That is the question, isn't it? Would another First
Lord of the Admiralty have been as ruthless as
Churchill? His policies were continued by his
successors, but would they have been initiated by
them? Once the die had been cast, it would have been
very difficult to have retreated. The damage had
already been done. Another German leader could have
been as ruthless as Hitler, but would he have been?
Lenin and Trotsky might have been as bad as Stalin,
but is it likely they would have been?

Might-have-beens are interesting, but they are not
reality. The reality is that Winston Churchill
initiated the policies that were critical to
initiating the series of events that led to the
totalitarian disasters of the twentieth century, and
he should be held to account for this fact.

Jerry Kraus
jkraus_1999@...

--- David Pyne <red_alert_usa@...> wrote:

> Jerry,
>
> I agree that Churchill iniitated the only Allied war
> crime of WWI—the illegal starvation blockade of
> Britain to which Germany’s unrestricted submarine
> warfare campaign was only a counter. Churchill was a
> total warrior for sure and by 1939 if not 1935 or
> perhaps as early as WWI a consummate Germanophobe
> consumed by his blind hatred of Germany and its
> status
> as the strongest power in Europe. I am not convinced
> though that Churchill won the war for the Allies. I
> think that is being too generous. I think there is a
> decent chance that another First Lord of the
> Admiralty
> might have also utilized the illegal starvation
> blockade of Germany, which in the end was Britain
> best
> if not their only hope of winning World War I.
>
> David
>
>
> --- jerry kraus <jkraus_1999@...> wrote:
>
> > David,
> >
> > The letter of mine below was actually a response
> to
> > David Heal, on the WWI site, not to you. I just
> > thought it might be of interest to the members of
> > the
> > WWII group, as well. I don't feel that you have
> > been
> > distorting my views at all.
> >
> > I think that the role of Winston Churchill in the
> > twentieth century may be even more pivotal than is
> > generally imagined, but in a very negative sense.
> > Whatever his motives in WWI, I think he may have
> > changed the whole tone of European relations from
> > highly civilized to totally barbaric. It was his
> > actions as First Lord of the Admiralty that turned
> > the
> > conflict from an essentially military one, to one
> > that
> > involved the potential starvation of all civilians
> > on
> > both sides. He seems to have had rather a taste
> for
> > total war and the annihilation of civilians. You
> > left
> > out his involvement in the extermination camps in
> > Africa to deal with the Mau-Mau rebellion. Not
> > surprising you'ld miss that. The British Foreign
> > Office has tried to destroy most of the relevant
> > documents.
> >
> > Britain was far more vulnerable, as a small,
> > over-populated island, than was Germany to a
> > potential
> > blockade. Without Churchill's maneuverings, I
> don't
> > see how they could have survived a year. Peace in
> > 1915 would have meant relatively little
> > vindictiveness, as compared with peace three years
> > later.
> > A moderate peace accord, rather than a Versailles
> > Treaty. Therefore, no reason for another War.
> The
> > Bolsheviks would never have come to power without
> > the
> > German assistance they received in 1916 and 1917,
> > and
> > the damages of a long war in Russia. Therefore,
> no
> > Communist Empire there, or probably, anywhere
> else.
> > And Hitler himself was supported along the way by
> > Stalin's instructions to the German Communist
> Party.
> > Stalin saw him as less of a threat than a strong,
> > democratic and capitalist Germany. No Bolsheviks,
> > no
> > Hitler. And without the Bolsheviks in Russia,
> would
> > even Mussolini have received the support he needed
> > to
> > achieve power, as an alternative to Communism in
> > Italy? Would fascism even have developed, except
> as
> > an antidote to Communism in Russia?
> >
> >
> > I believe that Winston Churchill may have got the
> > whole totalitarin ball rolling in Europe by his
> > willingness to stop at nothing to win.
> >
> > Jerry Kraus
> > jkraus_1999@...
> >
> > --- David Pyne <red_alert_usa@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Jerry,
> > >
> > > I do not fault Churchill for creating this class
> > of
> > > armed merchant ships. I do join you in
> attributing
> > > his
> > > actions here in forcing the Germans to adopt a
> > > policy
> > > of unrestricted submarine warfare which got the
> US
> > > into the war against Germany. Churchill has
> > > committed
> > > many quite severe war crimes over the course of
> > his
> > > career such as the terror bombings which killed
> a
> > > million innocent Germans, the starvation
> blockade
> > of
> > > Germany which killed a million German,
> > > Austro-Hungarian, Bulgarian and Turkish
> civilians,
> > > Operation Keelhaul which killed 2-6 million
> > > anti-Communist freedom fighters, his plan to
> drop
> > > anthrax on Germany killing millions of Germans
> and
> > > his
> > > support for the even more genocidal Morgenthau
> > plan
> > > which called for the starvation of all but 20
> > > million
> > > of Germany’s 75 million Germans.
> > >
> > > I do not, however, consider the Q ships to rate
> > the
> > > title of war crimes as the people who died as a
> > > result
> > > of his amoral actions were not enemy nationals,
> > but
> > > allied ones, even though you are absolutely
> > correct
> > > that it was a violation of the Geneva Convention
> > and
> > > thus international law. I think we agree on most
> > > everything else about the mistakes we have made
> in
> > > WWI
> > > and WW2. Lastly, I am most definitely not
> > distorting
> > > your points in order to score my own. I am
> simply
> > > telling you what you have written that I agree
> > with
> > > and what I disagree with. Churchill was
> certainly
> > > ruthless and completely amoral, not to mention a
> > war
> > > criminal who ought to have been convicted and
> > > punished
> > > for his crimes (along with several other Allied
> > > leaders including FDR and Truman and very
> possibly
> > > Air
> > > Marshal Harris, General Hap Arnold, General
> Curtis
> > > LeMay, General Eisenhower and others who might
> > claim
> > > that they were just following orders) as he is
> in
> > my
> > > book. On that there can be no doubt.
> > >
> > > Britain was not the aggressor power in WWI. No
> one
> > > country was too blame for that war. If there was
> a
> > > power to blame, I would blame Tsarist Russia for
> > > refusing to avert a general war by demobilizing
> at
> > > the
> > > Kaiser's urgent request. While Germany and the
> > > Soviet
> > > Union were the aggressors in WW2, it was Britain
> > and
> > > France that “started” the World War in the sense
> > > that
> > > had they not declared war on Germany in 1939,
> > there
> > > would have been peace in Europe until Hitler was
> > > ready
> > > to invade the USSR which was to follow his
> > > occupation
> > > of Poland. Sadly, the American people fell for
> > > Wilson’s and Creel’s lying war propaganda in
> World
> > > War
>
=== message truncated ===





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com