You know, the one who DID convince the British and French to act when the Rhineland became German again, in 1936.
The war monger.
The aggressor.
The invader.
The occupier.
The one who was responsible for the deaths of thousands killed when the forces of Germans AMONG Germans abortively retreated amidst the great superiority of armor artillery and manpower of the combined British and French armed forces.
The party switching, self aggrandizer whose critics claimed he would use his mother's skin to make himself a drum to sound his own beat and attract attention to himself if he only could.
The one whose obsession with the Germans probably was attributable to his incomplete Gallipoli misadventure.
The one who exaggerated the danger from a downtrodden and defeated nation.
The one who should have been embarrassed when it was found that Germans harbored almost no illegal arms.
The one who lied his way to armed conflict for inexplicable reasons of self gratification.
Am I coming through?
It is the prudent and decisive actions of a few men, at a few moments around which the fulcrum of time pivots. Actions taken or not direct us all onto a path in a very different forest.
Was being seen to be completely in the right worth the deaths of 45 million people, 2 nuclear weapons, and the industrial genocide of an entire people? Would Churchill have been any less in the right under the above actions?
But history today would view him quite differently. Just imagine what Howard Zinn, and Tony Judt and Eric Foner would have to say.
The war monger.
The aggressor.
The invader.
The occupier.
The one who was responsible for the deaths of thousands killed when the forces of Germans AMONG Germans abortively retreated amidst the great superiority of armor artillery and manpower of the combined British and French armed forces.
The party switching, self aggrandizer whose critics claimed he would use his mother's skin to make himself a drum to sound his own beat and attract attention to himself if he only could.The one whose obsession with the Germans probably was attributable to his incomplete Gallipoli misadventure.
The one who exaggerated the danger from a downtrodden and defeated nation.
The one who should have been embarrassed when it was found that Germans harbored almost no illegal arms.
The one who lied his way to armed conflict for inexplicable reasons of self gratification.
Am I coming through?
It is the prudent and decisive actions of a few men, at a few moments around which the fulcrum of time pivots. Actions taken or not direct us all onto a path in a very different forest.
Was being seen to be completely in the right worth the deaths of 45 million people, 2 nuclear weapons, and the industrial genocide of an entire people? Would Churchill have been any less in the right under the above actions?
But history today would view him quite differently. Just imagine what Howard Zinn, and Tony Judt and Eric Foner would have to say.
2 comments:
They would have had nothing to say, because with names like Judt, Zinn, and Foner,they would never have been born.
Monty
Maybe I was too obscure, but I believe you have it exactly backwards.
Had Churchill been successful in getting France and GB to remove Hitler from the Rhineland, there would have been no WW2 as we know it, no Holocaust, and Hitler most likely would have ended his reign, RIGHT THEN.
But Churchill might have been remembered as the aggressive war monger, and bloodthirsty war lover and adventurer the Germans always claimed him to be
Post a Comment