Military Review

Russia's greatest british and hater

105
Russia's greatest british and hater 140 years ago, 30 November 1874, born Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Churchill was descended from the aristocratic family of the Dukes of Marlborough and, according to the British, became one of the most prominent statesmen of Great Britain. This was confirmed by the 2002 survey of the year, when, according to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Winston Churchill was named the greatest Briton in stories.

Winston Churchill is certainly one of the most revered figures in the West. In Europe, he is called the “knight of democracy” and “the greatest leader of the 20th century.” Indeed, the head of the Admiralty, Chancellor of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Prime Minister of Great Britain (1940-1945 and 1951-1955), one of the Big Three participants, herald of the Cold War, as well as a talented journalist, writer and Nobel Prize winner in literature - Sir Winston Churchill was an outstanding personality and at the same time one of the most serious enemies of the Russian people and the Russian civilization.

Churchill's father belonged to the conservative political elite. Churchill began his career on the military ladder, he served in Cuba, British India and Sudan. At the same time, he proved himself to be a talented military journalist, covering the events of the uprising against the Spaniards in Cuba, the struggle against the Pashtuns in British India, and the suppression of the Mahdist uprising in Sudan. In some cases, Churchill showed unconditional personal courage. At the time of his resignation, Churchill received recognition as a writer and journalist, his book about the Sudanese campaign - “War on the River” became a bestseller.

This allowed him to start a political career. In 1899, Churchill ran for parliament from the Conservative Party, but failed. Churchill went to South Africa as a war correspondent, where the Anglo-Boer War began. The armored train on which Churchill rode was ambushed by the Boers. Churchill here again showed himself to be a brave man, having volunteered to clear the paths which were littered with stones. Churchill and several dozen soldiers were captured. The young journalist fled from the prison camp and successfully made his way to his. This escape made him famous. In the 1900 year, in the 26 years, Churchill first became a member of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons (he later went over to the liberals). Churchill was attracted to the political game, he had long sought power. “Power,” the politician wrote, “is a drug. Who tried it at least once - poisoned forever. "

In the future, Churchill's career went on increasing: he consistently held the posts of Deputy Minister for Colonial Affairs (he worked on the constitution for the defeated Boers), Minister for Trade and Industry, and Minister of the Interior. It must be said that the Home Office was considered one of the three most important government agencies in England. On the eve of World War I, Churchill took over as First Lord of the Admiralty. The British fleet, which has always been one of the most important instruments of British foreign policy, underwent one of the largest modernizations in its history, so Churchill undoubtedly left the post of Secretary of the Interior. During this period, the main headquarters of the Navy, aviation, new types of warships were designed and laid down (like the very successful Queen Elizabeth class dreadnoughts). The fleet began to switch from coal to liquid fuel. For this, Churchill initiated the allocation of funds for the acquisition of a controlling interest in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which had far-reaching strategic consequences. The Persian Gulf and Persia for a long time became a region of strategic interests of the Anglo-Saxons.

During the First World War, Churchill initiated the defense of Antwerp, when the Belgian government already wanted to leave the city. It was not possible to keep the city, but many noted that this operation allowed to keep Kale and Dunkirk. As chairman of the “Land Ships Commission,” Churchill took part in the creation of the first tanks and gave way to the armored forces. The unsuccessful Dardanelles operation, of which Churchill was one of the initiators, dealt a blow to his career. Churchill claimed responsibility for the failure by resigning and went to the Western Front as a battalion commander.

In 1917, he returned to big politics, headed the Ministry of Weapons, then became Minister of War and Minister of Aviation. During this period, Churchill became one of the main initiators of the Entente's intervention in Soviet Russia. In his opinion, the West was supposed to "strangle Bolshevism in the cradle." Due to Churchill's hatred of the Soviet state, British troops were withdrawn from Russia only in 1920 year.

Later, Churchill continued to occupy important posts: he was appointed minister for colonies, in 1924 he occupied the second most important position in the state - the Chancellor of the Treasury (Minister of Finance). Then there was a certain decline in his political career, in 1930-ies Churchill was more engaged in literary activity. The British politician was an opponent of London’s course on “appeasing Hitler”. When "Hitler's policy of appeasement" completely collapsed, Churchill's finest hour came. During the Second World War, he became Minister of Defense and the head of government, a member of the "Big Three". Churchill, along with Roosevelt and Stalin in these years, decided the fate of the whole world. He had a serious impact on the course of the Second World War, delaying the opening of the Second Front in Europe for three years!

After losing the election in July 1945, Churchill returned to literary activity again. He worked on his memoirs - "The Second World War." Churchill is considered one of the main initiators of the beginning of the so-called. Cold War "(some experts call it the Third World War, which ended in defeat and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc). It was Churchill who insisted on the start of Operation Unthinkable as early as 1945 — in early July 1945, British forces, the United States, the remnants of the Wehrmacht (they were not dismissed and kept ready), and possibly Turkey, should have hit the Soviet army. Only the fear of the might of Stalinist USSR and the Soviet army, which at first with fierce battles retreated to Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, and then repulsed lost lands and liberated Europe, stormed Berlin, kept the leaders of the United States and Britain from the immediate start of a new global war. It was Churchill at 5 in March 1946 at Westminster College in Fulton that delivered the speech, which they consider to be the starting point of the Cold War. A little later - September 19, giving a speech at the University of Zurich, Churchill called on former opponents - Germany, France and England to reconciliation and the establishment of the "United States of Europe". As a result, the course of Adolf Hitler to create a united Europe and the confrontation with the Russian civilization was continued.

In 1947, Winston Churchill urged The United States is launching a nuclear strike on the USSR to win the Cold War. A note from one of the FBI agents says that Churchill called on Republican Senator Stiles Bridges to convince US President Harry Truman to launch an atomic war in order to destroy the Kremlin and turn the USSR into an "easy problem." The FBI documents show that Churchill hated the USSR so much that he was ready to make enormous civilian casualties.

In 1951, Churchill became the head of the British government again, although he was already 76 years old and was not allowed to do any good health. In 1953, Churchill became a knight, and he was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature. In 1955, Churchill resigned for health reasons.

Convinced enemy of Russia

Thus, Churchill was a gifted and great statesman, but we must remember that this was a staunch enemy of our Motherland. He hated not only Soviet power and communism, but also Russia as such.

Churchill became one of the main organizers of the intervention of the Western powers against Russia during the Civil War. At the same time, Churchill pushed Germany to invade Soviet Russia, cynically saying: “Let the Huns kill the Bolsheviks”. No wonder Lenin defined Churchill - "the greatest hater of Soviet Russia." England during this period encouraged the disintegration of Russia into separatist "states", assisted various separatist and white nationalists (and in the south to the Basmachis), kindled the fire of the Civil War in the country, and landed assault forces in the zones of their "vital interests". By February, 1919, England had a military contingent of 44 thousand bayonets in Russia. The British donated 60 million pounds to the white Volunteer Army, and armed Kolchak’s army. Churchill explained such generosity quite frankly: "It would be a mistake to think that during this year we fought for the Russian White Guards, on the contrary, the Russian White Guards fought for our affairs."

This invasion claimed thousands of lives and resulted in material losses of billions of gold rubles. The British invaders brought a lot of grief to the Russian land. They try not to disclose information about this in order not to spoil relations with Western "partners". Wherever there were Western invaders, terror, robbery and violence reigned. Only the heroic struggle of the Russian people against the invaders and their various puppets - from whites to nationalists and Basmachs, then saved Russia from dismemberment and civilizational catastrophe. The enemies of the Russian people were defeated and were forced to get out, postponing plans to dismember Russia into spheres of influence and dependent state formations for the future.

In 1920-ies, Churchill joined the champion of "united Europe", the core of which should have been Britain, Germany, France and Italy. His ideas then echoed the thoughts of Adolf Hitler, who advocated a close alliance with England and Italy. At the same time, Churchill supported the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini. The active struggle against the Communists brought Churchill closer to Mussolini. Initially, Churchill paid close attention to the "rising star" of the great European policy - Hitler. Later, Churchill was opposed to the course of the British government to "appease Hitler," but he believed that it was necessary to turn Germany into the main enemy of Soviet Russia.

Stalin was well aware of Churchill’s hatred of Russia and the difficulties of England after the defeat of France, therefore he was very critical of his reports about the impending attack of Hitler's Germany on the Soviet Union. For England, in her position (after the defeat of France), the war of Germany with the USSR was the ideal option. Churchill was the most interested man in the world in Germany attacking the USSR. After the fall of France, the German submarines intensified on sea communications, over the island of England, connected with the whole world and their colonies and dominions by the closest trade ties, the threat of a naval blockade. A blockade led to a sharp industrial (raw) trade and financial crisis. Moreover, the German military machine, which then seemed invincible, was actively preparing for a landing operation in the British Isles. London was gripped by fear. How long can Britain stand up to the German army? In this situation, 25 June 1940, Churchill and wrote a letter to Stalin. Then Churchill wrote a few more letters to Stalin. But they were all written at a critical moment for England.

The most famous letter was written by Churchill 19 on April 1941. However, it is necessary to pay attention to the position of England at this moment. German troops on the eve of captured Belgrade, Yugoslavia surrendered, part of Rommel went to the borders of Egypt. Greece was on the eve of surrender, British troops in Greece were in a dangerous position. The question was whether they could be evacuated or not. The bombing of England by German aircraft intensified. And in this situation, Churchill "warns" Stalin about Hitler’s close attack on the USSR.

In addition, Moscow quite rationally raised the question of the sources of information in London. The British could not foresee the rout of France and almost lost their expeditionary forces. The question arose why the British missed the defeat of the Anglo-French forces. Churchill wrote a letter to Stalin in April 1941 of the year, and a month later the German troops carried out a brilliant landing operation to capture Crete. Why did British intelligence, they might have thought in Moscow, know about the plans of Germany’s attack on the USSR, but could not foil the enemy’s plans against the British forces?

In fact, these were provocations aimed at pushing Germany from the USSR. Churchill did not "warn" the USSR, and by default offered to strike in Germany. They say that the moment is convenient - Hitler is bound by the struggle against England, you can open a second front and defeat the Third Reich. However, Stalin did not fall for these provocations. Otherwise, the USSR would have looked in the face of the entire world community as an aggressor who attacked Germany.

Churchill’s actions during World War II, when England was forced to ally with the USSR, confirmed its reputation as an enemy of Russia. The head of Britain promised Stalin to open a second front in the winter of 1941 of the year. However, instead of a real operation, he made an adventurous disembarkation near the port of Dieppe in the north of France in August 1942. German forces easily defeated poorly trained troops. The operation cost the Canadians and the British about 4 thousand dead and captured soldiers. After sacrificing several thousand people, Churchill was able to persuade Stalin alone to fight Hitler. Like, the operation is very difficult and difficult to prepare.

Behind Russia, London continued to weave spider webs. The British Prime Minister tried to destroy the outlined mutual understanding between Stalin and Roosevelt. Churchill dreamed of opening the Balkan front to cut off Soviet troops from Central Europe. There was another battle for Stalingrad and the Caucasus, when Churchill, in his memorandum to the members of the British military cabinet, noted: “All my thoughts are directed primarily to Europe, as the ancestor of modern nations and civilization. It would have been a terrible disaster if Russian barbarism had destroyed the culture and independence of the ancient European states. ”

Even during the war with Germany, the Anglo-Saxons were working on the issue of collusion with Germany (for this purpose they planned to eliminate Hitler and reach an agreement with his successors). Germany was to dissolve the Western Front and turn all forces against the USSR. The Allies landed in France, the Germans gave them a corridor to the Eastern Front, so that the Allied forces occupied most of Europe. In May 1945, Churchill gave a secret order to the Joint Military Planning Planning Headquarters to prepare a plan of war with the Soviet Union. 22 May 1945, the Unthinkable Plan was prepared. With the first surprise attack, the Allies planned to destroy the Soviet troops in Germany. The operation was supposed to take half a million army, which were to support the remnants of the Wehrmacht. For this, even before the end of the war, when the Germans surrendered to the masses, they did not dissolve from the formation, but together with the officers were kept in camps. BUT weapon stored in order to distribute to the Germans at the right moment. It was planned that the war against the USSR would begin on July 1 of the year 1945. Churchill dreamed of defeating the weakened by the war, he believed, the Soviet Union, to subordinate it to the will of Britain and the United States.

However, all Churchill's plans — the invasion of the Allied forces in the Balkans, the separate peace with Hitler, and Operation Unthinkable — were never realized. Moscow crossed all the plans of the Anglo-Saxons. So, having learned in advance about the plans of the “allies, Stalin ordered the regrouping of the troops so that they were ready to repel the treacherous blow. 29 June 1945, the Soviet troops took more advantageous positions and prepared to repel the blow. Therefore, the Western allies had to abandon the offensive. In addition, the Soviet Union promulgated information about the unreleased parts of the Wehrmacht, and Churchill disbanded the German army.
Author:
105 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lyton
    Lyton 30 November 2014 05: 24
    +17
    Tolstoy hog has always been an enemy of Russia.
    1. Very old
      Very old 30 November 2014 05: 36
      +11
      Speaking of greatness: It turns out that Winnie is the greatest of all undersinkers.
      I read a biography recently ... whoever told me before would not believe
      And the great enemy
    2. Denis fj
      Denis fj 30 November 2014 12: 38
      +1
      Yes. Right
      After all, the fact that the klikuhu "The Greatest Hater of Russia" - US Churchill received MORE from Lenin himself.
      But about this Author - not a word.
      Isn't that so important?
      1. Gendalf
        Gendalf 30 November 2014 12: 55
        +8
        You would read more closely.
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 30 November 2014 21: 15
          0
          Quote: Gendalf
          But about this Author - not a word.

          Quote: Gendalf
          You would read more closely.

          Well, yes ... it won’t hurt
      2. complete zero
        complete zero 1 December 2014 00: 21
        -2
        Lenin can be beaten up ... if there is a hater, it’s a burry Ilyich ... Stalin at least built something and this Eccentric just destroyed the letter m (count him aspen in the liver)
        1. jjj
          jjj 1 December 2014 00: 34
          +4
          The most amazing thing is that according to the results of World War II, Comrade Stalin destroyed the British Empire with the hands of the United States. Britain was forced to give freedom to its colonies. And the USSR increased its power with the bloc of socialist countries. The fact remains, Joseph Vissarionovich outplayed the frantic Winston
          1. AGG024
            AGG024 1 December 2014 19: 40
            0
            I don’t know how much it’s true, but after Stalin’s death Churchill, gritting his teeth, said: "That this man should be respected only for the fact that he took the country with a plow and left with an atomic bomb."
    3. Denis fj
      Denis fj 30 November 2014 12: 40
      +6
      Britain’s hatred of Russia is actually systemic and rooted deep in the past.
      Let us recall at least the fact that it is thanks to Great Britain that today Istanbul, the former capital of Byzantium, does not belong to the peasant world and Russia in particular. It was thanks to the British threats that Russian troops never entered Istanbul during the Russian-Turkish war (in particular, see the feature film "The Turkish Gambit").
      Studying information about the ancient Slavic world and its history, I come to the conclusion that those tribes that went to the Great Albion (British Isles) were at one time outcasts in the ancient world of the Slavic-Aryans. I will assume that it’s just for its genetic trait like meanness, hypocrisy, and lack of conscience. As confirmation of this, the word CONSCIENCE is not in English.
      It is from there, from the depths of centuries, and the systematic hatred of the British towards the Russians (and the Germans as well). Because the Russians and Germans are, in fact, the closest nation-brothers, based on materials from ancient Slavic-Aryan history. It was the Russians (former Slavs) and Germans (former Aryans) who at one time expelled the ancestors of today's English from their society, from their tribe and from their Slavic-Aryan land.
      1. Turkir
        Turkir 30 November 2014 13: 11
        +1
        Studying information about the ancient Slavic world and its history, I come to the conclusion that those tribes that went to the Great Albion (British Isles) were at one time outcasts in the ancient world of the Slavic-Aryans.

        They are R1b i.e. rbeshniki, as Klyosov writes. They have nothing to do with us.
        His latest book is "Aryan peoples in the vastness of Eurasia" together with K. Penzev. I recommend. I am also interested in these issues.
        And the word "conscience", they really do not have.
        1. Turkir
          Turkir 30 November 2014 21: 25
          0
          They are R1b i.e. erbeshnikias Klyosov writes.
          -------
          A typo.
      2. andrew42
        andrew42 30 November 2014 13: 35
        +5
        I disagree about the "outcast" tribes hostile to both the Slavs and the "new Germanic" tribes formed in Europe. Take the Saxons as a newly formed tribal union. How much slop has been poured on them by the "Euro-history", starting with the Legend of Siegfried - savages, invaders, almost cannibals. Doesn't it look like anything? So, England, as the southern half of Britain, was in the 10th century the kingdom of the Saxons in the first place. And Northumbria with York is the "land of the northerners", the descendants of the Scandinavians, with "Danish law". Both of them were united by the symbiosis of the Saxon and Scandinavian elites. And now about the opposite side. These are the Franks who Christianized for the sake of usurpation of royal power, torturing the Saxons in Europe with fire, cross and sword for more than a century (Carlos the Great, and other Carolingians who directly did business with the Rachdonite Jews). These are Normandy and William the Conqueror, who used the ideology of the crusade in their invasion of England. It was after this that the indigenous (at that time) English - the Saxons, Jutes, Northumberland - became a serf-free population in their country, which can be robbed, killed and hanged with impunity. and the mechanism of the invasion of England was 100% copied by the late knights' gatherings from all over Europe, "carrying" the cross of true faith, "against Christians, but far from the aggressive fanaticism of the popes. It was then that England began to turn into an aggressive plague for the whole of Europe, - under the rule of the Normans, completely identical to the later image of the Baltic knight-robber. Therefore, you are in vain about the "outcasts" who left for the British islands during the "dark" (hushed up) Middle Ages 5-8 centuries. Vladimir Monomakh would not have chosen a wife from outcasts - Edgita (clear), the daughter of Harold, the son of Godwin (Godin that is) After the defeat of Attila and the death of the Huns in Europe (the tip of the weapon against Judo-Christianity), we know NOTHING about the struggle of the peoples of the Circumbaltic region against the emerging new Christian "Roman Empire" with the Franks during The result is known for that - the cruel colonization of England, the genocide of Saxony, the death of Slavic Europe, - up to 1240-1242 years of the Neva and Ice battles, and thunder of the "Hungarian" crusade by the Polovtsian Khan Bonyak, and then Batyev's western counter-campaign, which exactly repeated the path of Attila.
        1. Turkir
          Turkir 30 November 2014 20: 53
          +1
          And in my opinion, dynastic marriages, as now, already among the financial kings, have a very practical or political side, and not a genetic one, which, according to my information, at that time repeat no one had a clue.
      3. andrew42
        andrew42 30 November 2014 13: 40
        +3
        and most importantly, nothing has changed in the course of fifteen hundred years in the policy of the contenders for world domination. Earlier it was "sword, cross and fire", in our time - "sword, democracy, and colored revolutions".
        1. Talgat
          Talgat 30 November 2014 17: 19
          +2
          I apologize of course for repeating myself - but the English geopoliticians themselves, represented by the founder Mackinder, clearly explain their position - there is a civilization of the "sea" - the WEST, which will always fight with the "land" "heartland" as they call us

          According to them, Eurasia is the "heartland" - this is the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan in the first place - from here came "Tatar Mongols" (although they are not Mongols and Tatars conventionally) and Russian and Soviet troops in the Second World War, etc.

          and this "heartland" they must crush - drive deep into the continent - cut off from the seas - divide into parts - set some peoples against others - the main thing is to prevent the integration of the peoples of the "heartland" into the Eurasian empire

          And they hate Russians in the first place for the simple reason that Russians are now the basis and majority of the "Heartland"
          For example, tomorrow the Buryats will be the basis of Eurasia - so they will push the Buryats, etc.

          Churchill is a patriot of the Naglo-Saxons and a representative of the "world government" - an outspoken enemy and a representative of enemies

          But - in Eurasia, there were always leaders no worse than Churchill - who led our peoples to independence and a dignified life - these are Attila and the khans of the golden horde and Peter and Stalin - and now they are the leaders of the Eurasian troika - maybe they are not drawn to Stalin it is already clear that they have taken a course towards unification and liberation from the Western "yoke"
          1. Turkir
            Turkir 30 November 2014 20: 54
            +1
            If you are interested in my opinion: I completely agree with you.
    4. ava09
      ava09 30 November 2014 18: 17
      0
      Tolstoy hog was an enemy not only of Russia, he was an enemy of the entire non-Jew-Anglo-Saxon world.
    5. 225chay
      225chay 30 November 2014 23: 21
      0
      Quote: Lyton
      Tolstoy hog has always been an enemy of Russia.


      Right!
      And that he was not strangled by accident even when he was in captivity ...
  2. Lyton
    Lyton 30 November 2014 05: 42
    +1
    He amer and Pearl Harbor framed, to draw them into the war, he knew about the upcoming attack of the Yap, but did not begin to warn about this and reached his goal.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 30 November 2014 06: 33
      +6
      Quote: Lyton
      He amer and Pearl Harbor framed, to draw them into the war, he knew about the upcoming attack of the Yap, but did not begin to warn about this and reached his goal.

      the Yankees themselves provoked this attack, there was not a single aircraft carrier there - this time (they managed to withdraw, and the fleet was less than a quarter), and secondly they had to get out of the protracted depression, so they simply sacrificed the base at Pearl Harbor.
      1. Lyton
        Lyton 30 November 2014 10: 33
        0
        You affirm this as your own conclusions and so categorically the ultimate truth or there are documents confirming your words. In fact, sacrificing the Pacific Fleet, except for the aircraft carriers anchored, is even cool and stupid for amers.
        1. Alex
          Alex 30 November 2014 11: 30
          +5
          Quote: Lyton
          In fact, sacrificing the Pacific Fleet, except for the aircraft carriers anchored, is even cool and stupid for amers.

          Well, to consider old and, by and large, of little use for that time battleships "Pacific Fleet" - this is also pretty cool.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Alex
        Alex 30 November 2014 11: 28
        +3
        Quote: PSih2097
        so the base at Pearl Harbor was simply sacrificed.

        Yes, and not so much to sacrifice: they restored it pretty quickly. Maybe they planned that they would lose, but the Japanese presented them with a gift - they did not begin to land troops.
        1. Lyton
          Lyton 30 November 2014 13: 21
          0
          You, I look at a very high opinion about the amers, the admirals apparently were also not in the know, who was planning then?
          Mr. Churchill spoke of them like this: "I have always liked the Americans, they always find the right solution after trying everything else." There is no need to exalt our enemies so much.
        2. Lyton
          Lyton 30 November 2014 13: 21
          +1
          You, I look at a very high opinion about the amers, the admirals apparently were also not in the know, who was planning then?
          Mr. Churchill spoke of them like this: "I have always liked the Americans, they always find the right solution after trying everything else." There is no need to exalt our enemies so much.
  3. Igor39
    Igor39 30 November 2014 05: 53
    +3
    Great, but addicted to tobacco and alcohol, the addict is shorter.
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 30 November 2014 06: 47
      +7
      The time for the election of a new political leader is coming, and your vote
      will certainly be counted. Here are the characteristics of the three main
      Favorites:

      Candidate 1.
      He was repeatedly seen in relations with semi-underground financial
      bigwigs and former bandits. Physically unwell. Had two
      lovers. Heavy smoker. Drinks 8-10 martinis every day.

      Candidate 2.
      Twice expelled from his service. Has the habit of sleeping until noon.
      I used drugs during my studies. Drinks a bottle every night
      cognac.

      Candidate 3.
      He has military awards for courage and heroism. Vegetarian. I do not smoke.
      From alcoholic drinks - from time to time only drinks beer.
      Never been implicated in any suspicious contacts with the mafia,
      criminals, money laundering or other illegal actions. Modest
      at home.

      Vote for your candidate.
      1 ._______
      2 ._______
      3 ._______
      Thank you.






      List of candidates:
      Candidate 1 - Franklin D. Roosevelt.
      Candidate 2 - Winston Churchill.
      Candidate 3 - Adolf Hitler.
      1. AlNikolaich
        AlNikolaich 30 November 2014 07: 39
        +10
        Quote: Nagan
        Vote for your candidate.
        1 ._______
        2 ._______
        3 ._______
        Thank you.

        Hello! This is by the way not our candidates ...
        Colleague, which is characteristic, the first of these candidates pulled his country out
        Great Depression, and a third of his country from no less deep economic
        asses, both of them helped strengthen their countries.
        Fourth, and the main candidate! He took the country with a candle, handed over with a nuclear bomb.
        Created a new economic model. Carried out industrialization.
        I smoked a pipe. And there was no drink. He is modest in life. He wore a mustache.
        We vote for this candidate!
        The candidate 2 against the background of all those presented does not stand out at all with anything positive.
        And for Britain, he did a little especially good. One of many...
      2. stoker
        stoker 30 November 2014 07: 54
        +6
        Quote: Nagan


        Candidate 1.
        He was repeatedly seen in relations with semi-underground financial
        bigwigs and former bandits. Physically unwell. Had two
        lovers. Heavy smoker. Drinks 8-10 martinis every day.

        Candidate 2.
        Twice expelled from his service. Has the habit of sleeping until noon.
        I used drugs during my studies. Drinks a bottle every night
        cognac.

        Candidate 3.
        He has military awards for courage and heroism. Vegetarian. I do not smoke.
        From alcoholic drinks - from time to time only drinks beer.
        Never been implicated in any suspicious contacts with the mafia,
        criminals, money laundering or other illegal actions. Modest
        at home.


        Well, in fairness, I must say that
        not everyone who had "two mistresses" became US Presidents;


        not everyone who is familiar with drugs and "drank a bottle of cognac every night" became prime ministers of Great Britain;

        not everyone who has "combat awards for courage and heroism" becomes dictators.

        Apparently, there were other character traits and life circumstances that determined their life path.
    2. blizart
      blizart 30 November 2014 08: 56
      +1
      Quote: Igor39
      Great, but addicted to tobacco and alcohol, the addict is shorter.
      Which lived up to 90 years by the way (or by the way, how to look). When asked about the secret of his longevity, he jokingly said: If it was possible to lie, I was lying, when it was impossible to lie, I was sitting, and only in extreme cases, I stood
      1. Shaitan
        Shaitan 30 November 2014 11: 04
        +4
        Actually, the phrase sounds like this: I never stood when I could sit and I never sat when I could lie!
        1. blizart
          blizart 30 November 2014 15: 05
          0
          Well, today we learned one more transcription smile
      2. Turkir
        Turkir 30 November 2014 21: 01
        +1
        He paraphrased the Arabic proverb:
        "It is better to sit than to stand;
        Better to lie than to sit;
        Better to die than to lie. " winked
    3. sub307
      sub307 30 November 2014 11: 38
      +1
      His talents would be many who are not addicted to either tobacco or alcohol. "Good" question: were there any teetotalers in general?
      1. Alex
        Alex 30 November 2014 12: 25
        +2
        Quote: sub307
        "Good" question: were there any teetotalers in general?

        So their work is nervous ... repeat
    4. The comment was deleted.
  4. Karabanov
    Karabanov 30 November 2014 05: 58
    +6
    Greatness can also be different ... Great people and great scum will always find fans. Personally, this hypocritical fat hog with a cigar never impressed me ...
    1. Alex
      Alex 30 November 2014 11: 41
      +5
      Quote: Karabanov
      Greatness may be different.

      That's for sure. Churchill, it seems to me, had a brilliant ability to achieve a small, but positive result, doing practically nothing. Maybe then for England it was just necessary not to vibrate and rush at everything that they saw, but to sit quietly and not shine. Fortunately, Hitler was busy with the USSR, there were no time for the islands. Until 1943, we sat out, then the States basement in full, so you can begin to portray greatness. In general, everything was just like in the WWI — until Germany ran out of steam and the Americans, like locusts, pounced, England quietly sat and did not blather.
      1. Karabanov
        Karabanov 30 November 2014 17: 41
        0
        Damn it ... You're right.
  5. demotivator
    demotivator 30 November 2014 06: 00
    +2
    Churchill was a gifted and great statesman, but we must remember that he was a convinced enemy of our country. He hated not only Soviet power and communism, but also Russia as such.


    Yes, that's right - a staunch enemy of Russia. Our sworn "friend". And yet he is one of those who decided the fate of the world in the 20th century. Churchill was still the same enemy for us. Fierce and merciless.
    Churchill fanatically hated the Soviet Union, Churchill promised inviolability to Hitler during the "throw" on the USSR, Churchill was not going to open the Second Front - he pulled as much as he could, and the echo of artillery pieces on the battlefields of World War II had not yet died away, like Churchill in his Fulton speech released the spirit of another war, this time a cold one ..
    It was Churchill who betrayed the USSR in 1941 and concluded a personal agreement with Hitler on "benevolent neutrality." The text and meaning of this agreement on May 12, 1941 was brought to Churchill by the second German leader Hess. True, it would be a stretch to say that Churchill betrayed us: after all, he was a patriot of the British Empire only and always served only her. Thus, we can say that Churchill, in an unclear situation of the beginning of the war between Germany and the USSR and the alleged defeat of the USSR, tried to catch a fish in troubled waters and bargain for Britain the conditions of a future world better.
    Then, after Stalingrad, when it became clear that Germany would never win the USSR, Churchill and subsequent British governments, right up to the present, did everything so that nothing would be known about this Churchill-Hitler agreement. Today, any Democrat will tell you that you need to shout about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and not about the Churchill-Hitler Pact.
    1. valokordin
      valokordin 30 November 2014 17: 51
      -1
      Quote: demotivator
      Today, any Democrat will tell you that you need to shout about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and not about the Churchill-Hitler Pact.

      By the power of hatred of Russia, Churchill is comparable to Poroshenko and his team, the latter even more. Death to the Urofascist invaders.
      1. Cat man null
        Cat man null 30 November 2014 21: 22
        +1
        Yeah .. and Lake Baikal looks like .. a cucumber

        Amused, really))

        Cockroach compared to a tank kakbe))
  6. Loner_53
    Loner_53 30 November 2014 06: 01
    +3
    If you look closely, it looks like dill parosenko, the same boar wink
  7. dmi.pris
    dmi.pris 30 November 2014 06: 17
    +4
    Of course, the enemy is # 1 but the enemy is not disguised and obvious. A more dangerous friend who smiles and holds a stone in his bosom.
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 30 November 2014 07: 08
      -1
      That's for sure. Better an enemy like Churchill than a "friend" like Mao. Or Yanukovych.
    2. Alex
      Alex 30 November 2014 11: 46
      +4
      Quote: dmi.pris
      Of course, the enemy is # 1 but the enemy is not disguised and obvious. A more dangerous friend who smiles and holds a stone in his bosom.

      I remember that in the memoirs of I. Maysky (then he was the USSR ambassador to England) there is a phrase that Churchill said to Maysky: "The British Empire for me is the alpha and omega of my life. For the sake of her interests, I will go to any agreement, even with the devil. Soviet Russia is evil for Britain, but Hitler is a hundred times more evil, so I am advocating an alliance with you. " I don’t know how true this story is, but completely in the spirit of Winnie: clear, honest and cynical to disgust.
  8. Same lech
    Same lech 30 November 2014 06: 29
    +3
    FBI documents indicate that Churchill hated the USSR so much that he was ready to make huge sacrifices among the civilian population.


    These Anglo-Saxon Lords at the genetic level hate everything Russian ..... I think there is an explanation for this.

    Attack .... heh heh ... English lords in the position of the RUSSIAN ARMY in the Crimean War in the BALAKLAV VALLEY.

    The outcome of the attack was tragic for the British: in 20 minutes of the battle, out of a little more than 600 cavalrymen, 365 people were killed and captured. The British still tremble recalling the death of their Lords from the fire of the Russian artillery.
    1. Alex
      Alex 30 November 2014 12: 08
      +3
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      Attack .... heh heh ... English lords in the position of the RUSSIAN ARMY in the Crimean War in the BALAKLAV VALLEY.

      And in that attack died, EMNIP, Churchill's grandfather. So there are still traditions of Russophobia.
    2. Turkir
      Turkir 30 November 2014 21: 09
      +2
      hi Whoever remembers the old English film "Mr. Pitkin behind enemy lines" will surely remember the bespectacled radio operator, nasally and sadly repeating the call sign: "Balaclava, can you hear me or not hear me? Balaclava ..".
      1. Alex
        Alex 30 November 2014 21: 25
        +4
        Quote: Turkir
        Whoever remembers the old English film "Mr. Pitkin behind enemy lines" will surely remember the bespectacled radio operator, nasally and sadly repeating the call sign: "Balaklava, can you hear me or not? Balaklava ..".

        I remember perfectly both the film and this phrase, but at least kill me, I don’t remember what it was there. It is necessary to reconsider. Moreover, Norman Winsdom is one of the few actors who did not lick the ass to the producers, for which they did not give life.
  9. Vityok
    Vityok 30 November 2014 06: 30
    -1
    The worst enemy of Russia! One of the fathers of the cold war. International prostitute. am
    1. corporal
      corporal 30 November 2014 07: 33
      +7
      Just do
      Quote: Vitek
      International prostitute.

      this is probably the one who sells his country to the right and left, laying under the "incredible partners". Or how?
      And this worthy husband loved his country and did disgusting opponents and even those whom he considered allies, for the sake of his country.
      Yes, Churchill was an enemy to us, but which one !!! So worthy of respect.
      Z.Y. By the way, it would be better if you were worried that many of our powerholders and those close to her are likened to Churchill as well, in the sense they love England and hate Russia sad
      1. blizart
        blizart 30 November 2014 09: 06
        +6
        Z.Y. By the way, it would be better if you were worried that many of our powerholders and those close to her are likened to Churchill as well, in the sense they love England and hate Russia
        Here, here and in scale in comparison with it, pygmies. Many blaspheme Churchill as an enemy. But at the same time they forget that: If you do not have enemies, then you did not deserve them! And we deserve such a powerful enemy. He did not burn with hatred for Burkina Faso and other Denmark and Poland
        1. novobranets
          novobranets 30 November 2014 13: 53
          +1
          Quote: blizart
          And we deserve such a powerful enemy.

          And you can be proud of it. The enemy was smart, cunning and experienced, and this made him more dangerous.
    2. Denis fj
      Denis fj 30 November 2014 12: 45
      -2
      Quote: Vitek
      The worst enemy of Russia! One of the fathers of the cold war. International prostitute. am


      You yourself are a prostitute !!
      But, - with all your Unbelief in England, - you, - when you, - from 1942 to 1945, - There was Nothing to Eat .....
      ..... And these Insidious British shared - with YOU (!!!) - your BLOOD - BLOCKED - A Slice of Bread ....
      And you fought - and quite successfully - on the British fighters "Hurricanes", "Mosquito" and Spitfires ", as well as on tanks" Valentine "and" Matilda "......
      And they wore warm clothes, - overalls and shoes, - British tailoring .....
      This is what you - Today - prefer - NOBELY and proudly ("in Russian"), - not to remember ...
      1. novobranets
        novobranets 30 November 2014 13: 46
        +4
        Quote: denis fj
        This is what you - Today - prefer - NOBELY and proudly ("in Russian"), - not to remember ...

        We remember everything. And Hurricanes (according to the recollections of WWII junk pilots) And Matilda, who got stuck in the mud due to the ill-conceived lugs of caterpillars, and became an immovable target. Of course there were good things, Studebaker, R-38, etc.
        But no one helped the USSR just like that. For all this was paid in full by gold. So this is all commerce, business, if you like. But I pay tribute to courage and take my hat off to the PQ caravan sailors. Risking their lives, dying in icy water, they delivered aid to Murmansk. These were ordinary Americans and British, do not put them on a par with Churchill.
        CYSTERIES Rudeness has never painted anyone.
        1. Alex
          Alex 30 November 2014 16: 48
          +7
          Quote: novobranets
          Of course there were good things, Studebaker, P-38, etc.
          American

          Quote: novobranets
          These were ordinary Americans and British, do not put them on a par with Churchill.
          It was Churchill who framed the PQ-17 for German submarines and Junkers, it was he who later, referring to this defeat, proved the impossibility of further assistance to the USSR. He was faithful to himself to the end: he himself, balancing over an abyss, dreamed of "making war" with someone else's hands, so that later he could dictate his will again. It didn't work out, and they did without their trash. And I'm not going to say thank you for their "help": maybe in Europe they pay for friendship, but here, in Russia, they help disinterestedly.
          1. novobranets
            novobranets 30 November 2014 17: 29
            +4
            The British got scared of "Tirpitz" and threw the caravan to be torn apart, here the main character is Dudley Pound, of course not without the blessing of the prime minister. But this is just one episode, and how many more were there.
            I know that Studebakers, Jeeps and Cobras are American, but it was the US technique that was the best of all Lend-Lease. Yes, and this aid went to the agreed extent when it became clear that the USSR could win without any help. Although I will not say that it was unnecessary.
            Quote: Alex
            in Europe they pay for friendship, but here, in Russia, they help unselfishly.
            I agree.
            1. Alex
              Alex 30 November 2014 21: 31
              +3
              Quote: novobranets
              The British got scared of "Tirpitz" and threw the caravan to be torn apart

              Not so much scared as used. I once read a book by Jack Broome, commander of PQ-17, "Disperse Convoy", there are radiograms and maps, including a map of the route of the convoy and cover ships. For the first time in my life I saw that the convoy went closer to Norway, and the escort ships - between it and the border of the polar ice. How it is possible to cover up in such an order - I don't understand (although, maybe I really don't understand anything). Maybe someone from the members of the forum will undertake the analysis of this topic? I would read it with great interest.
              1. anomalocaris
                anomalocaris 2 December 2014 15: 02
                0
                What kind of analysis? The Angleseans leaked the PQ-17 to suspend shipments for six months altogether. For the Red Army at that time, according to their understanding, was too dispersed.
      2. Volzhanin
        Volzhanin 1 December 2014 17: 14
        0
        Cool! Set Hitler on us, and then they began to deliver weapons to both. They began to supply the USSR only when they began to realize that sooner or later we would stop fascism without them and put it where we came from.

        What do we blame on Ukrainians for zombies if our Soviet brains are at odds?
    3. Cat man null
      Cat man null 30 November 2014 21: 25
      +2
      "prostitute" is superfluous here, IMHO ..

      Politician .. worked for his country. As he could, it worked

      fellow
  10. novobranets
    novobranets 30 November 2014 06: 30
    +1
    I have always been convinced that the real enemy of Russia is England. The USA is only its tool, although they think that they are the navel of the earth. Tentacles stretch from Wool street. All the evil of the planet is concentrated there.
  11. s.melioxin
    s.melioxin 30 November 2014 06: 54
    0
    Yeah ! Why should he love RUSSIA? Such open spaces, such wealth, and not on the islands. I envied!
  12. stoker
    stoker 30 November 2014 07: 03
    +10
    W. Churchill is a historical character. What he was personally is no longer very important. 60 years have passed. More importantly, it is a symbol, the face of the British establishment. The fundamental, cornerstone of the worldview, which is Russophobia, hatred of Russia. And then, and now, and, more importantly, in the foreseeable future.

    The history of the last two hundred to two hundred and fifty years is the constant rivalry of the Russian Empire (and later the Soviet Union) with the British Empire. Everywhere - in the Far East, North America, Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. The result is on a geographical map. The British are where they started. Russia in the twentieth century resisted.

    From the point of view of the ruling circles, and indeed of a significant part of the British middle class, Russia is to blame for this. Which is generally true. It was Russia that "buried" the British Empire. We will be proud of the deeds of our ancestors.

    Their hatred is the hatred of the losers for the historically held state project, the held state ideology. And it will always be, as long as Russia exists. It is based on the depth of the fall from the top of world power to the current state of half-life. Including moral.

    Hence the conclusion. The Briton is always the enemy. Enemy. Until the opposite is proved. This should be well remembered from a sense of self-preservation and concern for their children.

    No wonder the British are happy to host the children of our nouveau riche and officials. Teach them, educate. They are preparing a new colonial administration for us and our children ...
    1. Turkir
      Turkir 30 November 2014 21: 15
      +1
      No wonder the British are happy to host the children of our nouveau riche and officials. Teach them, educate. They are preparing a new colonial administration for us and our children ...

      Very appropriate and subtle observation.
      You are a good analyst.
      A dozen pluses will not hurt you.
    2. Cat man null
      Cat man null 30 November 2014 21: 27
      0
      Thank. Beautiful and correct.

      PS: If you are a stoker, then I am a telephone box)
  13. ekebastus
    ekebastus 30 November 2014 07: 05
    +5
    In Bengal (1943), under Churchill, 2,5 million people were killed and in India, Churchill organized a famine for 80 million Indians. Churchill began his career by suppressing the Jose Marti uprising in Cuba and punitive operations in Sudan against Latinos and Negroes who did nothing wrong to him. Then he participated in the genocide of the Boers. Then, as best he could, strangled the Irish, Somalis, Rhodesians and Indians. He drove hungry Kenyans from the land, sent thousands of English street children to Australian labor colonies, bombed refugees in Dresden, sterilized (castrated) 100 thousand "inferior Irish" and imprisoned them in special concentration camps. About the Hindus, he said: "A stupid race, saved only by its reproduction from the fate it deserves." Back in 1937, Churchill taught tolerantly: "I do not believe that injustice has been committed against the aborigines of Australia - a wiser, cleaner race came and took their place ...".
    But no one condemns the crimes of Churchillism and no one rehabilitates the victims of Churchill repressions and does not call Churchill a criminal, tyrant, murderer and executioner. No one demolishes his monument in London ...
    If only in other insufficiently civilized countries they would soon learn to respect their historical figures in this way.
  14. Trolley
    Trolley 30 November 2014 07: 16
    +3
    A good article about a historical person.
    It's a pity that nonsense is mentioned about "Operation Unthinkable" and the notes of a certain "FBI agent" - a department that, by definition, does not deal with international affairs and does not mention the Treaty of Alliance between the USA, USSR and Great Britain of 1942, concluded by the USSR People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs. .I. Molotov during a flight to the USA via Great Britain for 20 years, which has not been canceled. Only after the end of this treaty in 1962 did an incident in the form of the "Caribbean Crisis" really happen, and before that, a cruiser of the USSR Navy arrived at the coronation of Elizabeth II in 2, and its captain was the Queen's guest for 1953 days.
    Churchill's antipathy towards the USSR was manifested only in the fact that he signed an alliance agreement after Roosevelt, when Molotov flew back, and not immediately upon arrival of the People's Commissar.
    1. Alex
      Alex 30 November 2014 12: 14
      +3
      Quote: Trolly
      Churchill's antipathy towards the USSR was manifested only in the fact that he signed an alliance agreement after Roosevelt, when Molotov flew back, and not immediately upon arrival of the People's Commissar.

      Well, here maybe just a diplomatic procedure. Churchill could have initialed the agreement - to give formal consent to sign it after Roosevelt had signed it accordingly, it would be good if Molotov would come back anyway, most likely.
      The practice of initiation is often used when signing or preparing multilateral interstate agreements, especially when a personal meeting of all parties is impossible.
      1. Trolley
        Trolley 30 November 2014 13: 22
        -2
        About that - for the electorate they compose a horror story about the "cold war", but in fact - close cooperation both in the war and after - licensed English Mig-15 engines, Canadian grain, Australian lamb and wool, and this is all Great Britain. Even now, both oligarchs and cruisers are trying to take refuge in Britain at a difficult moment, although not always successfully ...
        1. Trolley
          Trolley 30 November 2014 20: 54
          +1
          For supporters of people’s confusion, you can add the Brent oil quotation, the London Metal Exchange and the price of an ounce of gold - the most important parameters of the Russian trade are determined in the UK. It doesn’t happen that the economy is determined by the adversary - only the lord.
          1. Cat man null
            Cat man null 30 November 2014 21: 30
            -1
            Quote: Trolly
            defined in the UK

            United Kingdom - has long been a colony of the USA ..

            Quote: Trolly
            It doesn’t happen that an economy is determined by an adversary - only a senior.

            Explain that I’m stupid, I don’t understand .. you obviously want to say something, it is unclear only for now - whether there is anything, and if you can ..

            NP
  15. Papin Sibiryak
    Papin Sibiryak 30 November 2014 07: 37
    +2
    From such partners it is necessary to keep at a distance of an extended warhead.
  16. Stypor23
    Stypor23 30 November 2014 08: 09
    +1
    Ladies and Gentlemen, watch an interesting movie about a bulldog.
    1. Deadmen
      Deadmen 30 November 2014 10: 19
      +1
      vidyuha is closed for viewing on this portal.
  17. Rigla
    Rigla 30 November 2014 09: 03
    +1
    Briton and that says it all.
  18. pensioner
    pensioner 30 November 2014 09: 09
    +5
    This was confirmed by a 2002 survey when, according to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Winston Churchill was named the greatest Briton in history.

    Those. Shakespeare, Newton, Rutherford - this is so negative , whether? what
    1. Hairy Siberian
      Hairy Siberian 30 November 2014 11: 50
      +1
      Quote: retired
      Those. Shakespeare, Newton, Rutherford - is that right?

      It turns out so. And Charles Darwin, apparently no one to them.
    2. Alex
      Alex 30 November 2014 12: 17
      +3
      Quote: retired
      Those. Shakespeare, Newton, Rutherford - is that right?
      Yes, it seems. Unfortunately, politicians and pop stars often become more popular than true heroes.

      By the way, for me, these polls are just an empty matter. When you ask people on the street for their opinion, you mostly get a POPULARITY rating, not a SIGNIFICANCE rating. Look, according to one of last year's polls (I don't remember where and who conducted it), "Lady Gaga" entered the top ten people in the world. To me, too, a significant person ...
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 30 November 2014 12: 34
        +1
        Quote: Alex
        for the most part you get a POP rating, not a SIGNIFICANCE rating.

        Fact. yes
        But it is also a fact that the current British man in the street will not answer your question: "What great did Newton do?" They will remember the maximum about the apple ...
        1. Alex
          Alex 30 November 2014 12: 47
          +4
          Quote: retired
          But it is also a fact that the current British man in the street will not answer your question: "What great did Newton do?" They will remember the maximum about the apple ...

          You just wonder how the concept has been changed recently. Truly great people who really influenced the destinies of the world are declared, if not criminals, then "cowards, tyrants and paranoid", and little things that have actually done nothing in their lives have become "heroes of our time." Thousands of unknown heroes, in the literal sense of the word, who blocked the road to the enemy with their bodies and millions who worked at the machines for days - this is so, by the way. But the spiritual torment of the traitorous generals is a topic for them, if not exaltation, then at least justification.

          Scientists who have created the foundation of modern science turn out to be "stupid and deluded ignoramuses", but the current pseudo-clever people with their more than dubious theories are "the future of science and its hope." I wonder if this is always the case in history or is humanity gradually degenerating? It's a shame if the latter.
  19. DesToeR
    DesToeR 30 November 2014 09: 29
    +4
    And did not understand what is the greatness of Churchill?
    The fact that he screwed up in the First World War and slipped from the post of First Lord of the Admiralty to com.bat? Maybe in the fact that taking the post of prime minister he could not immediately send Hitler to the USSR and Britain received in full from the Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine? Maybe in the division of the world after the Second World War, he sat and listened as adult uncles divided his empire? The British elite in 1945 imposed Churchill impeachment without re-electing for a second term after a sort of victory in the war.
    But in general, it was believed that W. Churchill was a good Gauleiter in small-town colonies, but not a visionary politician of a huge empire.
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 30 November 2014 21: 43
      -1
      Quote: DesToeR
      And did not understand what is the greatness of Churchill?

      That's why you will never put a monument)))))))))))

      Not only therefore, essno, but also therefore ..

      PS: Illiterate illiterate commentators .. And - to them, damn it ..)), the same, WHAT to comment on: that Churchill, then Putin .. that Darth Vader .. no, well, really zagotybal))
  20. moskowit
    moskowit 30 November 2014 09: 42
    -1
    "I went to the Western Front as a battalion commander"! And this is the minister! Our secretaries of the regional committees served in the Military Councils of the armies in the ranks of generals ... Personality, of course, is a remarkable and the enemy of Russia is of paramount importance. "Britain above all!" - this explains all the actions of British politicians of all times. There is a saying, "it is better to have England as enemies than allies." (close to the text), the meaning is preserved.
    1. Kunar
      Kunar 30 November 2014 18: 06
      0
      Not all, and not always .....
  21. tuts
    tuts 30 November 2014 10: 09
    +5
    about churchill
    The fact is that such a question immediately revives in my memory the distant February evening of 1945 in the Crimea. I, at that time a young anti-occult scientist, was invited to one of the aftopati allies. Standing with brandy, surrounded by a variety of diplomats, spies who think they are journalists, and journalists who think they are spies, I closely watched the chuckling trio of winners. Someone beside me sighed and said: "I don't understand how they can talk with this executioner of peoples."

    I turned around. The speaker was dark-skinned and bespectacled - later I visited him at Bombay University several times to exchange experiences.

    “You yourself understand, my dear, that I am not ready to keep up the conversation about my leader in this tone.” I answered.

    - And here is your leader? - the Indian was surprised. - I'm talking about Churchill.

    I was also surprised: I only knew about Churchill that he was an uncle who smokes cigars, drinks cognac and educates a bulldog, and also that Hitler defeated him and came up with Winnie the Pooh.

    But the doctor told me that the real Churchill is somewhat broader than his image. He told me about the recent famine in Bengal (1943), which killed between 1,5 and 2,5 million people - and the British authorities prevented the starving from fleeing to more prosperous areas. “When Churchill became Deputy Minister for Colonial Affairs at the beginning of the century, the Empire stopped publishing data on the victims of famine. But under him only we in India had several famines - millions died, up to 80 million people went hungry,” said Dr. Kumar. "But he started with the blood of innocents, he is no stranger to it."

    He spoke, and the real, uncut version of Churchill stood before me in full growth. The young aristocrat began his career by suppressing the Jose Marti uprising in Cuba and punitive operations in Sudan against Latinos and Negroes who did nothing wrong to him. Then he participated in the genocide of the Boers. Then, as best he could, strangled the Irish, Somalis, Rhodesians and Indians. Diving in and out of power, he drove hungry Kenyans off the ground, sent thousands of English homeless children to Australian labor colonies, bombed refugees in Dresden, rushed with a project to sterilize 100 thousand "inferior" compatriots and imprison them in special concentration camps, and so on and so forth. “Do you know what he said about us Indians?” A stupid race, saved only by its reproduction from the fate it deserved, ”the doctor read from memory. And he explained what fate Churchill had in mind, citing the politician's address from 1937 years: "I do not believe that injustice has been done to the natives of Australia - a wiser, cleaner race came and took their place."

    - Churchill and his empire rob half a billion people, mutilate the conquered countries, kill millions, cut the color of local nations - and you all think that this is a cute, cunning uncle in a top hat. - Dr. Kumar finished bitterly. - you will see, in a year he will again declare you devils and try to isolate you from the world. And 50 years later, in honor of the victory over Hitler, a monument to him will be erected in London - he and Roosevelt, maybe - and your uncle Joe will be forgotten by then. And no one will condemn the crimes of Churchillism. Everyone will think that he defeated the Germans - how can you recall everything else to him?

    We parted in silence that evening.
  22. Dr. Serg
    Dr. Serg 30 November 2014 10: 12
    +3
    I will support desToeR .... The "great" politician should be judged by the results of his activities .... Churchill - climbed into the Dardanelles - ogreb in full, got into the premiership - destroyed his state, lost his colonies and made his country a US colony, and only by selling his country to America and miraculously under the name of J.V. Stalin saved his metropolis from total destruction ... For me, this is just a chatterbox and a bloody maniac ...
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 30 November 2014 21: 47
      -2
      Quote: Dr.Serg
      As for me

      Are you a politician of a comparable level? I guess not ..

      Quote: Dr.Serg
      so this creation is just a talker and a bloody maniac ...

      .. then this one is worthless..

      PS: Why did you say that? (with)
  23. Deadmen
    Deadmen 30 November 2014 10: 18
    +3
    from the point of view of geopolitics, there is no concept of "friend" in the literal sense of its meaning. Each country by hook or by crook tries to occupy territories or seize resources or increase influence in a particular region. If some do not do this, others will do it. This is a big chess game. game, all against everyone. For even alliances are formed not from platonic unrestrained love, but from global strategic considerations. Churchill is a typical representative of a sea power that acts proactively far from its shores. He simply had to be an enemy of Russia.
    Read the textbook Geopolitics A. Marinchenko very informative material on English-Russian relations and on England in general.
  24. fomkin
    fomkin 30 November 2014 10: 27
    +2
    England is a natural enemy of Russia. All wars are on her conscience. The main principle is to live at the expense of others. A nation that deserves complete extermination.
    1. soboleva
      soboleva 30 November 2014 23: 14
      -3
      England is a natural enemy of Russia. All wars are on her conscience. The main principle is to live at the expense of others. A nation that deserves complete extermination.
      And how were you going to exterminate them? Enlighten please! England was actually the first industrial country. In the 19th century it was called the workshop of the world. Factories, factories, railways, steamboats, subways and much more appeared for the first time in England. What could Russia boast at this time ??? So lie on your couch and exterminate your beer better! laughing
      1. andj61
        andj61 11 February 2015 20: 27
        0
        Quote: soboleva
        . In the 19th century it was called the workshop of the world. Factories, factories, railways, steamboats, subways and much more appeared for the first time in England.

        In the 19th century, to buy Chinese goods, England did not have real means - gold and silver. In India, they began to produce opium, sell it through a network of opiekurylene created by the British nationals and buy tea, porcelain, silk, etc. in China with the proceeds. After the emperor of China banned the import of opium and opiumcuricans, England started wars (in my opinion, there were two) and achieved the preservation of the status quo.
        Russia, of course, can not boast that it was the largest drug dealer in the world and earned the main nat. wealth on drugs.
        By the way, for industrialization in England, peasants drove from the land, sheep were raised on their lands, from the wool of which they made famous English fabrics. And against the expelled people the law on vagrancy was applied - the death penalty or deportation to the colony. Children of any age were also affected.
        Russia, of course, CANNOT boast of such behavior at the state level.
        At the end of the 19th century, England unleashed a war in South Africa with the Boers, the descendants of the Dutch, who founded their republics there - the Transvaal and Orange. There England officially used death camps - the male Boers were not taken prisoner, they were killed on the spot, and women and children were driven to the camps were just grounds fenced in with barbed wire. Nobody, of course, counted, but the Boers (Afrikaners) still claim that a hundred Englishmen killed from half a million to a million of their women and children. And such "little things" as blankets infected with smallpox for Africans, Indians, Afghans - it's not even worth mentioning about this. It's not an atrocity, it's just a decrease in demographic pressure on the environment.
        Russia, of course, CANNOT boast of anything like that.
        Why is it mv pr England? During the two wars in Chechnya, and in the interval between them, when Chechnya did not submit to Russia, all pensioners received Russian pensions, large families, etc. - benefits, free medicines - everything is like in Russia for everyone, and Russia also supplied FREE electricity and gas to Chechnya - after all, Russian citizens lived there, which the state should take care of.
        Ukraine did better - it struck out ALL citizens and Donetsk-Lugansk citizens, and Crimeans, ceasing to pay pensions and benefits to ALL, as well as establishing a blockade and cutting off energy supplies. Now Russia supplies Ukraine with electricity and coal for the further supply of electricity to the Crimea and the Donbass, that is, it sponsors Ukraine to help its own citizens - according to the Kiev regime itself. Paradox!
  25. A1L9E4K9S
    A1L9E4K9S 30 November 2014 10: 29
    0
    For Small Britain, he may be a hero, but for us he was and remains an old smelly goat.
  26. Deadmen
    Deadmen 30 November 2014 10: 50
    0
    Immediately after the end of the Second World War, Churchill persuaded the US President to drop a nuclear bomb on the USSR, he did it very intrusively, explaining that this had to be done without fail until the Russians created their own bomb. (I saw it in Russia 24). ally".
  27. sigdoc
    sigdoc 30 November 2014 11: 04
    -1
    And what is his greatness? Under him, the British Empire turned into 51 US states. Even the British themselves unequivocally appreciated his activities following the results of the World War and kicked him from the post of prime minister in 1945.
  28. bionik
    bionik 30 November 2014 13: 18
    +3
    Winston Churchill 1985 photo of the year, 21 years old.
    1. Hairy Siberian
      Hairy Siberian 30 November 2014 17: 15
      +1
      Quote: bionik
      Winston Churchill 1985 photo of the year

      belay
      Oh, these eighties. laughing
      1. novobranets
        novobranets 30 November 2014 18: 30
        +3
        Dating at least a hundred years late. laughing
        1. Hairy Siberian
          Hairy Siberian 30 November 2014 18: 49
          0
          Quote: novobranets
          Dating at least a hundred years late.

          Or maybe it's Lyashko?
          1. novobranets
            novobranets 30 November 2014 19: 44
            0
            Yes, she, this kind of little pomodosti. laughing
      2. kush62
        kush62 30 November 2014 18: 57
        +3
        Hairy Siberian (3) Today, 17:15 ↑ New
        Quote: bionik
        Winston Churchill 1985 photo of the year

        Oh, these eighties.

        Oh, these eighties of the century before last. Photo all the same 1885goda
  29. Blondy
    Blondy 30 November 2014 13: 38
    +7
    Stalin about Churchill's speech in Fulton:
    In fact, Mr. Churchill and his friends in England and the United States present an ultimatum to nations that do not speak English: recognize our domination voluntarily, and then everything will be all right, otherwise war is inevitable.

    But nations shed their blood for five years of brutal war for the sake of the freedom and independence of their countries, and not to replace the rule of Hitlers with the rule of Churchill. Therefore, it is likely that nations that do not speak English and constitute at the same time the vast majority of the world's population will not agree to go into new slavery.
    Interview with the newspaper Pravda 1946

    Agree, in many respects it is relevant today, in any case, the essence has not changed much
  30. Postovoi
    Postovoi 30 November 2014 13: 39
    0
    Forgive the comrades, but the tongue will not turn this pig (in every sense) to be called great ...
  31. andrew42
    andrew42 30 November 2014 13: 43
    0
    Indicative of the dukes of Marlborough. They were always accomplices and sponsored by the Rothschild clan, who made a nest in Britain. From all Britain’s aggressiveness at all times.
  32. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 30 November 2014 13: 44
    +1
    Enemy of respect. So it will be more correct.
    1. Alex
      Alex 30 November 2014 16: 52
      +5
      Quote: Bersaglieri
      Enemy of respect. So it will be more correct.

      To be honest, I personally don’t see what to respect him for. All his adventures against our country ended in a complete and crushing failure. He did not achieve a single goal, but the country amera profiled. He didn’t even fight with us (as it should be for an enemy who should be respected), but he was so crap small (sometimes large).
  33. andrew42
    andrew42 30 November 2014 13: 46
    +3
    Thus, the point is not in "Anglo-Saxon", which in fact has long been gone - several centuries. And in the use of the Anglo-Sacon "skin" to cover the world empire of usurers, which has a "new" operational base in the United States (since the Great Depression), and an "obscure airfield" in old Britain.
  34. andrew42
    andrew42 30 November 2014 13: 47
    +1
    And Churchill - it was just their furious chain dog.
    1. 225chay
      225chay 30 November 2014 23: 44
      -1
      Quote: andrew42
      And Churchill - it was just their furious chain dog.



      ++ With a pork snout ...
  35. aszzz888
    aszzz888 30 November 2014 13: 55
    0
    Churchill was a gifted and great statesman, but we must remember that he was a convinced enemy of our country. He hated not only Soviet power and communism, but also Russia as such.


    And now the whole Aglitz army hates Russia!
    It would be better if you were not at all in this world, Mr. Churchill.
  36. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 30 November 2014 14: 12
    0
    All the same, 1941-45 was on the side of Soviet Russia and helped break fascism.
    1. Alex
      Alex 30 November 2014 16: 55
      +3
      Quote: Robert Nevsky
      All the same, 1941-45 was on the side of Soviet Russia and helped break fascism.

      And what did he have in 1940? It was he who later, in 1944, again showed himself in full glory, when there was no danger, and Germany would be achieved without him. And then, without our help, a triumphal campaign would not have succeeded.
    2. kush62
      kush62 30 November 2014 18: 59
      +2
      Robert Nevsky Today, 14:12 New
      All the same, 1941-45 was on the side of Soviet Russia and helped break fascism.

      Rather like this:
      All the same, in 1941-45 he was forced to take the side of the Soviet Union and help break fascism.
  37. Kibl
    Kibl 30 November 2014 15: 00
    +2
    For foggy Albion, Russia has always been like a bone in the throat and will be, so let them choke on it faster !!!!
  38. kot28.ru
    kot28.ru 30 November 2014 15: 15
    +2
    This ghoul wanted to destroy my homeland fool , there were a lot of them, where are they now, and where is Russia bully !AND in general it was necessary to destroy the arrogant Saxons, as they say, YESTERDAY!!! am
  39. Lone wolf
    Lone wolf 30 November 2014 15: 22
    0
    As always ... An Englishwoman shits ...
  40. 23424636
    23424636 30 November 2014 15: 39
    0
    they say he drank 1 bottle of brandy 50 degrees a day if Gorbachev drank 1 bottle of Dvina a day, the country would not have died. .
  41. avvg
    avvg 30 November 2014 15: 39
    -1
    Thanks to such an open enemy of RUSSIA as ser U. Churchill - WE mobilized, beat the enemy and created retaliation weapons.
    1. Alex
      Alex 30 November 2014 16: 56
      +1
      Quote: avvg
      Thanks to such an open enemy of RUSSIA as ser U. Churchill

      Yes, that's what, and we always had enough enemies.
  42. Cat
    Cat 30 November 2014 17: 37
    0
    Guys.
    , I will give you a topic for reflection. Churchill's uncle, ..............? WAS A convinced Nazi. At one time, he moved closer to the true Europeans to Kazer Germany. One of the founders of the anthropic Nazi theory of the superiority of the Aryan nation of "ancient Europeans". At one time I met with Hitler. And he spoke about him that he did not like his skull shape, but liked his ideas. Here's a riddle for the evening?
    1. Alex
      Alex 30 November 2014 21: 36
      +2
      Quote: Kotischa
      One of the founders of the anthropic Nazi theory of the superiority of the Aryan nation of "ancient Europeans".

      It turns out that Yushchenko with his proto-ukrains was not original. Yes-ah, the more insignificant the nation (or its representatives), the more ambition it has. I wonder how the "ancient Poles" are there?
  43. asadov
    asadov 30 November 2014 18: 57
    -1
    Yes, there was an interesting person. He salted us, salted us, but it was of little use.
  44. pinecone
    pinecone 30 November 2014 20: 47
    -1
    Quote: kush62
    Hairy Siberian (3) Today, 17:15 ↑ New
    Quote: bionik
    Winston Churchill 1985 photo of the year

    Oh, these eighties.

    Oh, these eighties of the century before last. Photo all the same 1885goda


    In 1885. the "greatest Briton" was only 11 years old. It looks older in the photo.
  45. groip1
    groip1 30 November 2014 21: 41
    -3
    http://glavcom.tv/video/11096.html русский фашизм в действии
  46. I think so
    I think so 30 November 2014 22: 14
    -1
    So I don’t understand why about any g ... but here to squeeze articles ... You never know g ... was born in England or psi and even more hating Russians ... Better would begin to publish articles about OUR Marshals, about the Generalissimo slandered by modern church lovers and other g. ... Finally, about Brezhnev - a worthy military man and a man ... And then they took the fashion to screw up their own (winners of all kinds of freaks) and praise all kinds of freaks who hate and hated Russians. I think the authors who write about the "greatest Britons" should be sent there (to these British).
  47. Grifan
    Grifan 30 November 2014 22: 16
    0
    Stalin was well aware of Churchill's hatred of Russia and the difficulties of England after the defeat of France, so he was very critical of his reports about the impending attack of Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union.


    And the fact that the British aviation was ready to bomb Baku on the orders of the same Drawn?

    Threat What his greatness was never caught ... Well, an active politician, well, suspended language. What is the meaning of total PR? request
  48. complete zero
    complete zero 30 November 2014 22: 29
    +2
    Churchill (if he was not okay), even though the enemy and the damned Anglo-Saxon, is nevertheless a great politician and patriot of his country .... we would have such "hogs"
  49. Victor-M
    Victor-M 30 November 2014 23: 22
    -3
    Nothing prevented the patriot of his country from lying under another country. laughing
  50. bbss
    bbss 1 December 2014 00: 42
    -2
    Sir Winston must be given credit. He is a great politician and the son of his country. To have such an opponent is an honor. Clowns and pygmies are now crowding in his shadow. Any punks: Bushes, Obama with hounds and other insignificant trifle.
    1. complete zero
      complete zero 1 December 2014 00: 44
      -2
      absolutely true one hundred points!