Deflating the Churchill Myth

by Eric Margolis

Much of the Western world just honored the millions of soldiers fallen in the two world wars. But we also need to look beyond postwar myths and understand the tragic political mistakes that sent these soldiers to die in wars that might have been avoided.

In his powerful new book, Hitler, Churchill and the Unnecessary War, veteran politician and author Pat Buchanan challenges many historic taboos by claiming that Winston Churchill plunged Britain and its empire, including Canada, into wars whose outcome was disastrous for all concerned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly, it's not a technology, logistics nor budget problem. To have a paneuropean super grid connected to the wind in the north, some nukes in the center and solar (steam not PV) in Northern Africa (Southern Med) should be a no brainer!

Afterall it will be just on the scale of Suez/Panama/19th century railroad/post WWII oil&gas infrustructure build up scale of projects. Southern Med has already in place huge gas and oil interconnects under the sea via Italy. So it's just a matter of excel table to determine what option is more effective to have direct line of cables under the sea or longer route via land (Italy, or Spain->France).

The fact that this has not and is not materializing after the 1970s oil shock experience just speaks volumes about the lack of vision among the peoples and their leaders alike (in our times). If anything this stupidity is the potential root cause of our potential demise..

One of the truly stupidest things Ive ever seen posted here. And that is saying alot some days.

1) The United Kingdom did nothing to defend Czechoslovakia. Its just about the most famous part of the build up to WWII that they did not attempt to interfere.

2) Churchill had nothing to do with Poland, that was the decision of UK prime minister Neville Chamberlain. Churchill was only brought back into cabinet after war was declared (as first lord of the Admiaralty).

3) The invasion of Yugoslavia was part of a wider operation to support the failed Italian invasion of Albania and Greece, it was an unwanted diversion from the main German objective of the war at that time.


This whole article is just pure crap.

What's all the babble about a hyper-grid being a bad, expensive idea because PO has passed and we're in a recession?


This is precisely the time to go for it. This Rooseveltian New Dealish project will create countless jobs and make us oil&gas independent just on time.

Also, the hyper-grid is dirt-cheap. It's returns are in fact so big, that it must be one of the best bangs for the euro ever.

The hyper-grid will also allow DESERTEC to become a reality. So bring it on.

+1

Exactly, without Treaty of Versailles Poland would have never existed and Danzig wasn't a part of Poland during that time. What Nazi Germany wanted to get is "Polish corridor" to the Baltic Sea.
And Communist Russia would have existed without Treaty of Versailles.

The article doesn't say or even imply that they did; in fact, it makes the point that the British could, at the time, do nothing for any of them, and observed that in their dealings with Germany in 1936, but not 1939. The point is being made that Danzig belonged to Germany prior to Versailles, and that Hitler was, perhaps not without some justice, attempting to recover it for Germany, but that (relatively worthless) guarantees by the British -- which they place at Churchill's doorstep -- embolded Poland to resist. What would have happened if they'd negotiated Danzig away, no one can rightly say. We do know what happened otherwise, though.




You seem to imagine that Churchill was invisible or something. He was an MP at the time; the member for Epping. Even if he weren't in the cabinet at the time, it's not as though he were a nobody and unheeded by the public; he had an extensive career and was out of favour at the time for publicly-expressed opinions at odds with those of his party. He'd been in and out of the cabinet for decades prior to his isolation. He was hardly a man without influence, within cabinet or without.



Churchill was not in the cabinet in 1934, and yet apparently, he was still a force to be reckoned with, even by the prime minister.




Again, the point here is the relatively worthlessness of the promise, and the results of its objects taking it to heart. The lesson here, for modern times, is the over-extension of all the same paper promises to the newer members of NATO bordering on Russia. It's a bit like assuring a guy on the next block it's fine for him to work on his roof without fear, because if he falls, you'll just rush over with the trampoline in your back yard and save him.

Danzig itself wasn't but the Danzig corridor was, and it separated the main part of Germany physically from Prussia. If someone handed over a big strip of the middle of Canada, or the United States, or Britain, to someone else just to cripple us, I would imagine we'd all be waiting for the first opportunity to correct that as well.

Doesn't Gore want to build a US supergrid?

If we have regional supergrids for alternative energy then we can build out alternatives. Otherwise alternative energy can only be a local boutique solution like farm windmills.

On this history stuff, I think Napoleon should have invaded Constantinople before it was occupied by Ghengis Khan but not before the Atlanteans got a hold on Egypt as a diversion to the Nazi tank movements across the Guadalcanal.

Learn some damned history. Please.

I will clarify for anyone getting there head spun and forgetting history. The Danzig corridor issue was a ruse. Hitler did not want a corridor: he wanted Poland. He took Poland and proceeded to murder, rob, rape and enslave its population. He was out to conquer 'lebensraum', land to depopulate of its inhabitants and repopulate with Germans. That is why after he took the Sudatenland, he went on and took the whole of Czeckoslovakia.


Nickel's article is simply spouting Nazi apologist revisionism.

Read this again


Churchill had nothing to do with this descion beyond his vote as an MP. The British cabinet and parliment backed that descion. Britain declared war on an agressor. A rare moment in history when they actualy did the right and humane thing.

Poland did not have a "hold on Danzig" as stated in the article. It was a German controled enclave. The article gets elementary facts like this wrong all over the place and places an extreamly pro Imperial German and Nazi slant on history.

This derail can go to the hall of flames so far as I am concerned.

Hmmm Im not sure about a comunist Russia was inevitable, there certainly were several near revolutions and mutinys before WWI started. Most famously the 1905 revolution. However the February revolution (of 1917) was not inherently Marxist but (IIRC) was more socialist looking for a social democracy. Certainly that seems to have been more of Kerensky goals than an actual Marxist state. However the October revolution by the Bolshoviks ended that.

And anyone crisising Versailles can look at the German imposed treaty of Brest Litovsk

Eric Margoles, a "Nazi apologist"? Yeah... don't forget to wipe while you got your head up there.

Non sequitur; the point of the article was Britain issuing cheques its ass couldn't cash, on Churchill's urging. Whatever Hitler was after, according to you -- Poland, Pluto, or pixie sticks -- isn't what they're talking about.

You're also looking back with the benefit of hindsight. No one prior to Sept. 1, 1939, could possibly have stated categorically what the Germans would or would not do. History wasn't yet written, and options were still available.

Can you read English? If you can, can you comprehend it? No one said Churchill declared war on anyone. What they're saying is that his outspoken advocacy of military confrontation -- for which his entire career is noted -- limited the options of the government of the day, and with each subsequent decision and event, those options grew ever narrower until Britain found itself in a war it wasn't prepared for over promises it made but had no capacity to uphold. It's intended as a object lesson for NATO today.

Danzig was not German-controlled; it was an open city under League of Nations auspices, with Polish administration of its foreign affairs. "Learn some history," I've heard it said.

Here's some:
Curious request, wouldn't you say, for something "German controlled"...

It's also interesting to note that Hitler, whom you swear was bound and determined to take Poland, did not enter into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with the Soviet Union until August, 1939 -- five months after the British issued the assurances that led to Poland's recalcitrance.

Tough. The entire article acuses Britain and specificaly Churchill of starting WWII. This is being an apologist of Nazi millitarism.

It is not a non sequitur. It is entirely germane to the issue of who was at fault for WWII. British guarentees to Poland were with a broad base of political support based on what the Nazis had already done, that and Hitlers stated aims of conquest to the east. Churchills urgings could hardly be blamed for the labour parties stance on the issue could it.
What dribble. Hitler had already had the anschluss and the conquest of Czeckoslovakia. Claiming that because the people in 1939 could not know your nazi friends intentions with 100% accuracy they had no right or duty to act is again simply being an apologist of nazi millitarism. The British and French had rather good reasons to guess what was about to happen to Poland and stand up so that the nations of Europe were not picked of one by one.

You must truly loath Britain with an unbelievable bitterness to swallow this crap. How does licking nazi boots taste?

Can you read English? If you can, can you comprehend it?
It does not say that Churchills bellicosity limited options. It states that Churchill plunged Britain into two world wars. Your nazi friends actions are potrayed in the article as merely responses to perfidious Albion.
Ooops got that a tad wrong. I guess this proves the nazis were the innocent victims in all this.
However the article states here....
So I guess that round was 1 - 1.

Your point caller? When Joe and Adolf became pals proves what? Oh defend this bit for me please: Explain how a treaty signed in 1919 caused the success of the 1917 revevolution. Too funny. You will swallow anything so long as Britain and America are made too look bad.

No; such an article would set out to justify the claims of German irredentism. It doesn't. It, and corroborating evidence, suggest that the war could have been avoided if the Poles had not felt they had no need to negotiate. The article doesn't say that there would not have been changes to the map of Europe; it suggests that war could have been avoided if Chamberlain's policies had been pursued rather than Churchill's.

No, I'm sorry, it remains non sequitur to the point. You're arguing about the nature of the promise made; they're talking about the fact that it was made at all, regardless of its particulars: that in making it, they embolded the Poles when they had no real ability to back that stiffening of resolve.

A telling point: Germany occupied the unceded portions of Czechoslovakia in the spring of 1939 when negotiations with Poland broke down -- which the authors established occurred because of British and French assurances that turned out to be worthless.

There aren't any to lick anymore. But there are plenty of triumphalistic Western warmongers out there to... well, I'll leave the particulars of how you fete them to everyone's good imagination.

I thought you told us Churchill wasn't PM or even in the cabinet at the time and so therefore wasn't at fault. Changing your mind? If not, then they're not claiming he declared war; he didn't, in fact; Chamberlain did. But they are saying his attitudes made that ultimately unavoidable.

What part of "with Polish administration of its foreign affairs" (like who gets to trade there, say) eludes your comprehension? Particularly in marked contrast to, say, German control of it?

Well, all things being equal, I'd have to say it goes a lot further towards proving the point than disproving it.

Sure. They're saying if we hadn't fought WWI -- an utterly useless war in every respect -- in the first place, it's unlikely the conditions in Russia that led to the fall of the Czar would have been realized. Not to mention the loss of a lot of the other monarchies of Europe at the time.

You cluless muppet. Now it is Britains fault that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia???????
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
*breathes*
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Oh while your here, show me from the article you posted the above where the author establishes that because the British signed a treaty with Poland this meant the German invasion of Czeckeslovakia was the fault of Britain?

I have seen alot of loonspudery over the years, but this one, that WWII happened because Britain did not appease the Nazis enough is pretty special.

that is not my quote THAT IS WHERE I QUOTED THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED!!!!!!!

Good counterpoint. No, wait, let's hear the rest of your masterstroke:

Well stated. Truly, I find myself at a loss to rebut an argument that might have been made by a chimpanzee. Most primates I've debated with tend to aim higher.

I refer the honourable simian to my previous answer concerning the timing of Britain's assurances to Poland and the timing of the German invasion of the unceded portions of Czechoslovakia.

I know it's not your quote. But you started off by telling us Churchill could barely be heard in the Commons due to his being so low he was practically under his chair. It's been amply demonstrated that he was a public voice, long in cabinet, whose opinions resonated even when out of it and whose influence affected the policies of Chamberlain's government, to the point that its responsibilities were eventually ceded to him rather than to Lord Halifax. Even a brisk review of Churchill's career reveals him as a triumphalistic warmonger who appealed to violence to contain any possible rise by any country not white and English-speaking, and persisted in this attitude even after the great war for democracy he touted WWII to have been was won -- his reactions to Russia and particularly to independence movements in the British Empire bear this out unambiguously.

I'm sorry to be the one to reveal your hero's bloodstained feet of clay, but you'll get over it when you grow up.

Nickel, sorry, you lost debate.

I've defended the point from every attack he's made; apparently "lost" has some different meaning in Polish from the typical meaning in English.

Fact doesn't require fiction for balance.

Fine and well then, but what exactly does this have to do with the European supergrid and Russian political unpredictability with regards to energy supplies? This was a total threadjack weather or not Churchill was right or a slightly unappetizing tunafish sandwich.

I don't know weather you were right or not because frankly its completely unrelated to the title of the thread, except in the holistic lets look at everything sense and completely avoid talking about the subject at hand. If the Churchill comment really was worthy of that large of a post, start another thread so I dont have to dig through a couple of pages of unrelated crap when really I was only interested in the discussion of this supposed supergrid.

And blindness doesn't require injury for realization. An act of the will suffices.

Well ask Gasmon; he's the one who brought up Churchill -- AGAIN. I don't think that guy can go to the can without praising Churchill for the quality of his bowel movement and marveling at the man's planning acumen for the miracle of the bog roll. One tires of hearing a lifelong bigoted warmonger, whose championing of democracy ended wherever brown eyes outnumbered blue, praised to the hilt at every turn.

For that matter, how many of the threads around here are still on track by the second page? Maybe half.