DEFLATING THE CHURCHILL MYTH
WASHINGTON November 17, 2008
Much of the Western world just honored the millions of soldiers fallen in the two world wars. But we also need to look beyond post-war myths and understand the tragic political mistakes that sent these soldiers to die in wars that might have been avoided.
In his powerful new book, `Hitler, Churchill and the Unnecessary War,’ veteran politician and author Pat Buchanan challenges many historic taboos by claiming that Winston Churchill plunged Britain and its empire, including Canada, into wars whose outcome was disastrous for all concerned.

Other writers, me included, have made the same point for decades, but Buchanan has marshaled a formidable array of facts and historians to support his case.

For me, World War I was the most tragic 20th Century conflict. It was triggered by Serbia and Austro-Hungary. After Russia and France began gearing for war, Germany was dragged into the conflict by the doomsday machine of troop mobilization schedules. Britain could have halted the war, or let the continental powers fight until they came to a truce. But Churchill and his fellow imperialists determined to destroy Germany, a new rival to Britain’s wealth and power.

World War I should have ended in 1917 when both sides were exhausted and stalemated. America’s entry into the war resulted in Germany’s defeat and ensuing post-war suffering. The German, Habsburg, and Ottoman Empires were torn apart by the lupine victors and reduced to ruin, creating today’s unstable Balkans and Mideast.

Had Germany and its allies not been defeated, had a Carthaginian Peace not been imposed upon them at Versailles and Trianon, there might never have been a Hitler, Communist Russia or World War II. Europe’s Jews may have escaped destruction.

Churchill made the fatal error in World War II of backing Poland’s hold on Danzig even though Britain could do nothing to defend Poland, Yugoslavia, or Czechoslovakia from Hitler’s attempts to reunite million of Germans stranded in these new nations by the dreadful Versailles Treaty. Britain’s declaration of war on Germany over Poland led to a general European war. After suffering 5.6 million dead, Poland ended up occupied by the Soviet Union.

Buchanan’s heretical view, and mine, is that the Western democracies should have let Hitler expand his Reich eastward until it inevitably went to war with the even more dangerous Soviet Union. Once these despotisms had exhausted themselves, the Western democracies would have been left dominating Europe. The lives of millions of Western civilians and soldiers would have been spared.

In the end, Churchill and US President Franklin Roosevelt were so obsessed with crushing Germany, and so seduced by `Uncle Joe’ Stalin, they handed half of Europe to the Soviet Union, a far more murderous and dangerous tyranny by an order of magnitude than Hitler’s Germany. From his Soviet gulag cell, Alexander Solzhenitsyn called Roosevelt and Churchill `stupid.’

Buchanan’s book is important because we see some Western leaders making the same grave errors as in the 20th Century and idolizing the arch imperialist, Churchill. The latest example: extension of NATO to Russia’s borders. As in the case of Poland in 1939, the West cannot defend the Baltic, Ukraine or Georgia, and has no vital interests there.

Yet NATO is giving the rulers of these nations the ability to drag them into a potential nuclear war with Russia. Georgia’s idiotic little aggression this fall offers a striking example. Ukraine’s independence must be guaranteed, but it must not be transformed into a dagger pointed at Russia’s underbelly.

Have we learned nothing from the 20th Century’s apocalyptic wars? As Buchanan says, Churchill’s giveaway of Eastern Europe at Moscow and Yalta was a far graver blunder than Chamberlain’s concessions at Munich in 1938.

Buchanan’s book strips away lingering war propaganda and shows the cynicism, lust for power, and foolishness of the `saintly’ Allied war leaders and their `good’ war.

As Ben Franklin said, there is no good war, nor bad peace.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2008
lord anthony
Monday, November 17, 2008 9:47 AM
And didn't he have to resign as First Lord of the Admiralty after making a ballocks of Gallipoli in WW1?
Another clanger from that era was Douglas Haig, of the revered Poppy-fund.
Rumsfeld, McArthur, Hillier, there's a long list of nutjobs responsible for death and endangerment of countless soldiers.

The broader question is, how do they get into power, then as now? They must have competent peers who are powerless to stop their self-promoting rampages.
But sucking -up, kicking-down and tattling never hurt in with the political brass, always keen to spin to their own advantage.

Maybe Napoleon had the right idea. Execute a general from time to time, "pour encourager les autres"......
Desoc
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 3:32 AM
Maybe not a bad idea...but speaking of tyrants, and people responsible for mountains of deaths...Napolean...!!!???
A Taxpayer
Monday, November 17, 2008 10:52 AM
Before France and Britain entered the war, Germany had annexed Austria, annexed the Sudetenland and occupied Czechoslovakia. Italy invaded Albania. You seem to assume that Hitler would take Danzig and leave the rest of Poland alone. Danzig was just an excuse.

You also forget, that before Eastern Europe was "given away at Yalta", the Soviet Union, after signing a non-aggression pact with Hitler, had invaded Poland, attacked Finland, invaded Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Yet you think that France and the UK should have sat back and watched all of this take place while waiting for Hitler and Stalin to end their murderous honeymoon and jump at each others throats, as though that was an obvious outcome that everyone could predict?
I agree that history needs to take a new look at the past mistakes. We cannot judge decisions made at the time with the hindsight we have today but we should judge these decisions according to the information that was available to those who made the decisions at the very moment they were taken.
Muckdisturber
Monday, November 17, 2008 12:34 PM
It takes a number of decades to pass for the fog of war to clear completely.

The whole Chamberlain 'appeasement' argument has been trotted out time and again by the hawks to dismiss talk of peace. History has labeled him a fool for attempting to prevent bloodshed while the proponents of wars that have cost millions of lives are remembered as heroes.
Shazam
Monday, November 17, 2008 2:27 PM
GeorgeCA
Monday, November 17, 2008 3:51 PM
I am impressed by Mr. Margolis writings about Asian and North American affairs, but his understanding of the European and East European history in particular is either lacking or biased by warm feelings towards Russia (affluent New Russian friends?). Supporting Mr. Buchanan's view of cynicism of Allies seems ridiculous in view of the exuberant cynicism of Mr. Buchanan himself. I totally agree that the WW1 was an unprecedented example of stupidity of the European nations (yes, the whole nations can be stupid as we saw 4 years ago), but the WWII had to be fought. The WWII was a tragic consequence of the earlier stupidity, that had to be played to the end.
Market Socialist
Monday, November 17, 2008 5:02 PM
What is forgotten is the dramatic effect that the Great Depression had on WWII. The provisions of the Versailles Treaty were already starting to come undone
Without 1929, Hitler and the would not have rocketed to power.
Unknown Man
Monday, November 17, 2008 8:23 PM
"World events do not occur by accident," Denis Healey, former British Defense Secretary said. "They are made to happen... staged and managed by those who hold the purse string."

That includes world wars, regime changes and revolutions. Nothing happens by accident or coincidence. Powerful forces intended WW1 and WW2 to happen.

Let us also not forget that without WW2 and the Holocaust, Israel might not have existed today. WW2 was a big ugly plan engineered to make European countries bleed each other in battle and to make Europe a living hell for the Jews and force them to migrate to the new unholy lands.




oldfan1
Monday, November 17, 2008 9:50 PM
Unknown Man, would you mind elaborating further on your hypothesis. Thank you.
Rampart
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 12:59 AM
J heath
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:39 AM
This is just another standard, watered-down revisionist version of WWI and WWII. No mention is made of the Balfour declaration which brought the USA into WWI and no mention is made of the 1933 declaration of war on Germany by Judea. Draw your own conclusions.

You also write that Churchill “made a fatal error of backing Poland’s hold on Danzig even though Britain could do nothing to defend Poland”. Do you really think your readers are so naive as to believe that neither Churchill (who was no fool) nor his military experts failed to realise this? Isn’t it more likely that they knew full well that Poland could not be defended but went ahead all the same? And, if so, why?
April30
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 4:07 AM
A good example of when armchair strategists get to work. When all else fails (read, when certain hypotheses become to hot to handle) history is explained by 'mistakes', 'fatal errors', 'foolishness' and similar nonsense. The bottom line is that while doing away with the good guy (Churchill in this case) the bad guy (Hitler) still keeps his status as ‘The Really Evil One’. Sorry Mr. Margolis, but this is just banal.

I agree wholeheartedly with J Heath’s comment. Why does the article not mention the 1933 declaration of war on Germany by Judea, the Jewish hold over Churchill, the Russian invasion of Poland which, surprise, surprise, was NOT followed by a declaration of war on Russia? Why not tell your readers of the atrocities committed by the Poles against Germans living in Poland before the German attack? Why not tell your readers about the secret clause in the treaty with Poland that she would be defended only if the attack came from Germany? Why not investigate the hypothesis that Britain was simply itching to get into war with Germany? Why not tell your readers of Hitler’s repeated attempts to avoid war? Why do you not mention the path-breaking research of David Hoggan (see his book The Forced War) who was awarded a PhD for a dissertation on relations between Germany and Poland in the years 1938-1939 and in which he convincingly argued, along with historians as Harry Elmer Barnes, David Veale, that Britain was primarily responsible for the outbreak of war in 1939?

Of course, we all know where this line of investigation eventually ends up don’t we? How many of us, after all want to end up in prison?
Steven E.
Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:00 PM
"the Russian invasion of Poland..." Good points. But it wasn't Russia that invaded Poland, it was the Soviet Union. This is a crucial distinction. The anti-Christ New York money power began destroying Christian, nationalist Russia beginning in 1904, if not long before, and has been robbing the Russian people ever since, first through Soviet Communism, then through Soviet Capitalism. In fact, the root causes of the West's current hostility toward Russia are 1. The Russian government having made the smallest moves to get free of the New York money power by arresting oligarchs and attempting to improve the quality of life of the people, and 2. President Putin's facilitation of the re-unification circa 2003 of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
Steven
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:30 AM
Go Hoya historians!
AMy
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:00 AM
On the whole some good comments here. Agree wholly with Unknown man, J Heath and april30.

Re-writing history is moving in the right direction. First the heroes are beginning to totter. The first to go was Stalin but his ‘fall’ really did not threaten anyone. Those who funded and pulled the strings of the 1917 October revolution have long ago left that home to set up their parasitic business elsewhere!

Now it’s Churchill’s turn. Once again, no one who can get really hurt by this is in the firing line.

Will we ever see the court historians look at:

1. Churchill’s handlers
2. Hitler objectively

Don’t make me laugh!
GeorgeCA
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:31 PM
I suppose we have too much faith in powers to effectively execute schemes on a global scale. The "thing" in which we are living is so complex, with so many variables and obscure mechanisms, that powers may try to get somewhere, but end up with totally unexpected results. As much as I hate the Wall Street bastards, I do not believe they intended to put everybody in this pickle, including themselves. Similarly, the Brits might had thought the French were a more reliable ally. They actually were quite strong on paper and were in a position to temper Hitler's actions. So I believe there are schemes being planned and put in action, but many of them develop way off the planned mark. Applying this to Mr. Margolis' idea of allowing Germany to expand eastward without reaction, this could also end up not like Mr. Margolis and Mr. Buchanan imagine.
Prof. Dr. Sher Alam
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 11:58 PM
Thanks Eric Margolis for another good piece. Indeed I would like to write Ins a BOOK about the same Topic: Churchill : from the vantage point of view of Pukhtoon , my experiences in England, US and Canada and as a Physicist. Not Many people know that He used mustard Gas against Pukhtoons. Churchill stupid comments about Islam must also be addressed. He also insulted Pukhtuns-Churchill in my books was a Thug and Murderer WHO USED POLITICAL LANGUAGE TO CON PEOPLE. A Person with a Fair Mind Bernard Shaw also saw him for what he was.
He was also a racist and a bigot-and part of Imperial England in more than one way-
chatman
Friday, November 21, 2008 3:49 AM
The Western neutrality so favored in Eric's (and Buchanan's) revisionist theory is founded on Eric's stated assumption that the Soviet Union was more dangerous than Nazi Germany. While it is true that Stalin killed or imprisoned more people than Hitler did, he had from 1929-1953 to do it. In the short period between 1933 and 1945, the Germans exterminated roughly 11 million people, 6 million of whom were jews. These exterminations do not include the many millions who died under the treads of the Wehrmacht, and the more specialized killing squads in the Waffen SS, and Einsatzgruppen. Margolis posits that the two despotisms might've destroyed each other, leaving the Western imperialists as Europe's dominant powers. But what if instead operation Barbarossa had prevailed, and Hitlers subued Moscow while also securing vital energy resources from the Caucasus? Would a non-aggression pact with Britain have prevented Hitler from seizing oil rich British holdings in the Middle East?

We can't know whether one despotism would have extinguished the other completely, or if the USSR was, in fact, more dangerous than Nazi Germany might've been if Hitler's Reich had spread over Europe. I think that this revisionist theory, while interesting in its own right, hardly ensures an alternate universe that is necessarily less appealing than the Iron Curtain that followed WWII.


Musaddiq Virk
Friday, November 21, 2008 11:34 AM
I'm quite agree with chatman on this.
Big Perk
Friday, November 21, 2008 5:35 PM
Mr. Margolis,

I've seen the Buchanan book you mentioned and took it back to the store right after I bought it. At first, I thought it was a great piece of scholarship until I read the preface. I don't know where your head is but if you read that book's preface and still think it's the best thing since sliced bread, I have a serious problem with you. I've been a fan of yours for a number of years. For those who haven't read it, Buchanan uses Churchill as the scapegoat for his white supremist rant about the fall of the "West" (read white western European domination of the world). It is Buchanan's belief that Churchill's inaction concerning Hitler lead to the current decline of "Western" power. The guy's a straight up bigot and you're applauding him.
rayyan
Saturday, November 22, 2008 5:50 AM

Some Notes about WWI , Churchill , WWII

The Germans in 1917 were winning WWI after the abdication of the Russian Czar and after the military gains that the German army achieved on the eastern front.In 1918 , the Communists in Russia withdrew from the War. Hindenburg and Ludendorff had won the war in the east, they had to do the same in the west. And they only had spring to do it in, because the Americans would be there in strength by summer. Once their troops were shifted from east to west, the Germans had numerical superiority, but this would not last long. The Germans had to achieve a speedy victory.This gamble failed because they failed to deliver a crushing blow to the French and British before the Americans participated in force..

There is another issue that should be highlighted. After WWI many Germans blamed subversion
Of the Internal Front for Germany's loss of WWI.This view was called "a stab in the back".Many Germans Blamed the Jewish Media for weakening national resolve and the American Jews for Lobbying the US to enter the war against Germany..(After all in WWI when the war ended ,German soldiers were still occupying vast swats of European lands and not a single allied soldier was on German soil.)



As for the reasons why the US entered the WWI , there are 4 main reasons:

First there is unrestricted submarine warfare. The Lusitania being the cause of U.S. entry is a myth. After the Lusitania was sunk, the Germans halted unrestricted submarine warfare and it was two years later when it resumedl. It wasn't the sinking of the Lusitania, but rather down the road when unrestricted submarine warfare resumed and other vessels were sunk that it became a huge issue.

Second, you have economic investments. Early in the war the U.S. offered trade with all the belligerents, but as the war progressed it became extremely lopsided and eventually trade with the Central Powers all but ceased. Trade increased with the Allies and it got to the point that a defeat for the British and French would wreak economic havoc on many investors and financial institutions in the U.S.

Third, there was the Zimmermann Telegram. In it Germany openly requested a neighbor nation to attack the U.S. in return for financial and geographic rewards (namely returning Texas, Arizona, and other territories lost back to Mexico). Considering tensions were already high with Mexico, this was seen as a blatant attempt at military aggression by Germany towards the U.S. even though the Germans themselves were avoiding direct military action. I believe the purpose wasn't to get the U.S. invovled but rather keep them pre-occupied with Mexico in order to keep them out of Europe.

Fourth:The British Zionists promised the British government that if the Jews are granted the Belfour declaration , they would lobby the Americans ( through the American Zionists) to enter the war on Britain's side..

As for WW2:
The force that broke the back of Nazi Germany was not American or British. It was Russian.The Soviet Union sacrificed 20 million people and broke the back of the Nazis.American and British participation was trivial. Soviet Marshals, tanks , weapons and blood in Stalingrad and
Kursk sealed the deal for the allies..

Had Hitler refrained from attacking the Soviet Union , the Americans and British would've been
Unable to beat the Nazis.

As for Churchill, well , he contributed to the dismantling of the British Empire on which the " Sun never Sets"..The glory of GB is now restricted to the British Isles and the British PM is an American poodle.

I tend to look at Churchill the way I perceive Gorbachove.Both worked towards destroying the
Empires which they were supposed to serve.



rayyan
Saturday, November 22, 2008 5:54 AM
Few points abouts WWI , Churchill , WWII

The Germans in 1917 were winning WWI after the abdication of the Russian Czar and after the military gains that the German army achieved on the eastern front.In 1918 , the Communists in Russia withdrew from the War. Hindenburg and Ludendorff had won the war in the east, they had to do the same in the west. And they only had spring to do it in, because the Americans would be there in strength by summer. Once their troops were shifted from east to west, the Germans had numerical superiority, but this would not last long. The Germans had to achieve a speedy victory.This gamble failed because they failed to deliver a crushing blow to the French and British before the Americans participated in force..
There is another issue that should be highlighted. After WWI many Germans blamed subversion
Of the Internal Front for Germany's loss of WWI.This view was called "a stab in the back".Many Germans Blamed the Jewish Media for weakening national resolve and the American Jews for Lobbying the US to enter the war against Germany..(After all in WWI when the war ended ,German soldiers were still occupying vast swats of European lands and not a single allied soldier was on German soil.)







As for the reasons why the US entered the WWI , there are 4 main reasons:

First there is unrestricted submarine warfare. The Lusitania being the cause of U.S. entry is a myth. After the Lusitania was sunk, the Germans halted unrestricted submarine warfare and it was two years later when it resumedl. It wasn't the sinking of the Lusitania, but rather down the road when unrestricted submarine warfare resumed and other vessels were sunk that it became a huge issue.

Second, you have economic investments. Early in the war the U.S. offered trade with all the belligerents, but as the war progressed it became extremely lopsided and eventually trade with the Central Powers all but ceased. Trade increased with the Allies and it got to the point that a defeat for the British and French would wreak economic havoc on many investors and financial institutions in the U.S.

Third, there was the Zimmermann Telegram. In it Germany openly requested a neighbor nation to attack the U.S. in return for financial and geographic rewards (namely returning Texas, Arizona, and other territories lost back to Mexico). Considering tensions were already high with Mexico, this was seen as a blatant attempt at military aggression by Germany towards the U.S. even though the Germans themselves were avoiding direct military action. I believe the purpose wasn't to get the U.S. invovled but rather keep them pre-occupied with Mexico in order to keep them out of Europe.

Fourth:The British Zionists promised the British government that if the Jews are granted the Belfour declaration , they would lobby the Americans ( through the American Zionists) to enter the war on Britain's side..

As for WW2:
The force that broke the back of Nazi Germany was not American or British. It was Russian.The Soviet Union sacrificed 20 million people and broke the back of the Nazis.American and British participation was trivial. Soviet Marshals, tanks , weapons and blood in Stalingrad and
Kursk sealed the deal for the allies..

Had Hitler refrained from attacking the Soviet Union , the Americans and British would've been
Unable to beat the Nazis.

As for Churchill, well , he contributed to the dismantling of the British Empire on which the " Sun never Sets"..The glory of GB is now restricted to the British Isles and the British PM is an American poodle.

I tend to look at Churchill the way I perceive Gorbachove.Both worked towards destroying the
Empires which they were supposed to serve.



Syed Abbas
Sunday, November 23, 2008 12:14 AM
The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Had he evil Hitler not broken the backs of England and France, over half of humanity living in Asia and Africa would still be slaving for the colonialists.

And there will be no Islamic renaissance either.

Thank you Churchill, thank you Hitler, for going at each others' throat, and making the Corporate Capitalism commit suicide.

Roman Pienkowski
Sunday, November 23, 2008 9:23 PM
Mr. Margolis

I keep reading your articles for many, many years, and I always admired them and never found anything in them causing my disagreement. Very often I was sending links to your page to my friends with recommendation, that you are #1 political commentator in North America.
But after this article, I must be very careful, specially with my friends in Poland [I am a Polish Canadian], because you would ruin completely your reputation in the eyes of my countrymen, if they have read this points you just had made here.
Buchanan- with all respect to his other views- wrote, that Poles have responsibility for the beginning of WWII, because of their unreasonable desire to keep Gdansk, which cost Poles 6 mln lives...
Such a statemnt makes automaticly its author not only an ignorant, but rather an idiot, in eyes of people knowing the true historical facts.

Let me bring some of historical facts, which apparently, are not known to Buchanan and to you, Mr. Margolis.
In 1933, shortly after Hitler won his power, Polish leader Pilsudski, properly seeing Hitler's intentions, proposed to England and France common, three- party preventing war against Germany, at the time, when Germany were economicaly and militarily very weak.
Since 1934 until april 1939 [final offer] Hitler proposed Poland to strike together Soviet Union and Poland rejected that offer because of principle reason. Instead, Poland signed treaty with Britain and France TO STRIKE Germany in case of agression against any of this countries. France - at that time- was second military power in Europe. In late 39, Hitler's Drag nacht Osten, after final rejection by Poland Germany's offer, caused him making Ribbentrop- Molotov pact obliging sides to strike Poland from both sides.
When Germany stroke Poland Sept 1, 1939, Britain and France suppose to strike Germany.
It was quite a good chance to beat Germany by this three countries. But France said, we are not going to die for Gdansk, and Britain atter three days of thinking, merely declared the war.
Stalin was waiting for 17 days with its attack on Poland... Waiting for the reaction of the West, untill finally he made his decision...
Many historians say, there would be no WWII, if Britain and France have fulfilled their obligation ...
Yes, SHAME ON BRITAIN, and SHAME ON FRANCE, but not because of the reason given by Mr. Margolis.
Not to far later another shame on France, when Guderian's Army invading France commitet an unforgiven error, and French generals were not able to take advantage from it, discussing for three days what to do, until was too late and only surrenderring remained...
Another shame on Churchil and Roosevelt for Teheran and Yalta...
Roman Pienkowski
Sunday, November 23, 2008 9:49 PM
To deflate the Churchill Myth

even further, I have to tell you, Mr. Margolis, about my experience, I remember very well, even if I was about 9 years old.
I was at elementary school at that time, in grade three, in communist Poland, when it was Mr. Churchill's funeral. Alll students at school were called to the TV room to watch his funeral...!!!
That might tell you, how great Mr. Churchill was for communists and what kind of gratefullness they felt towards him.
wolfgang
Tuesday, December 02, 2008 3:33 PM
In regards to Mr.Pienkowski's comments about Churchill and Polands plight regarding German aggression.I would first like to educate Mr.Pienkowski on the fact that after the Versilles treaty Poland was given territory which was never Polish to begin with.The problem was not so much with Danzig (not Gdansk) but with the Polish corridor that separated East and West Prussia from the rest of Germany.Imagine if you will Canada being split in two by Manitoba and Canadian residents having to cross a border to get to their country.This is simply outragous.Danzig was never Polish in the 300 years prior to the end of WW2.I am privey to this fact since my fathers family came from there.And there are numerous books both in English and in German that state this fact.Danzig, like the Polish corridor was a result of the Versille treaty.It was made a free city under the league of nations.And leagly it still is ,despite the so-called treaties signed by Germany in 1971 and 1990.Your command of history is very selective to say the least Mr.Pienkowski. Hermann Goering had approached the Polish Goverment in secret to ally themselves with Germany against Stalin and to work out their differences. He did this at great personal risk knowing full well that if Hitler had found out about this ,he could have been jailed.Poland chose to spurn Goerings appeal to resolve the Polish corridoor issue for one simple fact, that they were foolisly led to beleive that Britan and France would come to their aid.Ironicaly Poland is under the same impression with the Unitied States.Allowing them to place''defence'' missles within the country,and thus agitating another powerful neighbor in Russia.Poland needs to ''wake-up'' and realize that like the British in WW2 the Americans would use them as sacrificial lambs for a bigger goal.In the end Mr.Piemkowski,though you may not agree with this statment.This war was started in Paris 1919.Why was war not declared on Russia when they attacked Poland???This war was about money,power and control,and nothing else.They say that war is good for bussiness.America Canada and many ohter countries prospered financilly form this war,none so much as America.They all America,Britian,France,Canada went to war for Poland's ''freedom'' and in the end sold them out anyway.Along with the rest of Eastern Europe.And I find it amazing that no one in the western world has recognized this fact.Khruschev at least did denounce Stalin,but proved only a little more moderate.But no western politician has dared verture into this territory with the exception of Mr.Buchanan..and even then he only puts Mr. Churchill in the crosshairs,and not Mr. Roseevelt.It is my opinion that the whole dirty rotten truth about Yalta,Potsdam and Terahan have not been fully devulged,and that even todays generation would be questioning their fore-fathers politics.In my opinion,Churchill,Stalin and Roseevelt should have been tried for war crimes of a different nature.They didn't pull the trigger,but they condemed millions of Eastern Europeans to death,torcher,and displacement.As a final word to Mr.Pienkowski I suggest that you see this movie on line (Zietgeist) this will change your historical and political veiws a little.I would like to add one more small notation to Mr. Pienkowski,and that is,even when tensions were high betwen Poland and Germany.The Poles living amongst the Germans co-exsisted very well and this is something my father alluded to also.But Poland had no right to claim this long held German territory as their own after the 1919 Paris conference,just as the port Memel was not part of Lithuania,but they claimed it after Versilles.
Roman Pienkowski
Sunday, December 07, 2008 12:28 AM
Dear Wolfgang
I did not learn history from my father, nor the from movies, but from historians.
Also from the good polish historians. Polish and German history books today -even for students at high schools-differ so much, that they seem to be describing different events.
A few days ago the German newspaper Die Welt used the term "Polish concentration camps" !!!
This is putting history up side down, Mr. Wolfgang.
If you are trying to educate me, Mr. Wolfgang, you are wasting your time. I am from Gdansk and I know history of my city well.
Your argument, that Gdansk is not Polish, since was not Polish last 300 years before WWII is as good, as mine- saying, Gdansk can not be German, since is Polish last 63 years.
Because history of Gdansk is somewhat longer, than 300 years.
And you, as a German, should not to use this argument at all for the same reason, as Die Wellt should not be using the term Polish concentration camps.
If you really knew the history, you also would not be talking about the corridoor.
Mr. Wolfgang: ethnical German territories ended west from two rivers: Odra ond Nysa.
There was, where German tribes lived.
Gdansk was build by Poles and was a Polish city. In 1308 its ruller being attacked by some wild Pomorze tribes asked for help German Cross Knights, who were invitet to Polsnd in 1226 by Prince of Mazowsze to get support against his family rivals. So German Cross Knights were allowed to enter Gdansk in 1308 as helpers. First thing they did, they manslottered all Poles [soldiers and civilians] and captured the city. This was the pattern for the way of building German State in Polish State and Prussia- in the future.
This lands, you are talking about, were for about 500 years in Polish hands, and 500 years in German hands. But when in German hands, they were alwas a fruit of brutal agressions and source of unspeakable sufferrings of Polish citiziens.
German land is west ftom Odra and Nysa Luzycka.
Through 1000 years Poland had to defend against Drag nacht Osten from Germany. The fist such event ever written by historians is the battle over Cedynia in 972 [just over Odra river]. Mieszko- Polish prince- beat Germans so badly, that stopped their next attacks for more, than 30 years...Then next was Henry II in 1005, and so on and on...

Poland after WWII lost its ethnical lands on the east, ex. city of Lwow, which was almost for 700 years a Polish city.
I agree with you, Mr. Wolfgang, that Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt should have been tried for war crimes. And - I belive- they were. By Divine Justice.

blackjackshellac
Wednesday, November 26, 2008 9:10 AM
You're absolutely right about Versailles and its effect on Germany. But I disagree completely that Hitler would have left the rest of western Europe alone without England's intervention. If it weren't for Churchill, England would very likely have fallen as well. Hitler et al would have continued regardless of England's actions, because it was entirely about getting back at England and the allies for the results of WWI. This war was about taking power back, and in the process plundering the allies riches.

WWI was a folly of a crumbling European aristocracy. WWII was a necessary evil and make no mistake about Hitler, Goering, and that lot, they were an evil bunch.
There are currently 28 comments
Comments Commentaries Commentaries by Category