Churchill’s Consistency

From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Sat, 2008-05-31 10:25

A quote from John Lukacs in The American Conservative, 2 June 2008

There was a consistency in Churchill’s view of Europe and of the world. To him, and for Britain, there were only two alternatives: either all of Europe dominated by Germany or the eastern half of Europe dominated by Russia, and half – especially the western half – of Europe was better than none. Besides, Churchill said that the Russians could swallow Eastern Europe but not digest it and that Communism would disappear from Eastern Europe before long. If Hitler had won the war, German rule would have been much more enduring.

ZIf's v Mh's (5)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2008-06-04 23:19.

@ marcfrans

 

 

For reasons that should be immediately apparent even to the dumbest 'Nestbeschmutzer', we atlanticists have a visceral contempt and loathing for  the Ward Churchill / Norman Finkelstein wannabe (which, incidentally, accounts for the triple salvo response to Amsterdamsky's inane twitterings). They love to dish it out, but "they do NOT like it up 'em!". 

Zlf's vs Mh's (4)

Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2008-06-04 16:46.

@ Atlanticist

I suggest that you replace the word "rich" in your last posting by the expression "over the top", if you want to have any chance of being understood by some of the continental moral relativists on this forum.

ZIf's v Mh's (3)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2008-06-04 11:52.

Re: "We".

 

And another thing...

 

 Aren't some of these statements and opinions a bit rich coming from a US 'patriot' who puts Amsterdam (Europe) before (say) Amsterdam Avenue, NYC ?

Hooey!

Submitted by Dan on Sat, 2008-05-31 22:01.

Churchill wanted to invade through the Baltics which he called Europe’s soft underbelly so that when the war ended British and American forces would be sitting on a goodly swath of Eastern Europe effectively shutting out the Soviet Union.

 

It would have probably been easier than hitting the Atlantic wall as it wasn’t as well defended the Serbs, whom we are currently screwing over, were already effectively resting the Nazis and would have doubtlessly coordinated their efforts to help, and logistically we would have had the Georgian oil fields in our rear.

 

We didn’t do it because Roosevelt loathed Churchill’s desire to maintain the empire and saw it as more of the same, also in what is surly one of the greatest miscalculations ever he trusted Stalin. He was endlessly added by communist and communist sympathizers who were demanding we invade Europe at Normandy. Even after the Sicilian campaign and our drive up through Italy they were insisting that we weren’t in Europe and needed to invade at Normandy. These were the same people what insisted that it wasn’t our concern until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union at which point they demanded we act.

 

Their only concern with Normandy was it’s distance from the soviet lines.

 

Look up Churchill’s “naughty document”

 

@ Dan

Submitted by traveller on Sun, 2008-06-01 15:53.

Don't underestimate Roosevelt.
He wanted the replacement of all European colonial empires by US economical influence. He succeeded. All empires went up like smoke.

We?

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2008-05-31 19:07.

"Why we americans ever bothered is a really good question".

 

This my fellow BJ readers is from somebody who once wrote,"F*ck America". 

The Death of Europe

Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Sat, 2008-05-31 18:46.

Well Eastern europe has few muslims so the clearly the Russians did less damage than the current model. I suspect there would be few muslims if Hitler had won also. Why we americans even bothered is a really good question. Law of unintended consequences again. Lots of dead soldiers and zero gratitude.

@FRW

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2008-05-31 12:01.

I'd be interested to read any brief comment you might wish to make on John Lukacs' excellent critique of Buchanan's new book.

Thank you.