Should Churchill be seen as a warmonger and partial escalator of WW2?

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
i know, it's too much for you huh? the European powers were frightened by the Soviet Union, Germany offered to fight against the Soviets side by side with European powers.

Kind of true...Churchill considered Hitler the lesser of two evils...but it was Bolshevism that was the threat...to the land owners and industrialists not so much Stalin and his totalitarianism. They were much more afraid of the ideological threat than the national one. Remember, Churchill was a strike breaker...and most definately had no time for the 'working class' and them getting ideas above their station such as equality and fair pay.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
I entirely disagree, it's one of ww2s long lost facts that Stalin was indeed prepared to take Europe by force, the German intelligence knew this anyway, this was one of the reason why Barbarossa was initiated anyway. ask yourself why this gigantic soviet union was so dismally unprepared when Hitler attacked? why was the red army so incapable during the initial months and into 42? Because their army was entirely based on ATTACK, not DEFEND!

I don't even understand what you mean? That makes no sense whatsoever. Clarify please.

You do know about the Lend for Lease agreements I presume?

of course I do, I don't see what that has to do with this.

What don't you mean? The Soviet army wasn't trained or prepared for a scenario where they would have to defend themselves. The Soviet Army, the Red Army, was an army that was increasingly trained to ATTACK Europe, starting with Germany to get the goodwill of the allies. The Soviet Union was planning to attack Germany, but the documents haven't thoroughly survived to make this an actual case for the history books, and there's a lot of controversy. If you are interested, check:

en.wikipedia.org...

Ah Suvorov

No offense but have you noticed the lack of citations in that article...

The documents haven't survived huh?

Back in the 1930's BP was sponsoring car races in Nazi Germany.

I've seen the photos.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Maybe YOU should read more carefully and provide sources and links to your claim, so far you have only replied as insults and sarcasm.

Insults and sarcasm are poor replies for factual requests.

Presumably you cannot provide anything worthy.

Fact: you cannot define Jews of ''Slavic characteristics'' (your quote) even in Nazi defined racial types
Fact: Slavs were not targeted first, Jews were
Fact: Jews were targeted because they were Jewish
Fact: Nazis did not engage in hunting and exterminating some 'Slav Jew' as target before any other of their defined racial types

hi....................................................................
You do know he wasn't the Prime Minister when Germany invaded Poland, right ? As he was lacking any executive power before the start of the second world war, I would suggest that your initial premise is based on false assumptions. I'd blame Hitlers national socialist movement and the aggressive foreign policy adopted by HItler and his followers. Stanly Baldwin and Nevile Chamberlain could be held slightly responsible as they failed to act on the developing problem of German military expansion in the pre-war years.
.....................................
classfied website

reply to post by ConservativeAwakening

Documents the Germans found in Warsaw and later published during the war actually show that Roosevelt was heavily communicating with the Poles and encouraging them to be fierce with Germany PRIOR to Germany's invasion of Poland. Roosevelt was secretly preparing for a European conflict prior to September 1st.

Do you see any problem with what you just said ?

Documents German Found Warsaw Published During War. I do not outrightly dismiss the information but find it highly improbable, Roosevelt had no real pull at the time of the invasion, it would be more reasonable to expect that rhetoric from the UK, but the UK had no illusion in regards to the Poles capability to resist or even their own capability to aid them. We should all respect the vision of the UK to declare war in the circumstances it did, most other nations would have schemed out of acting (and many influential Brits were against it).

The Poles were completely taken by surprise, completely unprepared, they knew the antagonism was constant and some of the rhetoric but they never believed the Germans would act on it. They were more preoccupied with Russia and had prepared for that.

Blimey... here's some actual background.

In the early months of the war the RAF were eternally frustrated that, apart from a few raids on coastal ports harbouring German shipping they were restricted to dropping nothing more than propaganda leaflets over Germany. In fact, one member of Parliament actually demanded certain targets be "left alone whatever might happen" as they were fiscally important to several leading British families.

Yes, in places such as the North West frontier of India where there were constant tribal unrest, the British, by dint of seeking to save money in the inter war years, did have a policy whereby. Villages suspected or proven of harbouring relatives would be leafleted and told that. When these same aircraft return it will be to bomb said village.. So yes, one can argue technically that, Britain was the first to institute a policy of bombing civilian targets.

However, if you are looking for pre WW2 precedents for mass civilian bombings, then you need look no further than the 3 main Axis powers.

Italy used poison gas during the Ethiopian campaign, The German Condor Legion bombed Guernica and the Japanese heavily bombed Shanghai during the Chinese war.. Now, whilst it is true to say Guernica was actually of military significance, despite what many history books claim, the fact remains that, it was bombed, in part, as a "lesson" and "experiment" in terrorising civilian populations. The Japanese bombing of Shanghai was 9 parts pure terror and ideologically led, they viewed the Chinese as "inferior" and beneath contempt and 1 part strategic.

The Blitz was actually an unfortunate "accident". A single Heinkel 111''s crew panicked and dropped their bomb load when off course and hit part of London's East End. Churchill ordered a retaliatory raid on Berlin. In actual fact, it caused very little damage, other than to Goering's and the Nazis leader's egos. It was in retaliation for that raid that Hitler ordered the Blitz on British Cities.

It wasn't till late 41 that Britain had the wherewithal to actually mount serious raids on Germany and in the first year less than 1% of bombs actually landed within 5 miles of their intended target. The main British and later American bombing offensives, were as much about appeasing Stalin and making it look like we were actually seriously fighting the Nazis as anything else. It was not until Xmas 1944 that some definitely questionable targets were chosen and bombed, with really, no good reason. That however, was not at Churchill's behest and he wasn't that keen on it however, he bowed to "Bomber" Harris, the RAF's bomber commander and allowed it to continue.

Oh and Hitler did declare war on both Russia and the USA., his reason for doing so on the USA has never fully explained, to this day.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

Maybe YOU should read more carefully and provide sources and links to your claim, so far you have only replied as insults and sarcasm.

Insults and sarcasm are poor replies for factual requests.

Presumably you cannot provide anything worthy.

Fact: you cannot define Jews of ''Slavic characteristics'' (your quote) even in Nazi defined racial types
Fact: Slavs were not targeted first, Jews were
Fact: Jews were targeted because they were Jewish
Fact: Nazis did not engage in hunting and exterminating some 'Slav Jew' as target before any other of their defined racial types

edit on 14-1-2013 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

Actually you;re wrong there. The Nazis first targets were the mentally disabled and ill, the physically disabled, Trade Unionists and Gays. It's also a fact that, whilst 10% of the European Jewish population was killed, 90% of the European Gypsies were exterminated.

Originally posted by FireMoon

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

Maybe YOU should read more carefully and provide sources and links to your claim, so far you have only replied as insults and sarcasm.

Insults and sarcasm are poor replies for factual requests.

Presumably you cannot provide anything worthy.

Fact: you cannot define Jews of ''Slavic characteristics'' (your quote) even in Nazi defined racial types
Fact: Slavs were not targeted first, Jews were
Fact: Jews were targeted because they were Jewish
Fact: Nazis did not engage in hunting and exterminating some 'Slav Jew' as target before any other of their defined racial types

edit on 14-1-2013 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

Actually you;re wrong there. The Nazis first targets were the mentally disabled and ill, the physically disabled, Trade Unionists and Gays. It's also a fact that, whilst 10% of the European Jewish population was killed, 90% of the European Gypsies were exterminated.

Actually YOU are wrong because you do not know the context of the question and post.

The post above is in reply to another poster who said in another post something to the effect that Jews of ''Slavic characteristics'' were targeted before other Jews.

My reply wasn't about who was targeted first in general but in relation to definitions of Jews of ''Slavic characteristics'' being targeted before other Jews.

I am well aware of the facts on how many and from where were killed, but that was not the issue being questioned.

Additionally, both Dachau and Anti Semitic Laws both appeared in 1933 so Jews were being targeted but weren't yet being sent to Concentration Camps but still killed and persecuted.

en.wikipedia.org...

Between 1933 and 1934, Nazi policy was fairly moderate, not wishing to scare off voters or moderately minded politicians (although the eugenics program was established as early as July 1933).[12] On August 25, 1933, the Nazis even signed the Haavara Agreement with Zionists to allow German Jews to emigrate to Palestine—by 1939, 60,000 German Jews had emigrated there. The Nazi Party used populist anti-semitic views to gain votes. Using the "stab-in-the-back legend", they blamed poverty, the Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic, unemployment, and the loss of World War I by the "November Criminals" all on the Jews, Marxists and 'cultural Bolsheviks'. German woes were attributed to the effects of the Treaty of Versailles. In 1933, persecution of the Jews became active Nazi policy. This was at first hindered by the lack of agreement on who qualified as a Jew as opposed to an Aryan, which caused legislators to balk at an anti-Semitic law for its ill-defined terms.[12] Bernhard Lösener described it "total chaos", with local authorities regarding anything from full Jewish background to 1⁄8 Jewish blood defining a Jew; Achim Gercke urged 1⁄16 Jewish blood.[13] Mischlinge were especially problematic in their eyes.[14] The first anti-Semitic law was promologated with no clear definition of Jew.[15] Finally, the decision was made for three or four Jewish grandparents; two or one rendered a person a Mischlinge.[16] It only became worse with the years, culminating in the Holocaust, or so-called "Final Solution", which was made official at the January 1942 Wannsee Conference. On April 1, 1933, the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses was observed throughout Germany. Only six days later, the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service was passed, banning Jews from government jobs. It is notable that the proponents of this law, and the several thousand more that were to follow, most frequently explained them as necessary to prevent the infiltration of damaging, "alien-type" (Artfremd) hereditary traits into the German national or racial community (Volksgemeinschaft).[17] These laws meant that Jews were now indirectly and directly dissuaded or banned from privileged and superior positions reserved for "Aryan Germans". From then on, Jews were forced to work at more menial positions, becoming second-class citizens or to the point they were "illegally residing" in Nazi Germany.

www.pbs.org...

The first concentration camp in Germany opened in Dachau in 1933, at a time when the Nazi government was still consolidating its power. Accordingly, it focused on political prisoners—communists, social democrats, and dissidents who posed a threat to the new regime and were unpopular with most other Germans. All of these early victims were easy targets, people whom other Germans did little or nothing to protect, and whose disappearance from the public scene they often welcomed. Soon Nazi authorities and the police began to consign members of other groups to the new camps: homosexual men arrested as criminal offenders; Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to obey demands to cease their activities; women accused of prostitution; people labeled "asocial" because they were homeless, begged, or for some other reason did not fit into Nazi society.

In November 1938 during the Kristallnacht Pogrom (also called the "Night of Broken Glass"), Hitler Youth, stormtroopers, and other thugs torched hundreds of synagogues all over Germany and attacked German Jews, their homes, and their property. At the same time, police arrested approximately 30,000 Jewish men and locked them in concentration camps, where they were held in "protective custody." This was the first time Jews were sent to concentration camps for no other reason than that they were Jews. The "Euthanasia" Program During the following year, 1939, Nazi authorities began deadly attacks on one of their major targets: people considered handicapped. Rather than sending them to concentration camps where they would have to be housed and fed along with people who were being held and then sometimes released, disabled people were taken from hospitals and other institutions and sent to designated locations for "special treatment." That "special treatment" was killing. In just a few years, with the cooperation of scores of doctors, social workers, hospital administrators, and others, Nazi officials organized and carried out the murder of at least 70,000 Germans deemed "unfit for life." To the extent possible, the authorities tried to hide these killings from the rest of the population, so that family members would not protest.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
alright, thanks everybody, was nice debating with you about this, signing off

Awesome thread.

I think Churchil was one of the most evil men in history. No honour. He was a dispicable toad like psychopath.

In WW1 Churchil was in charge of the navy and he was the one that decided to arm passenger ships and break the rules of war. Churchil had no honour. He was a toad. He was always a toad.

What I cant understand is how everyone seems fine with Dresden. Churchil was such an evil monster.

All of the following things happened long before war was declared and the first shot was fired:

1933 March,
(till January, 1934) Period of Gleichschaltung (co-ordination under Nazi control) of most aspects of German society. Official boycott of Jewish shops and professional men.
The Nazis open the first concentration camp at Dachau, just outside Munich, Germany.

1933 October 19,
Germany's quits from the League of Nations and its withdrawl from all disarmament talks.

1934 January 26,
Germany signs a ten-year treaty of non-aggression with Poland.

1934 June 30- July 2,
The SS murders over 1000 of Hitler's most dangerous opponents within and outside of the Nazi Party.

1934 July 25,
Austrian Nazis killed Chancellor Dollfus and seize power. Unsuccessful "National Socialism" Putsch in Vienna.

1935 March 16,
Germany introduces compulsory military service and announces plans to create 36 divisions. Germany presents the existence of the Luftwaffe, infringe The Treaty of Versailles.

1935 September 15,
Promulgation of the Nuremberg Laws relegates Jews to a separate second-class status in Germany, prohibits intermarriage and sexual relations with Germans.

1936 March 7,
German military re-occupation of the Rhineland successfully challenges France's willingness to act in defense of the Versailles settlement.

1936 July,
Outbreak of Spanish Civil War. Monarchist Calvo Sotelo killed on the 13, lead to The Spanish Civil War. On 18 July The Spanish Civil War begins, where Germany and Italy intervene in this War,

1938 September 30,
Munich Conference (Agreement): Britain (British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain) France (Daladier) and Italy (Mussoline) grant Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland to Hitler to avoid war;

1938 November 9,
"Kristallnacht" (Night of Broken Glass): Nazi authorities orchestrate a nationwide pogrom against Germany's Jewish population. Nazi destroy the homes, shops and synagogues of Jews in Germany following the murder of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath, a diplomatic assistant, by Herschel Grynszpan a French Jew in the German Embassy in Paris.
191 synagogues burns, 76 destroyed, 20.000 Jews arrested.
1938 November 10,
Adolf Hitler set the press the task, to prepare the german people for a very long war.
1938 November 28,
Limitation freedom of movement for Jews; forbidden driving licence, visit theatre, concert and cinema for the Jews.

www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/tot-1939.htm


Tell me again how Churchill was a war monger and Hitler was a saint?

Save your revisionist history for your kids because i`m not buying it!

reply to post by ConservativeAwakening


That is a great point but you fail to add that the NAZI and Stalin treaty was secret. Stalin sold it to the Western powers as a block movement against Germany.

From wikipedia's Invasion of Poland

Soviet diplomacy claimed that they were "protecting the Ukrainian and Belarusian minorities of eastern Poland since the Polish government had abandoned the country and the Polish state ceased to exist".

To a point I agree that the same obligation should have been applied to Russia but the UK and France was in desperate and mostly unwilling to commit.

Originally posted by HenryNorris
and he was the one that decided to arm passenger ships and break the rules of war.

Care to show us the exact rule you claim he broke?

What I cant understand is how everyone seems fine with Dresden.

It was a valid military target during the war....

Churchil was such an evil monster.

Sure he was, because he fought the nazi's, who were peace lovers....

Falsification of evidence

The bombing of Dresden has been manipulated by Holocaust deniers and pro-Nazi polemicists—most notably by the British writer David Irving in his book The Destruction of Dresden—in an attempt to establish a moral equivalence between the death toll of Jews in German concentration camps and the indiscriminate killing of German civilians by Allied bombing raids.[118] As such, "grossly inflated" casualty figures have been promulgated over the years, many based on a figure of over 200,000 deaths quoted in a forged version of the casualty report, Tagesbefehl No. 47, that originated with Hitler's Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels

Is it me or do I smell the agenda of summer 2012 rearing is ugly head again... But this time, with a better mask. ...

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by HenryNorris
and he was the one that decided to arm passenger ships and break the rules of war.

Care to show us the exact rule you claim he broke?

What I cant understand is how everyone seems fine with Dresden.

It was a valid military target during the war....

Churchil was such an evil monster.

Sure he was, because he fought the nazi's, who were peace lovers....

Falsification of evidence

The bombing of Dresden has been manipulated by Holocaust deniers and pro-Nazi polemicists—most notably by the British writer David Irving in his book The Destruction of Dresden—in an attempt to establish a moral equivalence between the death toll of Jews in German concentration camps and the indiscriminate killing of German civilians by Allied bombing raids.[118] As such, "grossly inflated" casualty figures have been promulgated over the years, many based on a figure of over 200,000 deaths quoted in a forged version of the casualty report, Tagesbefehl No. 47, that originated with Hitler's Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels

Here ya go.

From the outset of hostilities, Churchill, as head of the Admiralty, was instrumental in establishing the hunger blockade of Germany. This was probably the most effective weapon employed on either side in the whole conflict. The only problem was that, according to everyone's interpretation of international law except Britain's, it was illegal.

www.lewrockwell.com...
And thats just a start.

And you think Dreseden was a valid target? nothing was to be gained. It was murder of innocent germans and a war crime.

To defend it is a shocking thing to do. Shame.

And its not holocaust deniers that believe that Dresden is a war crime. But that is what a zionist would say isnt it.

Originally posted by HenryNorris
Here ya go.

From the outset of hostilities, Churchill, as head of the Admiralty, was instrumental in establishing the hunger blockade of Germany. This was probably the most effective weapon employed on either side in the whole conflict. The only problem was that, according to everyone's interpretation of international law except Britain's, it was illegal.

www.lewrockwell.com...

nothing about it being illegal, or arming merchant ships....
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk...

If Germany had wanted to stop the blockade they could have just stopped the war...

And you think Dreseden was a valid target? nothing was to be gained. It was murder of innocent germans and a war crime.

So the German apologists claim.... but no facts to back up their claims!

This thread is soooo brainwarped!

If Churchill would have been more tolerant towards NAZI Germany, Hitler would have taken over Britain as easily as Chekoslovakia and Belgium, fool.

Another one of those closet Neonazis who are convinced Hitler invaded nothing in Europe and it was all the "Joooz" fault. This crap is getting really old, and it stinks like a rotten corpse.

reply to post by Echtelion


The truth is somewhere in the middle, only zealots see things black and white. The OP proposition that "Churchill be seen as a warmonger and partial escalator of WW2" is clearly wrong, but to only to a point. Some of Churchill's actions was to protect ONLY British interests even if at the cost of the rest of the world, he fought tooth and nail to save the British Empire at every moment until the end. Now, when I say British interests I do not say in the same manner the US government generally acts, but the bottom line is the same, the interests of those that hold power and influence in government.

Just to clarify, please see the first page about how the OP ISN'T excusing Hitler or attempting revisionism, this thread has valid points and it shouldn't be derailed as being about Hitler innocent / not innocent, it isn't about that. It is about the fact that with better politics PRIOR to WW2 it could and should have been prevented.

Here are some ideas from wiki on the matter
wiki.answers.com...

www.albavolunteer.org...

The absence of their own dreamed-of world revolution, and the development of strongly nationalist authoritarian governments in much of Europe between 1923 (Mussolini) and Hitler (1933), had led the Soviets to reconsider their attitude toward the capitalist world. Instead of characterizing it simply as an enemy to be destroyed, they distinguished between authoritarian and racist governments, and those which had genuine parliaments with clean elections, and middle classes which were willing to recognize the rights of trade unions and of Marxist parties. Josef Stalin, who by 1930 had consolidated his power as the supreme leader of the Soviet government, announced the formula of “socialism in one country” (the USSR) and the desire to cooperate diplomatically and militarily with the democratic governments of Europe.

In 1933 the rapid consolidation of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, and Hitler’s constant threats to destroy the Soviet Union, motivated Stalin all the more to seek an understanding with the democratic powers. As of late 1934 his foreign minister, Maxim Litvinov , whose wife was English, and was himself a great admirer of both English and French culture, tried repeatedly, at the League of Nations meetings in Geneva and in private talks with English and French diplomats, to convince Western diplomats of the necessity for a defensive military alliance to protect both the Soviet Union and the democratic capitalist powers from the threat of a Nazi war of conquest.

Why did the West never seriously consider the Stalin-Litvinov offer? First we must understand that in response to Hitler’s demands British sentiments were decisive. France remained mortally afraid of the Germany which had defeated her in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 and had almost reached Paris during the War of 1914-1918. And the United States, in the years between the two World Wars, fully accepted British di-plomatic leadership. The Treaty of Versailles had forced Germany to accept large territorial losses and huge reparations which were intended to make Germany pay the entire cost of French and Belgian physical reconstruction. But by 1933 a large percentage of Britishers, including members of the Liberal and Labor parties, were convinced that attributing the entire political and moral responsibility for the war to Imperial Germany had been a serious error.

In addition the British governing classes shared, in a more “respectable” form, the race prejudices of the Nazis. They did not approve of Nazi concentration camps or of the smashing of Jewish shop windows, but they very definitely thought that the world would be much better off if the “Aryan”, “Nordic” elements of the English-speaking countries, and of Germany and Scandinavia, would exercise the political leadership of the “civilized world”. They were therefore psychologically ready to accept Hitler’s demands not only to re-occupy the Rhineland (1936) and to annex Austria (1938), but also to rebuild Germany’s military forces.

If the British governments in the years 1936 to 1938 had felt any serious concern for the defense of political democracy on the European continent, the Spanish Civil War would have offered a clear opportunity to check the military ambitions of Hitler. However, from day one of that war the Baldwin and later Chamberlain governments gave covert economic and diplomatic aid to the Insurgent generals, and warned successive French governments not to gave any military or economic aid to that Republic which British conservatives considered to be dominated by communists and anarchists. As for the Soviets, they aided the Republic sporadically between September, 1936 and March, 1939—the sporadic nature of their contribution being largely due to preoccupations with Japan’s military probing along the Siberian border, and with the British coldness to the idea of collective security in Europe.

After Hitler had invaded and annexed Austria without meeting any diplomatic or military resistance, he loudly accused the democratic republic of Czechoslovakia of mistreating its German minority, and demanded that the portions of Czech territory in which 50% or more of the inhabitants were of German “race” should be transferred forthwith to German sovereignty. This demand was not as acceptable to the British government as his earlier demands had been. Hitler restrained the Nazi minority in Czechoslovakia in the rare moments when the British sounded as though they might oppose the annexation. But in early September the British Prime Minister organized the four power “Munich Conference” (Britain, France, Germany, and Italy) which effectively put the fate of Czechoslovakia in Hitler’s hands, while not consulting either the Czechoslovak government or the Soviet Union, with which Czechoslovakia had a defense treaty of the type that Russia was hoping to negotiate with France and England.

For its combination of political stupidity and moral cowardice, it is famous as the policy of “Appeasement”. It was a policy which, by insulting the Soviet Union, led Stalin to seek his own agreement with Germany, thereby giving Hitler the opportunity to initiate World War Two without having to fight on two fronts, the problem which had defeated Germany in the First World War. And the only military force which was finally able to save democratic Europe was the defensive alliance of Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union from June, 1941 to mid-1945, an alliance which the Soviets had sought from late 1934 to September, 1938.

What in this article I am calling a neglected aspect of twentieth-century history is that five year effort of the Soviet government. After Hitler betrayed his own September signature at Munich by occupying Prague, capital of the Czechoslovak Republic, on April 15, 1939, the British Foreign Office began to look for allies in the East in case Hitler would soon proceed to a general war of conquest. After unproductive discussions with the southeastern European states and Turkey, they finally decided to approach the Soviets. But by that time, late May and June, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were already negotiating the treaty of alliance which they announced on August 22, 1939.

Churchill laid blame on Chamberlain and his lack of 'integrity'.

Churchill's words on the Washington Conference

no event could have been more likely to stave off, or even prevent war than the arrival of the United States in the circle of European hates and fears. To Britain it was a matter almost of life and death. No one can measure in retrospect its effect upon the course of events in Austria and later at Munich. We must regard its rejection-for such it was-as the last frail chance to save the world from tyranny otherwise than by war. That Mr. Chamberlain, with his limited outlook and inexperience of the European scene, should have possessed the self-sufficiency to wave away the proffered hand stretched out across the Atlantic leaves one breathless with amazement. The lack of all sense of proportion, and even of self preservation, which this episode reveals in an upright, competent, well meaning man, charged with the destinies of our country and all who depended upon it is appalling. One cannot today even reconstruct the state of mind which would render such gestures possible.

On a lighter note, Churchill and Eisenhower in UFO coverup
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Pat Buchanan's view