BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: Stu
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 05:00 AM

"Is that really your beef with Churchill??"

Didn't you read my posts? Are you really that ignorant of history and absolutist in outlook? This discussion is obviously too nuanced for you and the history too complex and you're making yourself look an idiot. Time to read up on some British and European history.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 06:23 AM

"It was Chamberlain who declared war on Germany"
It was also Chamberlain who came back with a bit of paper from Munich declaring "Peace in our time"
The mistake was in appeasing fascism until there was no other choice.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 07:13 AM

I am no expert of history, but from what I have read it was the German Communists who were fighting the rise of Fascism, just as it was in London. I had a friend who lived in London's East End in the 1920's and 30's, he was a Communist who used to fight running battles with Mosley's people. He said that public opinion at that time was delicately balanced......Facism had wide support in much of the media.

Fascism was being supported by business interests in America and Britain, chiefly as a defence against the spread of Communism.

If that is wrong please give me the true story?

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: Stu
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 07:20 AM

Whilst I don't think Churchill himself was a fascist, he was a right-wing racist once saying "the Aryan stock is bound to triumph" in regards to the empire's activities in the Middle East (he made this comment when he was an MP).

Fascism certainly had it's admirers here, including amongst the royal family.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 07:27 AM

akeneaton you are right.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 07:29 AM

".Facism had wide support in much of the media. "
DAILY MAIL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 11:29 AM

The mistake was in appeasing fascism until there was no other choice.
Nothing to do with Churchill then.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 11:47 AM

"Nothing to do with Churchill then."
Wha???
This was your statement - surely you're not going to squeal "thread drift against yourself!!
"It was Chamberlain who declared war on Germany"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 11:57 AM

Funny, how the 'so-called liberals' all seem to defend fascism, and then criticize Churchill..then blame him for being a Fascist....Hey, if Churchill was a Fascist, why wasn't he allied with Hitler?
That's almost like criticizing Obama for being a Muslim sympathizer, while pretending to oppose them.....while blaming guns...and not knives, like the terrorist the Brits seem to prefer!!

Oh, and 95% of all forest fires are caused by trees....(liberal logic).

That being said, I'm not in favor of guns or any weapon of war....it is just plain insanity, that with mankind's ability to invent, we seem to invent and innovate new reasons to kill each other, and spend the rest of the time just fabricating reasons to do so.
Thank you, politics!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 12:12 PM

Fascism isn't the opposite of socialism. I do sometimes wonder how in these days of comprehensive education, people see the word fascism to mean the antithesis of communism.

Control of others as a systemic tool is fascism. The communist ideal as set out by Marx was fascist and he warned that this would be the case if his principles were tried out in practice.

The Soviet model, beloved of misguided fools in an open society of The UK was fascist full stop. The Ayrian supremacy that Churchill and Hitler both favoured was fascist.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 12:32 PM

"Fascism isn't the opposite of socialism."

Absolutely correct!!...matter of fact, they're pretty much the same thing!

Freedom IS the opposite of either!

So, do ya' think our 'so-called liberal' friends will finally openly admit that they're Fascists in sheep's clothing??
...of course not....they'll make lame excuses...but keep up the practices of Fascist mind control for everybody!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 12:56 PM

I'm a liberal in whatever sense you wish to say. And proud of my stance.

By definition, I cannot be a fascist, you ignorant bloody foreigner.

Redneck idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 01:06 PM

"I'm a liberal in whatever sense you wish to say. And proud of my stance."

Then, you and Hitler seem to be on the same page.


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 03:06 PM

"Then, you and Hitler seem to be on the same page."
Ake rides again!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 03:39 PM

Ake???...

Here, just for starters, how is the 'so-called liberal' stances different than Hitler's on, Jews (Israel)?...
Gun control?
The Mid-East(Arabs)?
Socialism?
Freedom of speech(or thought, for that matter)?
Government owned industry?
World domination to Fascist control?
Treatment to those who don't agree?

...and please, pray tell, is the STRUCTURAL difference between a corporate regulated business, that provides benefits for their employees, union control, and/or Socialism, and/or a 'collective'????

You will find not any differences at all.....and that's just for starters!

Welcome to find out you've been duped....if you even care...maybe you're just dyed in the wool Fascists....but are too 'politically correct' to call it what it is!!

Freedom, on the other hand, allows the individual to choose, whatever way he or she wishes to support themselves, AS LONG AS YOUR WILLS, DON'T INTRUDE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS!!!

Sieg Heil, Comrade!!

(Sieg Heil is a German phrase, which literally means "Hail [to] Victory." During the Nazi era, it was a common chant at political rallies.)

Sincerely,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 03:48 PM

Please don't engage Goofus - you'll only encourage him. Also, please don't feed the animals.

Say Good-Night, Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 03:56 PM

What's the matter, Greg...can't answer the questions??

Just his usual tactics of saying nothing!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 03:57 PM

First there was WW1, then, WW2, then along come W and starts WWW (if it weren't so tragic it'd be funny)

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 04:05 PM

One glaring example of the fascistic tactics of our armchair socialists is the stifling of conversation by screaming Islamophobe whenever someone dares to have critical views of some aspects of Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 04:46 PM

"Please don't engage Goofus - you'll only encourage him."

I never read his posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 04:53 PM

Pshaw: ""Please don't engage Goofus.."

Especially if you're a brainless ideologue.

..and by the way, both Greg and Steve are trying to get the thread shut down(AGAIN), with changing the topic and atmosphere with hostility.
They do it all the time when they have nothing intelligent to say or rebut........another silly tactic.

Stick to Churchill, and what he did or didn't do, and 'why'.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 05:20 PM

Stick to Churchill the way you haven't been doing perhaps, Guest Insanity?

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 06:04 PM

But I have...including WWII ideologies in conflict, and how the 'so-called liberals' are idolizing the same policies as the Nazis, and those same ideologues are alive and well in Mudcat, as you can plainly see by their responses....now instead of attacking me, or anyone else who prefers freedom over Fascism, why don't you offer your two bits worth,,,instead of your usual slurs and attempts to squelch any opposition, that happens to be telling the truth!!

Now, Churchill....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 06:40 PM

"GUEST,Dave - 06 Dec 15 - 03:52 AM

The UK was saved in WWII by Operation Barbarossa"

Rather odd then isn't it "Dave" that in 1941 it was the UK that went to Russia's rescue - not the other way round.

There was no way on God's earth that Germany could have successfully invaded Great Britain:

"Hitler knows he must defeat us in this island or lose the war"

Well he didn't defeat us in this island and he did lose the war - the mistakes that he made in attacking Russia and declaring war on the USA merely accelerated was was always going to be the predictable outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 07:39 PM

"Rather odd then isn't it "Dave" that in 1941 it was the UK that went to Russia's rescue - not the other way round."
This is the second time you've stupidly claimed this -
Russia was not in the position to "come to the assistance of Britain" - Britain did did what they did, not as an act of charity, as you apparently seem to be suggesting, but as an Ally acting out of self interest.
It is typical of the mean-minded right to suggest this was a humanitarian act - it is what allies do in wartime - out of self preservation.
I suggest you remind yourself of exactly how many people Russia lost fighting Fascism - and they began three years before the war, when Britain was still sucking up to "Herr Hitler"
Leading British politicians - including an ex Prime Minister considered "new Germany a bulwark against Bolshevism" until the partnership failed to materialise.
Mean minded right wing bastard!   
Jim Carroll
   
Although relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had been strained in the years before World War II, the U.S.-Soviet alliance of 1941–1945 was marked by a great degree of cooperation and was essential to securing the defeat of Nazi Germany. Without the remarkable efforts of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, the United States and Great Britain would have been hard pressed to score a decisive military victory over Nazi Germany.

A reminder of what it was all about
Department of Defense Pro-Soviet Poster
Department of Defense Pro-Soviet Poster
As late as 1939, it seemed highly improbable that the United States and the Soviet Union would forge an alliance. U.S.-Soviet relations had soured significantly following Stalin's decision to sign a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in August of 1939. The Soviet occupation of eastern Poland in September and the "Winter War" against Finland in December led President Franklin Roosevelt to condemn the Soviet Union publicly as a "dictatorship as absolute as any other dictatorship in the world," and to impose a "moral embargo" on the export of certain products to the Soviets. Nevertheless, in spite of intense pressure to sever relations with the Soviet Union, Roosevelt never lost sight of the fact that Nazi Germany, not the Soviet Union, posed the greatest threat to world peace. In order to defeat that threat, Roosevelt confided that he "would hold hands with the devil" if necessary.

Following the Nazi defeat of France in June of 1940, Roosevelt grew wary of the increasing aggression of the Germans and made some diplomatic moves to improve relations with the Soviets. Beginning in July of 1940, a series of negotiations took place in Washington between Under-Secretary of State Sumner Welles and Soviet Ambassador Constantine Oumansky. Welles refused to accede to Soviet demands that the United States recognize the changed borders of the Soviet Union after the Soviet seizure of territory in Finland, Poland, and Romania and the reincorporation of the Baltic Republics in August 1940, but the U.S. Government did lift the embargo in January 1941. Furthermore, in March of 1941, Welles warned Oumansky of a future Nazi attack against the Soviet Union. Finally, during the Congressional debate concerning the passage of the Lend-Lease bill in early 1941, Roosevelt blocked attempts to exclude the Soviet Union from receiving U.S. assistance.

Under-Secretary of State Sumner Welles
Under-Secretary of State Sumner Welles
The most important factor in swaying the Soviets eventually to enter into an alliance with the United States was the Nazi decision to launch its invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. President Roosevelt responded by dispatching his trusted aide Harry Lloyd Hopkins to Moscow in order to assess the Soviet military situation. Although the War Department had warned the President that the Soviets would not last more than six weeks, after two one-on-one meetings with Soviet Premier Josef Stalin, Hopkins urged Roosevelt to assist the Soviets. By the end of October, the first Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union was on its way. The United States entered the war as a belligerent in late 1941 and thus began coordinating directly with the Soviets, and the British, as allies.

Several issues arose during the war that threatened the alliance. These included the Soviet refusal to aide the Polish Home Army during the Warsaw Uprising of August 1944, and the decision of British and U.S. officials to exclude the Soviets from secret negotiations with German officers in March of 1945 in an effort to secure the surrender of German troops in Italy. The most important disagreement, however, was over the opening of a second front in the West. Stalin's troops struggled to hold the Eastern front against the Nazi forces, and the Soviets began pleading for a British invasion of France immediately after the Nazi invasion in 1941. In 1942, Roosevelt unwisely promised the Soviets that the Allies would open the second front that autumn. Although Stalin only grumbled when the invasion was postponed until 1943, he exploded the following year when the invasion was postponed again until May of 1944. In retaliation, Stalin recalled his ambassadors from London and Washington and fears soon arose that the Soviets might seek a separate peace with Germany.


Harry Lloyd Hopkins
In spite of these differences, the defeat of Nazi Germany was a joint endeavor that could not have been accomplished without close cooperation and shared sacrifices. Militarily, the Soviets fought valiantly and suffered staggering casualties on the Eastern Front. When Great Britain and the United States finally invaded northern France in 1944, the Allies were finally able to drain Nazi Germany of its strength on two fronts. Finally, two devastating atomic bomb attacks against Japan by the United States, coupled with the Soviets' decision to break their neutrality pact with Japan by invading Manchuria, finally led to the end of the war in the Pacific.

Furthermore, during the wartime conferences at Tehran and Yalta, Roosevelt secured political concessions from Stalin and Soviet participation in the United Nations. While President Roosevelt harbored no illusions about Soviet designs in Eastern Europe, it was his great hope that if the United States made a sincere effort to satisfy legitimate Soviet security requirements in Eastern Europe and Northeast Asia, and to integrate the U.S.S.R. into the United Nations, the Soviet regime would become an international team player and moderate its authoritarian regime. Unfortunately, soon after the war, the alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union began to unravel as the two nations faced complex postwar decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 08:13 PM

Good post, Jim...maybe your best!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: Wesley S
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 09:42 PM

Yeah it's a great post. And it's a shame that at least parts of it were not attributed to the US State Department archive.

Seen here.

Or here.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 10:37 PM

Wesley, Do you mean Jim 'interjected' parts not factual??...or just a cut and paste, with freelance 'commentary'?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 03:35 AM

Wesley, thats unfair, Jim has attributed those quotes to the authors.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 03:35 AM

" And it's a shame that at least parts of it were not attributed to the US State Department archive."
Yes they were, in fact the entire quote came from State Department documents which gives the statement a "horse's mouth" validity - and there's a lot more where that came from.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of The Soviet Union, and I'm one of its greatest critics for the way Stalin was allowed to destroy the dream of 'a worker's state, the price that The Soviet Union payed in helping defeat fascism is far too often forgotten - estimated at up to 26.5 million dead - around 13.7% of the total Soviet population.
It seems more than a little mean-minded to suggest that anybody came to its rescue - the war was about nations coming together to defeat fascism - it's a bloody crying shame that that unity wasn't there when Hitler and Mussolini might have been stopped.
If Churchill made any contribution, it was in helping shut the stable door long after the horse had bolted - it was the people who paid the ultimate price (notably the six million Jews who were butchered) , not the ***** politicians who ran up the bill in the first place.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 03:42 AM

Meanwhile, Churchill made the conscious decision to sacrifice Singapore and risk losing Australia to the Japanese. It was his way of saying thanks for supplying him with cannon fodder.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 12:54 PM

Jim Carroll: "The Soviet Union payed in helping defeat fascism is far too often forgotten - estimated at up to 26.5 million dead - around 13.7% of the total Soviet population.
It seems more than a little mean-minded to suggest that anybody came to its rescue - the war was about nations coming together to defeat fascism -.."

Jim, I am not asking this in a contentious manner, partly because I think you've hit a great point...so, in that spirit you said, "...the war was about nations coming together to defeat fascism -..". So, being as Fascism in Germany was the Nazi Party, which in itself is The National Socialist Party, and the Soviets were Socialists, and Churchill is also accused of being a Fascist, and the Bush family, are noted for giving support to the German Nazi regime, as were many 'sympathizers' at the time, one has to wonder, was it really against Fascism, or something else?...and how does the Socialism, embodied in Nazi Germany differ from any other Socialism....especially when, let's say, Socialism today, has at its goal, to become a National Socialist Party, with the elimination of any other opposing points of view...and moreover, when do you think that goal would be achieved??
Fair question...give it some thought, OK??
Looking forward to your reply.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 01:16 PM

Goofus, look up the definition of "socialism, will ya? Might help you look like less of a jackass. Or not.

Your nonsense about this has been dealt with several times before.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 01:42 PM

Not a chance Greg, you can have a rational discussion with Keith even if you disagree with him, but not this guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 01:57 PM

Greg, Stop disrupting the thread. The question I put to Jim is a valid question, and worthy of an honest exchange. Let Jim answer..nobody is on trial here, nor should any valid question be squelched with your antics....AGAIN!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 02:30 PM

Go on then, I give in.

How do you get a rational discussion with Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 02:44 PM

Try Astrophysics.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 02:56 PM

Back to Churchill...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 03:02 PM

I'd have to be a space cadet myself first.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 04:02 PM

If you want to go back to Churchill stop writing silly posts trying to equate Naziism with Socialism. Churchill was neither a Socialist not a Nazi. And this issue was not that anyway, it was whether he was a thieving cheapskate.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 04:23 PM

The question I put to Jim is a valid question

On the contrary, Goofus, the question you put is a garble of ignorant nonsense. And its apparent that you would be better committed without trial.

I take it you're referring to Churchill, Manitoba? I don't think they'd welcome you there, either, except as bear food.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 04:32 PM

Winston Churchill made military mistakes so did Hitler.
Churchill maintained morale during the war and had some good speech writers and knew how to deliver a good speech,
Churchill Stalin and Roosevelt, were all important in Hitlers Downfall.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 05:23 PM

So was Spike Milligan, he even wrote a book about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 05:37 PM

A number of them. Mainly about what it was really like to be a soldier.

Shhh. Don't wake Keith up.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 05:55 PM

Spike was a very funny man, but if Hitler had won. we would not have had his humour, so you partly have to thank Churchill. think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 06:55 PM

Dick that is purely conjecture.

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 01:54 AM

I always thought Milligan a most spiteful creature. I daresay he was being alienatory or ironic or whatever get·out you may choose or adduce; but I always found him a disgusting specimen. His unwarranted attack on Prince Charles -- for having spoken well of him, for crying out loud! -- was typical of the horrid little man's outright rebarbativeness.

≈M≈

Sorry for continuing drift. Let's get back to Churchill indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 02:11 AM

Someone who chirps repeatedly that they were a review journalist yet lets their blinkered view of the person behind the talent obscure their take on the talent?

A good job we had Colin Irwin to give objective views on folk music eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 02:29 AM

To answer Dave's question to me:

Read carefully....very short....see if there's anything familiar.

(My previous post got deleted again...here's the short version).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Winston Churchill, thieving cheapskate
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 03:06 AM

A name is nothing more than that. Take the name "Liberal". We have taken it to mean a party which occupies the middle ground. In the dictionary it says something like:

"willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas."

In the US it seems to have become a term of abuse thrown around by the right. But in Australia it is a right wing party, and you cannot imagine that dictionary definition being applied to the government of the unlamented Tony Abbott.

The Nazis may have called themselves National Socialist, but their values are far removed from those of equality and justice put forward by people like Jeremy Corbyn. Their model of central control is far removed from the workers' democracy advocated by the Socialist Workers Party. And their values were not those of the planned economic model of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Nazi system was fascist, racist and anti-semitic, but you could not call it planned.