Military Review

False idols of the West. Part I. Winston Churchill, racist and hangman of nations

44
False idols of the West. Part I. Winston Churchill, racist and hangman of nations"However," opens a special project "False idols." We would like to present to the reader’s attention genuine portraits of those people who are considered to be indisputable authorities in the USA and Europe, a kind of religious characters who determined the development of civilization. Moreover, we are talking not only about politicians, but also about the philosophers and artists who created the Western cultural matrix.


We begin, however, with a portrait of a statesman - British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who is certainly one of the most revered figures in the West. Historians call him "the knight of democracy" and "the prophet of freedom and humanism." “A noble spirit, a sense of justice, faith in the human race — that was what guided this great leader of the 20th century in his politics, who triumphed in two world wars,” Churchill's biographer Sir Martin Gilbert notes. Nobody argues, Churchill was a brilliant strategist, a bright publicist, a politician who had fantastic intuition, but can one explain his activity only by noble impulses or was it based on irrepressible ambitions and natural cynicism of the British aristocrat?

“Ambition is the main force”

A descendant of the Duke of Marlborough, Winston Churchill was born in 1874, in his family estate - the Blenheim Palace. His father belonged to the conservative political elite and for some time served as chancellor of the kingdom. In his youth, Winston served in the army, took part in the Sudanese and Anglo-Boer War. Contemporaries portrayed him as “an unprincipled cavalry officer, ready to pull a saber out of its scabbard for any reason.” In 1900, Churchill was first elected to parliament. At the same time he published the artistic novel "Savrol", the main character of which, according to critics, strikingly resembled the author. “Struggle, work, unstoppable running of affairs,” wrote Churchill, “are sacrifices for so many that make life easy, enjoyable — for what? For the good of the people! He hardly admitted that his efforts were directed. Ambition is the main force, and he could not resist it. ”

In 1907, future Prime Minister Lloyd George described his colleague in this way: “His nostrils swell only from the applause of the House of Commons. He likes to be the center of attention most of all and read, probably, too many books about Napoleon. ” Churchill was called the “hero of self-promotion” and noted that he easily changes his beliefs. “The parties serve him as a tool for achieving their own goals,” wrote Spectator magazine on the eve of the First World War, “we cannot find in him a single principle. He just holds his nose to the wind. ” “Churchill, of course, was a seasoned politician ready to use all means to achieve his goals, ready to deceive and change,” historian Roy Medvedev said in an interview with However. “He did not hesitate to move from party to party, he was a liberal, now a conservative.”

At 35, Churchill becomes Minister of the Interior and is not afraid to use force against participants in peaceful demonstrations in Liverpool. “He was determined to solve cases with a cannonball,” wrote the British journalist Charles Masterman, “let out frenzy out newsletters and was eager to give the demonstrators a good rumble.” According to a leading researcher at the Russian Institute stories RAS Yuri Zhukov, "in fact, Churchill repeated what we had in 1905-th year. He constantly demonstrated his cynicism, openly making it clear that in politics he is guided by considerations of profit and will not hide behind vain ideological formulas. ”

"Let the Huns kill the Bolsheviks"

In 1917, Churchill held the post of Minister of War, and the fix idea for him was “a crusade against Bolshevism.” He strengthens the British military contingents in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, recognizes the regimes of Kolchak and Denikin, and pushes the Germans to invade Soviet Russia, cynically saying: "Let the Huns kill the Bolsheviks." “Churchill joined this crazy adventure as if he were the emperor of the British Isles,” wrote Labor Party leader Ramsay MacDonald. According to the British historian Giles Milton, the author of the book “Russian Roulette”, “in August 1919 of the year Churchill decided, without hesitation, to use chemical weapon against the Red Army and the villages that were controlled by the Bolsheviks. The soldiers fled in panic as the green gas-chemical cloud drifted toward them. Those who fell into the cloud vomited blood, and then they fell unconscious. ”

Churchill insisted on the use of poisonous gas against the rebel tribes of northern India, accusing the opponents of such a policy of "disgust and unnecessary sentiments." “Why do you think that the British artilleryman should be tormented by remorse when he fired a projectile, which, strictly speaking, sneezes?” He asked. At the beginning of 20's as minister of the colonies, Churchill became famous for his tough, uncompromising approach. When in India, a supporter of non-violent methods of struggle against the colonial authorities, Mahatma Gandhi went on a hunger strike, he threw cynically: “What do we need? Let him die of hunger. " According to Roy Medvedev, “in the colonial empire, Churchill acted with the cruelty and severity of the imperial leader, was ready to suppress liberation movements and, of course, treated the people of the colonial countries as second-third people.”

In the 30-ies, Churchill actually retired. In London, he was called "a washed-up man," "wine that had been exhausted." In 29, he was completely devastated by investing his money in securities just before the collapse on Wall Street, and therefore was in a severe depression, which he dubbed the "black dog." Churchill helped, oddly enough, Hitler. In conditions when many representatives of the British political elite felt sympathy for the German Fuhrer, including because they hoped to incite him against Soviet Russia, Churchill relied on the confrontation with Nazi Germany and was not mistaken. At the beginning of the Second World War, the king ordered him to form a government.

“If a million dies, it's statistics”

During this period, Churchill actually had absolute power and did not meet opposition. “This is a real dictatorship,” said Colonel Maurice Hanky, head of the secretariat of the Prime Minister. - The work of the Military Cabinet and military committees is reduced to long monologues of one person. Others just agree. The Committee of the Chiefs of Staff, exhausted by sleepless nights, gradually turns into a planning committee. ” Lloyd George complained to the Australian Prime Minister Menzi that "Winston is playing the role of chief strategist without the necessary qualifications and support of energetic chiefs of staff." He said that he would like to see the military office more professional and less prone to Churchill's whims. “Churchill is made from that dough from which tyrants are molded,” proclaimed the seal keeper, Lord William Beaverbrook.

To achieve his goals, Winston did not stop at nothing. “If you want to reach your goal,” he used to say, “do not try to be delicate or smart. Use coarse techniques. Hit the target immediately. Go back and strike again. Then strike again with a strong blow from the shoulder. ” In 1940, the British Prime Minister gave the order to drown the French fleet in Oranta so that it would not go to Germany. And in 1945, he called for the shooting of “communist rebels” in Greece, although it was the communists who played the leading role in freeing the country from the German occupiers. Churchill is credited with the phrase: "if one person died, this is a tragedy, if a million people die, this is statistics."

Although during the war years Churchill cooperated with the Soviet Union, he treated Russians much worse than the US leader Franklin Roosevelt. It is known that Stalin did not trust Churchill, considering him a cynical fox, and even spoke about it to the American president. For his part, the British prime minister tried to destroy the emerging mutual understanding between Stalin and Roosevelt. He constantly asked Stalin for help, especially when the Allied troops were in a difficult situation for them, as during the offensive in the Ardennes in 44, at the very least, he acted against Moscow's interests at every opportunity.

Operation Unthinkable and Fulton Speech

According to archival documents declassified in 1998, after the victory over the Germans, Churchill seriously planned to “overturn the Soviet Union, weakened by the war, by placing a sudden tripping on him”. In the operation “Unthinkable” developed by him, 50 of the British and American divisions, as well as the surviving divisions of the Wehrmacht, which Churchill thought to throw against the USSR, were to take part. According to the doctor of historical sciences, Valentin Falin, who headed the international department of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1988 – 1991, “even from 1944, the British began to collect German prisoners in special camps to use them later in a total war against the USSR, which, according to Churchill’s idea, should be subjugated to the will of the United States and Great Britain. ” After the defeat of Sir Winston in the elections in July 1945 year, the plan was put on the shelf.

Nevertheless, it was Churchill, who had long assured Stalin of his allied feelings, that became the main instigator of the Cold War. 5 March 1946, at the request of the American President Harry Truman, he gave a speech at the opening of the college in the Missouri city of Fulton. “From Stettin on the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic, across the continent, the iron curtain was lowered,” he proclaimed and blamed the USSR.

Moreover, according to some historians, the irreconcilable tone of the speech was explained simply. Churchill was annoyed that the sale of alcohol was banned in Fulton. Without knowing this circumstance, it is impossible to understand the first words of the speaker who came to the rostrum: “I thought I was in Fulton, Missouri, but I ended up in Fulton, the Sahara.” By that time, the two leaders of the Western world had already taken it well on their chests. Met by Truman, Churchill, according to eyewitnesses, said, slyly flashed his eyes: “Staying in unknown edges of me, I invariably use the following rule - a few drops of whiskey in the local water. To neutralize bacteria. ” Then the two on the presidential train allowed themselves to relax. As a result, Truman asked for the uniform of the conductor and, within forty minutes, tried the locomotive horn together with Churchill. Toward the close of a speech, the leader of the United States sent a note to his British counterpart: "Winston, a plane from Canada has just delivered an excellent whiskey." And the former prime minister, unexpectedly softened, gave praise to the “Russian comrades-in-arms.” It is worth noting that at the end of 30, the American ambassador to Great Britain, Joseph Kennedy (father of the future president of the United States), called Churchill “a drunkard with two hands clutching at a bottle, whose judgments are rarely sound”.

*****


Churchill for many contemporaries became a symbol of leaving the British Empire. However 50-years, the last time in his life taking the post of prime minister, he was more like a caricature of John Bull, which is considered a symbol of Great Britain.

If we talk about how his image was transformed, then whatever Western historians write now, Sir Winston has never been a “prophet of humanism”. More than anything, he was attracted by the gambling political game, the main prize in which was power. “Power,” he wrote, “is a drug. Who tried it at least once - poisoned forever. " And there is no doubt that for Churchill, power was more important than abstract ideals.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.odnako.org/
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. MolGro
    MolGro 1 February 2014 08: 37
    +17
    this cigar lover killed more than 80 ml of the citizens of the colonies and 100 thousand Irish castrated.
    1. ZU-23
      ZU-23 1 February 2014 08: 53
      +2
      In general, the enemy of the world community, the cigar hat is purely barred by bankers)))
      1. Canep
        Canep 1 February 2014 11: 28
        +12
        But something is not said here about the Dardanelles operation (1915), the purpose of which was to capture the Turkish capital of Constantinople and open the sea route to Russia. The initiative for its implementation belonged to Churchill. He approved her plan. During which the British Empire lost 119,7 thousand people killed, wounded and missing. France lost 26,5 thousand people killed, wounded, missing and captured. But the objectives of the operation were not achieved. After this defeat, Churchill left politics.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. mirag2
      mirag2 1 February 2014 09: 50
      +14
      Churchill the bastard is still that!
      I watched the United States documentary, they said that after the attacks of the FAU-1, he seriously asked to develop an operation (and calculate its effectiveness) by poisoning the German civilian population with gas, and senior officers began to doubt its ability to steer military operations.
      And they wanted to kill Hitler in the "wolf's lair" at the suggestion of the British - not because he was a bastard, but in order to make peace with the army men who would come to power and preserve their empire (Roosevelt was against the restoration of European-type neo-colonialism) - after all, Stalin was on the Polish border, and the Polish government was sitting at Churchill's side.
      In general, there is a lot of negative for England, and that which the Air Force never talks about anywhere.
    4. Interface
      Interface 1 February 2014 10: 48
      +12
      It is also worth adding here to the U.S. presidents, starting with Harry Truman, ending with Obama, with a detailed indication of how Nobel laureates sprayed Orange and napalm over Vietnam, so massively that they still contain the highest percentage of physical deformities. Like a chem. experiments were put on the Koreans, how Europe was arming itself with American money before the First World War (all countries of Western and Central Europe made weapons for American loans, very kindly provided by the US government, which in turn took money from the Fed, created in (!) 1913 year.
      It is necessary to tell how Victoria (a sort of grandmother of Europe) allowed the creation of the first concentration camps where women and children of Boers were driven.
      About "Grandfather Franz" (he had Sisi as a wife), who blessedly killed 100000 people during the suppression of the uprising in Hungary, which oppressed the western and southern Slavs.
      But when, somewhere, say, in Bad Hofstein, at every uh-huh, there is a cafe "Franz", boutiques "Franz Josef" and another monument on the central square, it seems that you are facing an all-conquering national leader.
      I think you can still find a lot more if you look.
      1. Firstvanguard
        Firstvanguard 1 February 2014 15: 02
        +11
        I don’t know how anyone, but I personally have never had any illusions about the idols of Western politics, be it Churchill or Techer, in my deep conviction they are all spiritual relatives of Hitler.
      2. 310815
        310815 1 February 2014 23: 49
        +3
        this must be told not only to us, but to blow the whole world about it, and now this shit is a legend and a hero. Why did the Russian government buy euronews? What would a Klitschko show as a symbol of freedom in Ukraine? or still to wage an information war in the west?
  2. AnpeL
    AnpeL 1 February 2014 09: 06
    +5
    What su.ko this devil. Although there, in the west, every politician falls under such a definition (or at least through one).
    1. Shur
      Shur 1 February 2014 16: 31
      +3
      All b .. without one. laughing Do you know him..
  3. FC SKIF
    FC SKIF 1 February 2014 09: 36
    +5
    And why about his "heroism" in World War 1 is not said. He had to treat the Turks like McCain to the Vietnamese. And so he is with thatcher of the same berry field. We, Russians, both hated with all our hearts and with their complicity there is too much Slavic blood
    1. Shur
      Shur 1 February 2014 16: 31
      +1
      All that they have no such thing, it does not hurt them there empty. Biorobots ..
  4. demotivator
    demotivator 1 February 2014 09: 47
    +25
    Churchill is our sworn enemy. What would have happened to our country if Stalin had not been at the helm of the USSR in the most difficult time for it, it is difficult even to imagine. But it was only Stalin who managed to make it so that Germany and Great Britain did not and could not, no matter how hard they tried, to conclude a military alliance against the USSR. But it would seem that everything is already "on the ointment", and Hess, the second person after Hitler, flew to London with powers. And here on you - Stalin upset all plans and Great Britain had to fight against Germany on the side of the USSR. True, we now know how she actually "fought", but thanks for that. It is known that Churchill was the initiator of the Cold War against the USSR, the plans for which, he outlined in his Fulton speech. But what is less known is the fact that it was Churchill who, immediately after the victory over Germany, planned a real, "hot" war against the USSR. At the beginning of April 1945, just before the end of the Great Patriotic War, W. Churchill ordered his chiefs of staff to develop an operation for a surprise strike against the USSR - Operation Unthinkable. It was provided to him on May 22, 1945 in 29 pages.
    According to this plan, the attack on the USSR was to begin following Hitler's principles - a sudden blow. On July 1, 1945, 47 British and American divisions, without any declaration of war, were to inflict a crushing blow on the naive Russians who did not expect such boundless meanness from their allies. The strike was supposed to be supported by 10-12 German divisions, which the "allies" kept undisturbed in Schleswig-Holstein and southern Denmark, they were trained daily by British instructors: they were preparing for war against the USSR. In theory, a war of the united forces of Western civilization against Russia was to begin - later other countries, for example, Poland, then Hungary, were to take part in the "crusade". The Anglo-Saxons were preparing to crush us with terror - the savage destruction of large Soviet cities: Moscow, Leningrad, Vladivostok, Murmansk and others with crushing blows of waves of "flying fortresses". Several million Russian people were to die in the "fiery whirlwinds" worked out to the smallest detail. So Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo were destroyed ... Now they were preparing to do this with us, with the allies. The usual thing: the most vile betrayal, extreme meanness and savage cruelty are the hallmark of Western Civilization and, especially, the Anglo-Saxons, who exterminated as many people as no other people in human history.
    And only Stalin thwarted these barbaric plans.
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 1 February 2014 11: 24
      +10
      Yes, Stalin saved the USSR in this situation. hi good
      1. Evgan
        Evgan 1 February 2014 12: 15
        +5
        Historically, this is not entirely true. The Unthinkable plan was not, strictly speaking, exactly a military action plan. It was rather an assessment of the possibility of such a war and a probable strategy of action. I must say that the British assessed the situation quite soberly. The text of the plan itself repeatedly indicates that the success of the actions is unlikely. Perhaps this explains its name - "Unthinkable".
        This I mean that speaking about Churchill, you should not go too far. Of course, he is not a humanist and to some extent an alcoholic, but he did a lot for his country. Another thing is that this "many things" often turned out to be hostile to us.
    2. Shur
      Shur 1 February 2014 16: 33
      +3
      Smoked bag for .. ma ..
  5. tennis
    tennis 1 February 2014 11: 14
    +4
    Centner with over shit.
  6. anomalocaris
    anomalocaris 1 February 2014 11: 44
    +14
    Do you know what is the most interesting? These data are not a secret, everyone knows this, but mind you, no one in the same England runs around beating himself with a heel in the chest and sprinkling ashes on his head, with calls to "repent".
  7. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 1 February 2014 12: 09
    +7
    Evil is so. Emotionally. And in general, the Kag-Bae is correct, but ... I'll say the following - Winston Churchill primarily worked in the interests of Britain, and the opinion of others and others did not interest him for the most part. Likewise, Stalin worked only in the interests of the Soviet Union ... Of course, I understand that a lot of nasty things have been written in the West about Joseph Vissarionovich, but you shouldn't be like these "civilized" ignoramuses who take any newspaper and Tyrnet's exhaust at face value .. ...
    And a little advice when writing material on a historical topic (and even with a claim to prove something to someone there) write it as objectively as possible and do not put loud statements in the title. Otherwise, it takes on the features and content of the feuilleton, and not a serious article on historical subjects. And feuilletons do not live long ...
    I won't bet you a minus. Exclusively respecting your time that you have spent on writing this opus, but next time write really balanced material, and not tabloid "pulp fiction" ...
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 1 February 2014 13: 09
      +3
      Quote: Chicot 1
      I’ll say the following - Winston Churchill primarily worked in the interests of Britain,

      The fact that this idea of ​​yours is absent in the text of the article is not important. He, W. Churchill, is undoubtedly British and undoubtedly with a kin son. The author in the last paragraph is the main thing: "for Churchill, power was more important than abstract ideals." The article put a plus. The country must know its enemies, even if they are dead.
      1. Chicot 1
        Chicot 1 1 February 2014 14: 53
        +1
        Quote: 11111mail.ru
        The fact that your thought is missing from the text of the article is not important

        The text of the article does not contain many important thoughts, and not only and not so much mine ... Therefore, it does not attract serious historical work. I don’t want to read the feuilletons ...
        Quote: 11111mail.ru
        He, W. Churchill, is undoubtedly British and undoubtedly with a kin son

        It would be strange if he was not "british". But about"c "y" kina son"This is a very controversial statement. Even to such an ambiguous person (and he was still a person), as Sir Winston Churchill ...
        Quote: 11111mail.ru
        "power was more important for Churchill than abstract ideals"

        Yes, power was important to him. But not as an end in itself, but as an instrument. Otherwise, he would not be able to do what he did and what he achieved, and would have remained in history as a third-rate ruler whom he would very rarely remember, and write even less. Even such articles ...
        Quote: 11111mail.ru
        The country must know its enemies, even the dead

        The country must know the enemies of today. And now they often hide behind the guise of friends. This is what we need to write about, and not to stir up (and, to no avail) the ashes of long gone ...
        And Churchill never hid the fact that he was Russia's number one enemy. And it's not a secret for anyone ...
        Quote: 11111mail.ru
        Article set plus

        Your right ... I have not set anything. Even the minus ...
        1. 11111mail.ru
          11111mail.ru 1 February 2014 17: 39
          +1
          Quote: Chicot 1
          I have not set anything. Even the minus ..

          I will give the second half of the quote by Y. Fuchik
          "... be afraid of people who are indifferent - it is with their tacit consent that all the most terrible crimes in the world occur."
          And about the "ambiguous personality" of the historical character under discussion, remember:
          1. Who on behalf of Great Britain replaced him in the negotiations in Potsdam?
          2. Why did this happen (not for a formally objective reason, but in fact)?
          About enemies under the guise of friends - in my opinion, these are: mass media + oligarchs + shadow eltsinoids such as red evil spirits + officials covering the business = the whole ErEfii add-on.
          I agree with the fact that this article is not a serious historical work.
    2. mirag2
      mirag2 1 February 2014 14: 56
      +4
      How can it be without anger and emotion?
      After all, he was an ENEMY to us, and brought up a generation of enemies who pray for his doctrine!
      And you say, do not become like a feuilletonist.
      Now what to say about the Nazis, well, they screwed up, well, okay, they wanted to do better for themselves ... fool
      1. Chicot 1
        Chicot 1 1 February 2014 17: 19
        0
        Quote: mirag2
        How can it be without anger and emotion?
        After all, he was an ENEMY to us-and raised a generation of enemies who pray for his doctrine

        Any enemy should always be treated with respect. Especially to the serious enemy. Otherwise, you lose ...
        Quote: mirag2
        And you say, do not be like a feuilletonist

        Yes talking. And even more than that, I repeat - history is not written in feuilleton. History is written in serious, balanced and objective works. And written by historians, not feuilletonists ...
        Alas, this work is not serious at all ...
        Quote: mirag2
        Now what to say about the Nazis, well, they messed up, well, okay, they wanted to do better for themselves

        And we must write about fascists seriously and objectively. And you need to study them seriously. In order not to repeat what they brought with them ...
        So this cute emoticon ( fool ) I return to you, dear Alexander. In order to continue to be guided by facts only in facts, and not in snot and emotions ... wink
    3. mirag2
      mirag2 1 February 2014 14: 58
      0
      How can it be without anger and emotion?
      After all, he was an ENEMY to us, and brought up a generation of enemies who pray for his doctrine!
      And you say, do not become like a feuilletonist.
      Now what to say about the Nazis, well, they messed up, well, okay, they wanted to be better for themselves ... fool
    4. builder
      builder 1 February 2014 22: 32
      +2
      I agree with you, Churchill is a typical British politician. The interests of Britain above all. I read his memoirs with interest. It was amazing how he blackmailed Roosevelt. A typical British approach to foreign policy. My personal opinion is that we were lucky that during the Second World War Churchill was at the helm of the British Empire, and not Chamberlain. The second time I was lucky that after the war, he quickly left the stage.
      1. Chicot 1
        Chicot 1 2 February 2014 21: 46
        +1
        Quote: stroitel
        Churchill is a typical British politician. The interests of Britain above all. I read his memoirs with interest. It was amazing how he blackmailed Roosevelt. A typical British approach to foreign policy. My personal opinion is that we were lucky that during the Second World War Churchill was at the helm of the British Empire, and not Chamberlain. The second time I was lucky that after the war, he quickly left the stage.

        I totally agree with you, Alexey ... But try to explain this obvious (and in general, lying on the surface) thing to our fans of "pulp fiction". Unrealistic!..
        And after all, sometimes an absolutely elementary thing does not reach them - if Stalin managed to outplay such a cunning political fox as Sir Winston Churchill (he himself, too, what they say, "did not digest", and called him nothing but "an old English pig"), then this speaks only of the greater statesmanship of Joseph Vissarionovich ...
    5. The comment was deleted.
  8. timm65
    timm65 1 February 2014 13: 42
    +7
    By the end of the Great Patriotic War and World War II, no one could resist the Soviet Army! Even the alliance of England and America, and even the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, does not touch the dignity of the Anglo-American alliance. If Comrade Stalin wanted, the whole of Europe and Asia would be pro-Soviet. But why didn’t it happen? Yes, because if Stalin had been a dictator, it would have happened. But we are "Russians" and our armored train is on the side track. The collapse of the imperial ambitions of the West is not far off.
  9. supertiger21
    supertiger21 1 February 2014 16: 01
    +2
    The fact that Churchill "looked askance" towards the USSR was noticed by Stalin. In addition, Winston wished to see both Germany and the Soviet Union in defeat. They did not open a "second front" until 1944, waiting for such a hope. It’s not worth it too much. After all, it was Churchill who was the first Western country in 1941 to want to help the Soviet people and Stalin personally. He began bombing military factories in southern Germany that produced tanks and artillery heading for Stalingrad. This move of the British Prime Minister also became one of the factors of the victory of the Soviet troops in Stalingrad.
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 1 February 2014 17: 52
      +3
      Quote: supertiger21
      .He began the bombing of military factories in southern Germany, which produced tanks and artillery bound for Stalingrad.

      I quote for you a piece of the Wiki article ...
      "This change in priority was agreed with the British Cabinet in 1942 after the presentation by Professor Lindemann, the leading scientific adviser to the government, of proposals to 'impoverish' the German workforce by bombing German cities. This change was caused, in part, by the inability of the British Air Force to target or even find targets smaller than cities, initially even finding cities was difficult. British Air Force Marshal Arthur Harris (also known as 'Bomber' Harris) was assigned to the mission and issued a new directive on bombing cities. "
      What communists in the Russian north to poison gases that the city to bomb. What danger did the Allies pose to Dresden? Read at your leisure about the bombing: on the night of February 13-14, Dresden was almost completely destroyed.
  10. konvalval
    konvalval 1 February 2014 16: 04
    +3
    Where the ideology is the golden calf, there can be no justice, humanism and other values ​​that the "democrats" have appropriated as bearers of these. They also have democracy only for their loved ones. And for others, bombs, including atomic bombs, shells, weapons of war, torture in prisons and in the occupied territories, etc. "joy" of life in the "civilized" world.
    Nor will they banish their own like some of our Stalin.
  11. R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№
    R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№ 1 February 2014 16: 35
    +1
    He did not hesitate to switch from party to party, he was either a liberal or a conservative. ”If he lived in our time, he would certainly be a pederast lol I look forward to continuing publications. good
  12. DZ_98_B
    DZ_98_B 1 February 2014 16: 57
    +1
    Of course I'm wrong. but Churchill is a great ruler and he is revered by his people. And his enemies don't like him. Churchill did a lot of useful things for his country. He was not a traitor to his country !!! Now appreciate Gorbachev. eltsyn. they are greatly appreciated by the enemies of our country. And how much did they do "good" to our country ????? In my opinion, this is the main thing. Our country. our people!!!!! and then everything else. Churchill followed this almost always. Sorry for the Saturday evening confusion. Saturday ... frost ... it's not a sin to drink.
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 1 February 2014 18: 01
      +1
      Quote: DZ_98_B
      Churchill the great ruler

      Go to England, bow to his ashes, and look at the grave of Karla Myrla. All the same "great people were. I myself would have gone to spit on theirs graves, but who would let me go there, and I don’t have that kind of money. If you get there, fulfill my request, please!
  13. sinukvl
    sinukvl 1 February 2014 18: 20
    +3
    After all, Churchill is a "knight of democracy" and Comrade Stalin is a "bloody tyrant". In general, the story with Tsar Ivan IV the Great is being repeated.
  14. Valentine77 64
    Valentine77 64 1 February 2014 18: 41
    +2
    Anglo-Saxons are rabble, thieves, descendants of cannibals. It was them in Russia who were called Germans (and not deutschemen). the German was hardworking and efficient (they also endured hardships, as did the Slavs). And those who led the Germans were geeks of the Holy Roman Empire. And the Churchill was the child of his ancestors, who slept and saw unlimited power on our earth.
  15. Valentine77 64
    Valentine77 64 1 February 2014 18: 42
    0
    Quote: 11111mail.ru
    You get there, please fulfill my request!

    And mine too.
  16. ochakow703
    ochakow703 1 February 2014 19: 00
    +2
    Well, Yeltsin and Gorbachev are generally out of competition. In the world, you probably cannot find such examples of betrayal of your country. Another is important. We are very gullible, and in spite of the SOCIAL education of the majority, we believe in people who muddy our country and its heroes. The West in this sense is much more loyal. They are less likely to surrender their own.
  17. Valentine77 64
    Valentine77 64 1 February 2014 19: 12
    0
    Quote: Valentine77 64
    Anglo-Saxons are rabble, thieves, descendants of cannibals. It was them in Russia who were called Germans (and not deutschemen). the German was hardworking and efficient (they also endured hardships, as did the Slavs). And those who led the Germans were geeks of the Holy Roman Empire. And the Churchill was the child of his ancestors, who slept and saw unlimited power on our earth.

    I will explain. With the advent of the Romanovs in Russia, even foreigners were allowed to settle.
    “On October 25, 1762, Ekaterina Alekseevna published a manifesto“ On allowing foreigners to settle in Russia and the free return of Russian people who fled abroad. ”A continuation of this document was the manifesto of July 22, 1763“ On allowing all foreigners entering Russia to settle in different provinces of their choice, their rights and benefits. ”(Military Review of October 25, 2013. But only the Germans (Germans) were able to settle down in Russia (including my native Volga region).
    Only among ordinary Russian children can German names be found, but not like French or Anglo-Saxon. This is one of the reasons.
  18. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 1 February 2014 19: 13
    +6
    The title is deeply false. These are not false idols. The idols are quite real, the West openly and with pleasure worships them! It's just that we, as usual, are bogged down in translations. But this is a completely meaningless occupation, the main god of the West in time immemorial said - do not tell the truth. Speak beautifully.
    So the idol is correct, blood from blood, bone from the bone of the Anglo-Saxons. A murderer, a bastard and a vile traitor, ready for anything, absolutely anything for profit. Moreover, the cleverest of those pursuing a profit, well aware that the authorities will correct any mistakes, return all losses, will exalt any problem that could be overwhelmed with other people's money or corpses of others. Well wonder why the Anglo-Saxons idolize him?
    The idol is real. He’s just not ours, not Russian. It is necessary to speak stubbornly, affirm and properly understand - THERE ARE NO UNIVERSAL VALUES. Not! We are talking about one thing, but we mean absolutely different! And the problem is not the lack of understanding. As a rule, the problem is too good understanding of each other. Since in general it is shameful to communicate with the Anglo-Saxons. Even those of them that treat cats all their lives ... in general, I do not advise trying to understand them properly. You will regret ...
    1. PValery53
      PValery53 3 February 2014 06: 21
      0
      Do you mean to say that under the external honesty lies a "viper" nation? - At least in the political sphere, - I agree, yes.
  19. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 1 February 2014 19: 51
    +1
    Once again, the article about the hypocrisy and deceit of the Anglo-Saxons convinces. For me personally, the policy of the West is always based on achieving its goals by any means. No moral qualifications. On the rights of force. As soon as the Great Empire collapsed, not without the help of traitors, the hypocrisy and deceit of Western policy became open. It is simply necessary to put both the "exceptional" and the "tolerant" in their place. They are afraid of strength. Otherwise, we will continue to be taught what to do in order to continue to destroy our people and our industry.
    Perhaps for this to use Churchill's methods - unprincipled and without reservations? Let's see how the champions of freedom and human rights screech. soldier
  20. bevatec
    bevatec 1 February 2014 19: 57
    +1
    What a bastard-bastard-! I did everything only in order to live well and calmly in some England. And it turned out, where now real estate and children learn from the Russian "niggardly-negad-misfits", not even trying something To do something like this for Russia? Only for such custom-made articles, there is enough intelligence. But THERE do not have that much money for the Olympiad!
  21. Valentine77 64
    Valentine77 64 1 February 2014 20: 41
    +1
    And this is what the Anglo-Saxons are doing in Germany (everyone knows very well that not a single chancellor will become a chancellor without a directive, and all laws are passed at the direction of the latter)
    http://nnm.me/blogs/oskar85/parazity-rastlevayut-evropu/
  22. Valentine77 64
    Valentine77 64 1 February 2014 20: 44
    0
    Quote: Rurikovich
    Once again, the article about the hypocrisy and deceit of the Anglo-Saxons convinces. For me personally, the policy of the West is always based on achieving its goals by any means. No moral qualifications. On the rights of force. As soon as the Great Empire collapsed, not without the help of traitors, the hypocrisy and deceit of Western policy became open. It is simply necessary to put both the "exceptional" and the "tolerant" in their place. They are afraid of strength. Otherwise, we will continue to be taught what to do in order to continue to destroy our people and our industry.
    Perhaps for this to use Churchill's methods - unprincipled and without reservations? Let's see how the champions of freedom and human rights screech. soldier

    I hope that your Old Man will do so. He, hopefully, will not make the right choice. But Janek is weak and keeps his money not where the country's wealth is growing, but where it has already been plucked (Cyprus).
  23. Lexx
    Lexx 1 February 2014 21: 20
    +2
    Why false idols? They personify the West.
  24. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 2 February 2014 00: 35
    +2
    Quote: Valentine77 64
    He, hopefully, will not make the right choice.


    ????? WILL MAKE the right choice or DO NOT make the right choice ????? It’s somehow incomprehensible. It is not clear how to interpret - positively or negatively? what
  25. Sadikoff
    Sadikoff 2 February 2014 06: 16
    0
    I would note this time as the birth of a new trend, the decline of the West in its modern form and the entry into the usual first roles of Russia. And the States will be appointed goats (in fact, the ilita has more than one citizenship). But all the evil brought by others will be reflected in the events on the land of North America. There will certainly be a new state, but the main language will be Spanish (the Indians do not have a single language).
  26. Ussuriets
    Ussuriets 2 February 2014 07: 36
    +1
    Churchill is a typical English arrogant erysipelas, he thought only of himself, that's why he lived for many years. It is surprising that he did not die of lung cancer.
  27. Pamir210
    Pamir210 2 February 2014 11: 32
    -1
    more pleasant to scold the west))
    despite the fact that Lenin, mustachioed and other bandits in Russia have done much more
  28. IOwTZ
    IOwTZ 2 February 2014 11: 54
    0
    And who is not there?
  29. Altona
    Altona 2 February 2014 12: 12
    0
    Quote: Chicot 1
    I’ll say the following: Winston Churchill primarily worked in the interests of Britain, and the opinions of others and others for the most part did not interest him.

    ------------------------------
    Actually, his behavior was the behavior of a "little squeezed donkey", who had nothing else to do but play around and shit wherever possible ... He took on the role of conductor in the position of the West, and he actually succeeded in this role ...
  30. q_556
    q_556 2 February 2014 14: 12
    0
    Churchill is one of the main initiators of the creation of the NATO bloc, he was one of the culprits of the beginning of the Cold War, pushing the United States and the USSR into a competition that both of them did not need in figs. If it were not for him, the West did not know about any mythical "red threat", and the aggressors would not be molded out of us.
  31. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 2 February 2014 15: 47
    0
    That dog! Foggy Albion of Horseradish! negative
  32. pan_nor
    pan_nor 2 February 2014 18: 27
    -1
    Quote: MolGro
    this cigar lover killed more than 80 ml of the citizens of the colonies and 100 thousand Irish castrated.

    BURN IT IN HELL
  33. PValery53
    PValery53 2 February 2014 19: 54
    0
    This political Neanderthal's speech in Fulton sparked the Cold War. The entire West was consolidated in the isolation of the Soviet Union. This canal hindered the development of our country long after its death. Let him "there" be empty!