Winston Churchill. From the war with the Bolsheviks to the war with the Germans

41

Fight against the Bolsheviks


After the end of the war and the re-election of the coalition government of Lloyd George, Churchill was given the post of Secretary of State for Military and Air Affairs.

«What is the point of being a military secretary if there is no war?"- he complained to Bonar Lowe, who replied:"If we thought there was going to be a war, you wouldn't get this job.».



The vengeful, draconian terms of the Treaty of Versailles were humiliating for Germany, leading to a sharp devaluation of its currency, mass unemployment, suffering, growing resentment and unrest. This actually created the conditions for the revolution. If not for the treacherous policies of the Social Democratic leaders, the German workers might have come to power. Instead, the defeat of the working class and the conditions imposed by Versailles paved the way for the rise of Adolf Hitler and another terrible war.

But in the meantime Churchill's attention was focused on something else; his instincts for inciting war were fueled by his implacable hatred of the Bolsheviks.

British troops were in Russia before Churchill became Secretary of War. They were there mainly to protect military supplies sent by Britain to aid Russia in its war against Germany, and also played a supporting role in helping whites.

They hoped that the counter-revolutionaries would crush the revolution and then resume the war with Germany, thereby tying up many of Germany's forces on the Eastern Front. Given the fact that the Russian people had already suffered enough (the number of killed, wounded and maimed in Russia exceeded the total losses of all Western allies), it should have been obvious that the Russian masses were eager to end the war with Germany. It was incredibly shortsighted to expect Russian workers and peasants to rally around whites and undergo the same bloody massacre that they had just experienced under the tsarist regime.

When the war was over, the war-weary people of Britain were tired of fighting and more than anything else wanted the soldiers back home; there was no compelling reason to keep forces in Russia. But Churchill did not lose his enthusiasm for the war. He already tried in April 1918 to deceive the Bolsheviks into continuing the war with Germany by offering them an agreement that “would protect the fruits of the revolution»In exchange for their further participation. What he wanted was to drown the Russian revolution in blood, pushing the Soviet government to renew the war with Germany. But Lenin was not so naive; the Soviet government has already signed the Brest-Litovsk Treaty with Germany (although a similar peace treaty could have been signed earlier, with much smaller losses, if not for the long disputes between Lenin (a supporter of an immediate withdrawal from the war), Trotsky (a supporter of the strategy of “no war, no peace ") And Bukharin (a supporter of the transformation of the imperialist war into a revolutionary one), as well as any delays in negotiations with Germany by Trotsky, which infuriated the German government).

Churchill, with all his maniacal energy, tried to bring about the destruction of the Bolshevik government. He tried unsuccessfully to convince Woodrow Wilson and Lloyd George to authorize full-scale military operations against the Bolsheviks. While Woodrow Wilson and Lloyd George would also like the revolution to be suppressed, the most they could offer was an agreement to provide relief aid to whites, such as supplying weapons and military equipment, food, money, as well as officers and soldiers for training purposes.

Churchill was not satisfied with this, he wanted more. In Russia, there were already military contingents from many other countries, including Italy, Japan, the United States and France, who were trying to overthrow Bolshevism. He urged them to conduct full-scale military operations alongside the white armies to destroy the revolutionaries. Lloyd George said then:

“... a dangerous person who had Bolshevism in his brain. He saw himself entering Moscow on a white horse in a triumphal procession after the defeat of the Bolsheviks and proclaimed the savior of Russia. "

Unsurprisingly, most British high-ranking officers were against Bolshevism and therefore gladly collaborated with Churchill. When he called on volunteers to go to the North of Russia to “help in the withdrawal of the British army from Arkhangelsk”, He received about 5000 volunteers.

These volunteers naively believed that they were going there to save their compatriots from a desperate situation, but they soon discovered that they were only sent to fight for the whites in a new war.

Churchill continually lied to the British public, slandering the Bolsheviks in every way he could think of, ignoring the rape, robbery, torture and murder of innocent civilians, as well as the systematic massacres of defenseless Jewish communities that his "heroic white allies" constantly committed. Even the most senior British officers became sick of whites, not to mention the rebellious sentiments that developed among the rank and file of British soldiers.

There were several mutinous incidents in the ranks of the British troops who no longer wanted to participate in the war, which they could clearly see as a class war against the laboring masses of Russia.

With British, French and American troops, Churchill was confident that General Yudenich's offensive in October 1919 would be successful. When he heard that the White Army was only 40 kilometers from Petrograd, he sent a personal telegram to Yudenich, congratulating him and promising an early delivery of more military equipment and weapons.

However, the Bolsheviks were able to stop Yudenich's forces just 16 kilometers from Petrograd. The subsequent counterattack of the Red Army threw the Whites back, through Gatchina, through Gdov, through Yamburg, until the remnants of the Whites fled to safety across the Estonian border.

General Briggs later assessed the results of the intervention as follows:

"... our ill-planned intervention in the civil war in Russia cost us several thousand British soldiers' lives and £ 100, while we earned the bitter enmity of the Russian people for a decade ..."

It is also necessary to take into account the unknown thousands of dead soldiers of the Red and White armies, as well as civilians who were mercilessly killed as a result of this intervention. The crushing of the Russian revolution was clearly in the interests of British imperialism, but there was also Churchill's irreconcilable hatred of Bolshevism and a desire to make a name for himself.

In 1922, Churchill lost his post, probably becoming unpopular due to his attitude towards Russia. Then, in 1924, when the Liberal Party began to lose its weight, he left it and joined the conservatives: personal interests and high office always took priority over political principles.

The new Prime Minister Baldwin made him Chancellor, a position he held until the 1929 general election. His long tenure was marked mainly by his vigorous struggle against the strike (which his economic policies helped to provoke) in 1926.

In the years that followed, he spent most of his time writing. He also tried his hand at fiction, but his first and only attempt at writing a novel was so unsuccessful that even he was embarrassed by it. His historical works tended to find fault with others, while hiding their own mistakes and shortcomings.

"Voice in the Desert" or Churchill on the Eve of a New World War


Rumor has it that during the thirties Churchill was a "lonely voice" desperately trying to persuade incomprehensible British politicians and the public against the evils of fascism and the threat of German rearmament; he was the only one who was smart enough to foresee danger.

Any sane person was well aware of the danger of a reborn, rearmed Germany, still seething with the injustice inflicted on her by the Treaty of Versailles, straining her military muscles and reasserting herself in Western Europe as a force to be reckoned with.

Churchill and most of the leading politicians were not really anti-fascists. In fact, he, like the rest of the British establishment, hailed Nazi Germany as a buffer between Soviet Russia and Western Europe. With such conflicting ideologies, it seemed much more likely that Germany and Russia would end up fighting each other, in which case France and Britain could sit back and "enjoy the show."

But Hitler had other plans for expanding the Reich. In violation of the Treaty of Versailles, he created his own armed forces, and in March 1936 his army entered the Rhineland, which was a demilitarized zone, a buffer between Germany and France; in 1937 his Condor legion bombed Guernica; in 1938 Germany occupied Austria without encountering any resistance. In 1938, under the pretext of helping three and a half million Germans, Hitler annexed a part of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland (Poland also annexed part of the Czech territory), with the consent of Great Britain, France and Italy.

Encouraged by his easy successes, Hitler decided to occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia. However, this was already too much. Britain and France guaranteed the territorial integrity of Greece, Poland, Turkey and Romania, hoping that this would slow down Hitler's expansionist policies. But…

In the early morning of September 1, 1939, the people of Poland were awakened by the noise of German planes in the sky and the stamping of German boots in the streets - the Nazi invasion of Poland began. Chamberlain immediately formed the War Cabinet, which included Winston Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty.

Both France and Great Britain issued an ultimatum to Hitler to withdraw from Poland. The ultimatum was ignored and war was declared on Germany on September 3.

The beginning of World War II


Those who commanded the naval fleet at the time, it was well understood that it was madness to "hunt" for German submarines on the high seas; the best way to defeat them is to fight them when they tried to attack the convoys. But Churchill did not want to hear about it. He insisted that the fleet must aggressively wage war against the enemy. As a result, several ships of the British fleet were sunk by the Germans. Hitler could have thanked Winston Churchill for his first major success in the war against Britain.

It is widely believed that Chamberlain and other "appeasers" were responsible for Britain's unpreparedness for war in 1939, and that Churchill was the "voice in the desert", the only one who constantly advocated the creation and modernization of the military, the only one who foresaw the threat of the Nazi Germany. This is a myth spread by Churchill and his henchmen, a lie that must be exposed.

Chamberlain was actually one of the first to call for rearmament, and ran in the 1935 General Election with a policy of improving Britain's defenses, but Baldwin stopped him from doing so.

Churchill's policy was somewhat different: in 1920, he advocated battleships, when those who knew the naval business better wanted to switch to aircraft carriers; in 1925 he opposed the strengthening of Singapore, arguing that the Japanese could never take Singapore; in 1928, he recommended an extension of the 10-year rule (deferring an increase in cash injections to the military by at least another 10 years).

Soon after the victory over Poland, it was expected that Germany would not hesitate to attempt to occupy Norway. To counter this, a plan was developed involving both the Royal Navy and ground forces. But in April 1940, when Germany nevertheless invaded Norway, attacking it at various key points along the entire coast, our "modern Nelson" again knew better than his admirals.

Troops were landed and warships were dispatched in all directions except the correct one, and as a result Germany occupied Norway with relatively little casualties. If anyone other than Churchill had shown such incompetence, even outright stupidity, he would have been fired.

Meanwhile, the Scandinavian campaign caught the attention of the House of Commons. Admiral Sir Roger Keyes made a passionate speech in which he accused everyone of defeat. In the ensuing angry debate, the accusation was diverted from Churchill and directed at Chamberlain. In one of the greatest ironies of history, it was Chamberlain who was forced to resign and Churchill to take over as prime minister.
41 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    17 September 2021 06: 30
    In violation of the Treaty of Versailles, he created his own armed forces
    ... The author, you at least in a nutshell wrote who helped Hitler to violate the Versailles Treaty. And in the text. Did you write it yourself or is it a feature of Google translation?
    1. 0
      17 September 2021 09: 36
      Quote: parusnik
      Did you write it yourself or is it a feature of Google translation?

      Perhaps even for Google this is:
      When the war is over, the war-weary people of Britain are tired of fighting

      too.... laughing
  2. +6
    17 September 2021 06: 34
    Troops were landed and warships were dispatched in all directions except the correct one, and as a result Germany occupied Norway with relatively little casualties.


    "Relatively small" ... How to say.
    - 1307 killed, 2375 missing and 1604 wounded. Air losses totaled 127 aircraft. The German fleet suffered especially heavy losses - the heavy cruiser "Blucher", the light cruisers "Karlsruhe" and "Königsberg", 10 destroyers, the artillery training ship "Brummer", 8 submarines, a destroyer, 11 transports and more than 10 small ships were sunk.
  3. +5
    17 September 2021 06: 40
    After the end of the war and the re-election of the coalition government of Lloyd George, Churchill was given the post of Secretary of State for Military and Air Affairs.

    And from the very first lines, the author suffered an ignorant nonsense about air questions.
    In Britain, the cabinet ministers who head the respective ministries are referred to as "The Chief Secretary of State for Her Majesty ..."
    The Secretary of State for War is the head of the War Department, the Secretary of State for Air is the Air Department. These are two different positions that Churchill held in succession.
    1. +6
      17 September 2021 06: 57
      Considering the fact that the Russian people have already suffered enough (the number of those killed, wounded and maimed in Russia exceeded the total losses of all Western allies),

      The Entente countries lost, according to various estimates, from 5 to 200 people, of which the Russian Empire - from 000 to 6. The Entente wounded, respectively, up to 400 people, of which the Russian Empire - 000 people ...
      1. +7
        17 September 2021 07: 55
        The new Prime Minister Baldwin made him Chancellor, a position he held until the 1929 general election. His long tenure was marked mainly by his vigorous struggle against the strike (which his economic policies helped to provoke) in 1926.

        Churchill, if he could read this mockery of his biography, he probably would have turned over in his grave more than once.
        The author - Chancellor of the Exchequer - is in Russian - the Minister of Finance. All his struggle against the strike in 1926 was limited to editing the newspaper "British Bulletin".
        And his tenure in this post is marked by a return to the gold standard, a decrease in the retirement age from 70 to 65 years, the provision of pensions to widows, a reduction in military spending, a reduction in income tax and the introduction of a luxury tax.
        1. +2
          17 September 2021 08: 37
          Quote: Undecim
          Churchill, if he could read this mockery of his biography, he probably would have turned over in his grave more than once.

          I really hope that in the next part there will be no urban legends about "adored Armenian brandy" and "begged Stalin to launch an offensive to save the allies in the Ardennes." Those who are not far off like these tales.
      2. +1
        17 September 2021 18: 36
        Quote: Undecim

        The Entente countries lost, according to various estimates, from 5 to 200 people, of which the Russian Empire - from 000 to 6. The Entente wounded, respectively, up to 400 people, of which the Russian Empire - 000 people ...

        It hurt my eyes too. Thanks for the nice amendment to the article.
  4. -3
    17 September 2021 06: 59
    no difference, from the time of Ivan the Terrible in Russia, who is in power in England. Even kings, even Premieres - Russia with any state system for England is the enemy number one. Even the Pugachev revolt was sponsored by England, and Lenin prepared the revolt and created the party in London and of course with the knowledge of British intelligence and not for the revolt and revolution in England. But it was Stalin's “fault” that after the Second World War Churchill and England, in comparison with Stalin and the USSR, looked like a loser and a victim. How could it be otherwise, if Stalin during the Second World War preserved the great Russian Empire of the USSR, and Churchill during the Second World War lost British India and the greatness of the British Empire ended. Here, like it or not, but it was necessary again Russia, represented by the USSR. put Britain's number one enemy and declare at least a Cold War.
    1. +3
      17 September 2021 11: 17
      since the time of Ivan the Terrible in Russia, who is in power in England. Even kings, even Premieres - Russia with any state system for England is the enemy number one

      But just during the reign of John IV the Tormentor, relations between England and the Russian Kingdom were friendly. Enemy number one for England at that time was Spain (for the Russian Kingdom - the Ottoman Empire and its "fighting hamster" - the Crimean Khanate).
      if Stalin preserved the great Russian Empire of the USSR during the Second World War

      The Soviet Union was NOT Russia. Simply because Russia (RSFSR) was part of the USSR as one of the independent (and since 1977 also sovereign) Soviet Socialist Republics, which together constituted the USSR as a union state. It is written in plain text in all three Constitutions of the USSR (1922, 1936, 1977).
      Now specifically about I.V. Stalin (Dzhugashvili). It was during his reign and according to his (together with the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks) the following events took place:
      - in 1936, a new Constitution of the USSR was adopted, reaffirming the principle of "the right of each SSR to free secession from the USSR";
      - in the same 1936, the Kazakh SSR was separated from the RSFSR as an independent union republic (together with the "right of free exit" attached to this status);
      - On October 24, 1945, the Ukrainian SSR and the Byelorussian SSR were given their own (formally separate from the USSR) autonomous international legal personality by including them in the number of UN member states.
      1. 0
        18 September 2021 14: 08
        Quote: Terran Ghost
        during the reign of John IV the Tormentor, relations between England and the Russian Kingdom were friendly.

        And no wonder, in England at that time was ruled by Henry VIII - much more suitable for the title of the bloody tormentor.
        1. 0
          12 November 2021 09: 06
          Elizabeth then ruled. Ivan even tried to marry her.
      2. 0
        28 October 2021 07: 14
        Quote: Terran Ghost
        in 1936, a new Constitution of the USSR was adopted, reaffirming the principle of "the right of each SSR to freely secede from the USSR";

        So what ? You yourself, specifically formulate what you are claiming. No hints. And the fact that in 1936 we already know
        1. Are you implying that better than Stalin imagine the optimal solution to national problems in those years?
        2. Or do you think that the "correct paper", if it had been written in 1936, would not have allowed Yeltsin, with the actual, albeit tacit support of the entire Russian people, to destroy the USSR in 1991?
        3.I guess that to begin with, any "correct paper" would wipe the backside, and then you would be convinced that it was "not correct" ........
        4. The USSR was dissolved and the Belovezhsky Treaty was signed (as it was indicated even in the resolution of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, adopted in early 1996) as a result of Yeltsin's criminal actions. And the Russian people elected him President for the second time in 1996 ... and 2 is to blame ... understandably ...
    2. 0
      27 October 2021 13: 13
      no difference, from the time of Ivan the Terrible in Russia, who is in power in England.

      The most paradox is that in a number of the most difficult wars for Russia, threatening the existence of the state, England was our ally. And then it was the British who sold the jet engine to the USSR, which was already used on Soviet aircraft in the Korean War, the world is far from being a binary one.

      Even the Pugachev riot was sponsored by England
      Well, yes, in the same place in the Russian Empire there was no oppression of peasants and harsh serfdom, it is not clear that these "slaves" rebelled.
      1. 0
        12 November 2021 08: 48
        The most paradox is that in a number of the most difficult wars for Russia, threatening the existence of the state, England was our ally.


        England provoked these wars, England itself after their end received hefty buns (a classic example is the Napoleonic Wars).
        The exception is World War II, which was conceived as a way to "lower" the British Empire in full. Here the British became victims of their younger Anglo-Saxon brother - the United States.
  5. 0
    17 September 2021 07: 19
    I also suggest, for those interested, my news article "Global droughts: the thirst for profit is draining the planet" - https://sotoguide.ru/articles/619/
    1. +3
      17 September 2021 07: 56
      You would immediately indicate the original source from which you copied.
    2. +4
      17 September 2021 08: 23
      Quote: Vladimir Zyryanov
      I also suggest, for those interested, my news article "Global droughts: the thirst for profit is draining the planet" - https://sotoguide.ru/articles/619/

      Probably not. After your mediocre attempts to write a biography of the great Briton, you cannot be interesting. But, I give you your due - you need to have a remarkable anti-talent to describe the deeds of a prominent historical person in such a sad, wretched and insipid manner.
      1. +5
        17 September 2021 09: 44
        you must have a remarkable anti-talent

        Here, in fairness, the "glory" must be shared with some kind of English-language no-name, since clear signs indicate that the author himself did not write and used Google translation
      2. +3
        17 September 2021 16: 40
        a surprisingly mediocre opus. the author even outdid Samsonov.
  6. +1
    17 September 2021 08: 00
    For more than 30 years of its "freedom of speech" since Perestroika, not one of the Russian enemies of the communists, posing as patriots, has resented the occupation of Russia by the invaders.
    Not one of them, so diligently posing as "great philanthropists" in their anti-Sovietism, was outraged by the atrocities of the interventionists against the Russian people.
    Because there is NO benefit.
    1. +2
      17 September 2021 08: 43
      They are all reptiles, Ira, and nothing more. smile
      1. +2
        17 September 2021 08: 55
        Quote: Sea Cat
        They are all reptiles, Ira, and nothing more. smile

        and Stalin is not on them ... laughing
    2. +1
      17 September 2021 08: 52
      Quote: tatra
      not one of the Russian enemies of the communists, posing as patriots, was outraged by the occupation of Russia by the invaders.

      "Indignation", I think, is not the most appropriate emotion in assessing the events of a century ago.
    3. +4
      17 September 2021 11: 46
      First, why should anyone resent the events of a century ago that took place long before his / her birth?
      Secondly, what atrocities do you want to talk about?
      1) The German and Austro-Hungarian interventionists are responsible for most of the atrocities and war crimes. The reason for their appearance on the lands of the former Russian Empire is the Brest Peace of March 3, 1918. And who signed this Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty? Hint - neither Nicholas II, nor the Provisional Government did this ...
      2) Some of the incidents described are legendary and mythological descriptions of individual events that occurred (the reliability is sometimes not verified) with individual individuals;
      3) In some cases, we are talking about events that are reliably real, but in a general context. For example, in the sad famous Mudyug concentration camp, out of about a thousand prisoners of war of the Red Army who passed through it, from 200 to 300 people died (mainly from extremely nasty conditions of detention that did not meet any humanistic standards), according to various estimates. During the "red terror" organized by the RSDLP (b) -RKP (b) in Crimea, according to official Soviet data, approximately 56 people were executed.
      1. 0
        18 September 2021 14: 32
        Quote: Terran Ghost
        During the "red terror" organized by the RSDLP (b) -RKP (b) in Crimea, according to official Soviet data, approximately 56 people were executed.

        Then be consistent, and recognize this terror as an excess of performers specifically - Zemlyachki and Kuhn.
      2. 0
        12 November 2021 08: 53
        And who signed this Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty?


        If the tsarist generals had fought better, then the conditions of peace would have been different. Who is to blame for the fact that Nikolashka and his generals overestimated their strength, especially since there was already a sad experience of the Russian-Japanese war?
        If they had taken Berlin then, there would have been no revolution, no "obscene" peace.
        And so the Bolsheviks had to reap the harvest sown by their predecessors.
  7. +2
    17 September 2021 08: 05
    year
    The vengeful, draconian terms of the Treaty of Versailles were humiliating for Germany, leading to a sharp devaluation of its currency, mass unemployment, suffering, growing resentment and unrest. This is actually created conditions for revolution

    it would be nice to know that the mentioned revolution 1918 d occurred BEFORE the Treaty of Versailles 1919 years and the contract could not lead to it.

    It was caused by defeats in the war, wild impoverishment of the population and, of course, famine (turnip winter), which killed 800 thousand people.

    As for "vindictiveness", what good is it that Germany, Hungary and other allies of Hitler reimbursed only 4% of the damage inflicted by the USSR in WWII, and the rest was forgiven? Do any of them remember this?
    Or do they hate Russia less now?
    The instigator of the war and the aggressor must compensate at least material losses

    And so that there was no war, it was the conditions of Versailles that had to be observed, that is. prevent Germany from rebuilding its armed forces.

    If anyone other than Churchill had shown such incompetence, even outright stupidity, he would have been fired.

    again the author failed to convince Churchill of stupidity.
  8. +5
    17 September 2021 08: 07
    The article left an ambiguous impression: the direction is correct, and the facts are very controversial and smack of very yellow press.
    1. +2
      17 September 2021 09: 13
      Mostly emotions in the article.
  9. +5
    17 September 2021 10: 01
    Winston Churchill can be scolded as much as you like. But!. There is a famous photograph of Him, Stalin and Roosevelt at the Yalta conference. He is one of those who created the world and geopolitics in which we all live now.
    1. 0
      18 September 2021 14: 53
      Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8
      He is one of those who created the world and geopolitics in which we all live now.

      Yes, but most of all with his Fulton speech.
  10. -1
    17 September 2021 10: 51
    He was a bastard, if not for his deeds, there would not have been WWII!
    1. +2
      17 September 2021 12: 14
      Quote: 75Sergey
      if not for his deeds, there would be no WWII!

      well, yes, of course ... Actually, the collage should be like this, if we are talking about poker:

      In Berchtesgaden, Godesberg and Munich, Chamberlain, not Churchill, met with Hitler.
      Churchill's position on the Munich Agreement is well known - we read his speech in the House of Commons on October 5, 1938.
      And yes - as for the chips on the table, we recall the Churchill metaphor (from the speech mentioned above):
      "First, they pointed a pistol at us and demanded a pound. When we gave it back, they demanded another two pounds from us, still holding us at gunpoint. Then the attacker suddenly made concessions and agreed to be content with 1 pound 17 shillings and 6 pence, provided that for the rest of what is due, we will vow never to feud with him in the future. " (with)
  11. +2
    17 September 2021 16: 39
    The article is the height of amateurism and bias. Even during the Soviet period, at the height of the Cold War, Churchill was paid tribute. Most Britons (according to the latest poll) consider Sir Churchill the greatest Briton of all time. The arguments presented in the article are not arguments, but some kind of unfounded nonsense. be ashamed.
    1. +2
      18 September 2021 02: 33
      Most Britons (according to the latest poll) consider Sir Churchill to be the greatest Briton of all time.

      This is the most amazing thing. Churchill already in August 1941. merged the British Empire with Roosevelt by signing the Atlantic Charter. The United States achieved its main goal in WWII even before joining it.
      Churchill opened the markets of the British Empire to the United States. And this predetermined the collapse of the empire after the war.
    2. 0
      12 November 2021 08: 59
      ... Most Britons (according to the latest poll) consider Sir Churchill to be the greatest Briton of all time.


      If so, then they are brainless. Churchill is a loser, a classic victim of "divorce" who gave up his Yankee empire back in 1941. Then he made concessions to the United States in the economic sphere (opened colonies for American corporations) in exchange for military-technical assistance.
      After that, the collapse of the British Empire and the loss of superpower status were only a matter of time.
      Churchill - English "Gorbachev". Our people are nevertheless more sane and do not consider Gorbachev the greatest figure.
  12. +1
    18 September 2021 14: 50
    Perhaps we should add one more episode. After the defeat of France in the summer of 1940, Hitler expected peace with Britain for a reason. According to the canons of "prudent British policy", Britain should have "reasonably agreed" with Germany. But Churchill, from the point of view of PR, such an honorable world was absolutely contraindicated. We will hardly know what Hess was negotiating about, but Churchill clearly chose a risky and dangerous war for the country, although it, yes, inevitably put England under the United States.
    1. 0
      12 November 2021 09: 04
      Churchill clearly chose a risky and dangerous war for the country, although she, yes, inevitably put England under the United States.


      Are you sure that Churchill himself made this choice?
      In fact, an alliance with Hitler was therefore really impossible, since it destroyed the entire combination of the Anglo-Saxon financial elite, aimed at transferring the "world center" overseas. If Churchill had tried to prevent this combination, another prime minister would have taken his place.
  13. 0
    23 September 2021 14: 21
    The article is dilettante, sheer prejudice and domisli.
    The author is a fat minus.
  14. 0
    5 December 2021 15: 24
    Correctly figured out in a madhouse - it was all thought up by Churchill in 18. He hated the USSR so much that he would have given Nagliy Hitler, but then he hoped that Stalin would save them. If not for Stalin, then England would have been captured by Roosevelt. Churchill told the secretary they secretly meet and agree on how to take over the island. The secretary told the driver it seems our old man has gone crazy.