not jewish

As I said before, jews occupy many high academic and news media positions. Therefore they control what is/isn't broadcast/taught. They espouse the jewish viewpoint and no others (at least not much). Henry Ford report as much in the early 20th century in America. The jews in academia and news are still doing it to this day.

the fact that you bring up the jews tells us about your viewpoint.

As I predicted and foretold. jews are not a sacred cow anymore. They will be criticized as any others are.

I am going on holiday to France and Belgium soon,Paris and Brussels have streets named after Churchill and FDR,they don't have any streets named after Hitler .

Is the fact no streets are named after Hitler supposed to have any bearing on anything I've previously said? Not what you imagine I've said but what was actually said?

reply

[–] ib011f9545i 9 years ago

You say that academia is just another opinionated source.
It is not really as simple as that.

Leaving to one side the fact that academia contains lots of opinions,it is not just another opinionated source.

I think Richard Evans (a historian so I should not trust him?) says when writing about David Irving that his supporters don't understand the idea that academics have their work reviewed by their peers,they have to impress people to get their stuff printed in academic publications.
Someone's publication record is how their fellow academics rate them.

If someone teaches at a big name university they are not going to get that position of they are not respected ,if someone teaches at a small college that hardly anybody has heard off they are not top players,just as in sports.

Anyone can say anything about anything,including historical subjects but if you can provide a source people are going to take you more seriously.

I am not an academic but I do have a university degree,I studied history and if I wrote an essay where I stated that something happened on a particular day then I would have to provide a source for that.
If I said that Winston Churchill was the best British Prime Minister ever that would be an opinion ,I could cite evidence of opinion polls or newspapers about how popular he was at different times but I could not prove an opinion.

For example I know my neighbour works in a bank,I know because he told me,if he had not told me there is no way I would know where he works.

I do know he is from Northern Ireland because I recognise his accent.
Someone who has never spoken to him and lives across the street would not know where he is from.

Back to the British gold,I could look up where Britain's gold reserve was kept in World War 2,I recall reading many years ago a Reader's Digest article about it being kept in a vault in Montreal.

This would make sense since Canada was Britain's ally from the start of the war and a bank vault in Montreal seems like a safe place to keep it to me.
I read a lot about historical subjects especially World War 2 and British history,I don't recall anybody saying the gold was ever anywhere else.

I am not getting excited about the jews,if Hitler had given all the jews in occupied europe large sums of money and a free house his regime would still be worthy of a negative opinion because what he did to all the non jews during the war.

reply

[–] tplast 9 years ago

Yes. It is simple; academia has become just another opinionated source. You have not mentioned exactly what source makes an "academic" above reproach. You have not mentioned that all academia comes from an original font: another academic. This is a self perpetuating system. You don't seem to grasp this.

All these "peers" only got their position of "peer" by toeing the line of academic orthodoxy. The only ones who get to the top of academia are the ones, again, who toe the line of academic orthodoxy. All due to the aforementioned self-perpetuating system.

There are orthodoxies in academia that no one, who has any aspirations to career advancement in academia, will dare cross. These orthodoxies are all pointing leftward, as in political LEFT.

As for your "lectures" about everyone has an opinion; I don't need any lecture about that. You, and the academia you seemingly champion, are the ones who need that explained to you. Not me.

Roosevelt required Britain's gold reserves as payment for Lend Lease. That would make sense since America was not in the war at that time and therefore had a hard currency and Britian didn't (being a belligerent at the time). I don't know if Roosevelt got all of the gold Britain had. Just that payment in gold was required. Nazi Germany also needed gold to pay for industrial metals, such as tungsten, chrome etc, from nations like Portugal & Turkey. Germany did pay for them via Swiss Francs but those were backed by gold. Both America re: Lend Lease and Turkey/Portugal re: selling raw materials to German industry didn't want those countries currency but rather gold (via a hard currency).

As far as your crack about jews/Hitler and what you seem to be implying, I've told you twice already I am not going to be silenced for expressing anything negative about jews by way of the (blatant or implied) Nazi/Hitler association. jews are not a sacred cow. This is the internet, not academia (just another opinionated source). Sacred cows like the jews will just have to endure having critical comments directed at their behavior without them (the jews) being able to demonize the one criticizing them. Tough. New day around here.

reply

[–] bloody-3 8 years ago

Churchill is a false idol that should not be worshipped. In his private correspondence with others even FDR referred to him as a "drunken bum". He repeatedly condemned Chamberlain for his appeasement of Hitler yet his own appeasement of Stalin was far greater allowing communist dictatorships to be set up all over eastern Europe including Poland whose independence Churchill claimed to be fighting for.
Churchill was elected in 1951 by a small majority just in time to see the result of his foreign policy blunder - the Korean War. This can be traced to his appeasement of Stalin who after the war set up communist governments including North Korea whose invasion of the South started the conflict. Stalin showed his appreciation for the billions in lend lease and other supplies provided by the USA and the UK by sending arms, ammunition, military advisors and MIG fighter jets to the communist Chinese and North Koreans which were used to kill and injure American and British troops fighting there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_the_Korean_War
Actor Michael Caine was with the British forces in Korea - I wonder if he realises some of the bullets and shells thrown his way came from Churchill's old mate Stalin?

reply

[–] tplast 8 years ago

Yes. Stalin. N. Korea. Many WW2 vets and civilians were astonished how fast we (UK & USA) went from seeming bosom pals to deadly adversaries, and that just after WW2.

Truth is, we (the west) should have never gotten involved with those two rattlesnakes (STalin, Hitler) fight/biting each other. Should have let them fatally weaken each other.

It is ridiculous to hear WW2 called the "good war". What is so good about tens of millions of Christians perishing? Nothing good about that in my book.

I wonder if Michael Caine ever found out that the MiG-15 used a British Nene engine? Stalin supposedly said: "what fool gives us his highest secrets". He couldn't believe that the west/British would give their highest priority technology i.e. jet engines better than the ones the Germans had made in WW2.

This has been a good thread. Good discussion. It's good to revisit historical orthodoxies when new info comes along. Academia sure won't do it. Not soon they won't.

reply

[–] dannieboy20906 8 years ago

I'll call BS on that one.

The Soviets supplied the DPRK with AK-47's, not M-1 Garands or SMLEs. They use different ammo not produced in the United States and I doubt that it was produced in the UK. If you garbled your syntax so badly that I can't tell when you are speaking of Soviet Aid to the DPRK and when you mean American aid to the Russians, that's on you.

It's revealing of how muddled and confused your thinking is. You are so hell bent on condemning FDR and Winston Churchill for allying with Stalin when they were confronted by the greatest threat in the 20th Century, that you can't keep your own narrative straight in your head. The UK was never in a position to supply significant lend lease, certainly not to an industrial power with the strength of the Soviet Union.

Why do you think that Mr. Churchill advocated so strongly for the "soft underbelly of Europe" approach to invading Germany? He was clear that he perceived the Soviet Union as the next big threat to freedom in western Europe. Going through the Balkans was a means to cut them off and prevent their expansion into eastern Europe. FDR sided with Stalin on invading France. That aided Stalin's agenda for keeping the area open for Soviet domination. However, military historians in America are of a consensus that it was the best way to go. Going through southern Europe would have created a logistical choke point.

Read some material on the Cold War and look issues more broadly. Pull your head out of the tunnel you have it jammed in. Then, once you have headed a government in a desperate struggle for life against an industrial totalitarian powerhouse, come back and tell us how you did it.

The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.

reply

[–] bloody-3 8 years ago

You still haven't supplied a quote or any information where Roosevelt condemned Stalin in any way approaching his criticism of Hitler.
The greatest threat of the 20th century was Soviet communism which was aided and abetted by Roosevelt and Churchill. Of course you don't want to mention the millions of people murdered by Stalin before the war even started. You just rehash outdated WW2 propaganda. Churchill accused Hitler of wanting to "take over the world". The country which has had the largest empire in world history is Britain. So the claim of wanting to "take over the world" can be thrown back in the face of British imperialists like Churchill.
https://enochered.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/we-will-force-this-war-upon-hitler-if-he-wants-it-or-not/
Churchill accused Hitler of being a warmonger yet the country that has been in more wars than any other is Britain - www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html
They have been at war twice with the USA and in the War of 1812 the British burned the White House - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
Many Americans remembered the wars of 1776 and 1812 and resented FDR's support of the British. Roosevelt and Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter but neither the USA or the UK under their respective leadership lived up to that documents ideals. Hundreds of millions of people under British occupation in Africa, Asia and India had little or no say in the running of their own countries yet people like you keep mouthing off about a war for "democracy" -
http://codoh.com/library/document/2095/
The British Empire existed for hundreds of years before there was a national socialist party in Germany and they have the blood of millions of people on their hands. The British imperialists have used the policy of starvation to kill millions -
In Ireland - www.wolfetonesofficialsite.com/famine.htm
In Germany - www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/starvation1919.html
In India - https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8241
Churchill knew all about Allied war crimes against Germans but didn't speak out against them - www.hellstormdocumentary.com

reply

[–] dannieboy20906 8 years ago

Frankly, I have an impossible time understanding your agenda, but I don't care. You are a closed minded, polemical agitprop and there is nor point in discussing the issue, or any issue with you.

I replied to you in another thread that I would not expect to find one. Then I explained to you why I would not expect to find such a quote. You clearly did not read my answer and I am certainly not going to repeat it.

As for the Atlantic Charter, I guess you haven't looked around over the last 23 years. Germany is united as a democratic republic. The Warsaw Pact is gone and eastern Europe is mostly free. The former Soviet Union is a criminal enterprise, but there is only so much we can do for them. And we managed that without a nuclear exchange or even a conventional war.

The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.

reply

[–] bloody-3 8 years ago

I don't have an agenda I have a point of view. It is putting out the fact that Churchill is a glorified fraud. He was a war criminal and he betrayed democracy by allying with Stalin. He allowed the soviet communists to take over half of Europe including Poland which was the cause of Britain going to war in the first place which shows what a revolting hypocrite he was. If you can't understand my point of view that is your problem.
The History Channel has come out with a documentary on how Churchill stabbed the Poles in the back -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYJ1_RG2xS4

reply