Skip to comments.Why Winston Wouldn't Stand For W
Posted on 07/02/2007 9:16:18 AM PDT by steve-b
...I've spent a great deal of time thinking about Churchill while working on my book "Troublesome Young Men," a history of the small group of Conservative members of Parliament who defied British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasing Adolf Hitler, forced Chamberlain to resign in May 1940 and helped make Churchill his successor. I thought my audience would be largely limited to World War II buffs, so I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the president has been reading my book. He hasn't let me know what he thinks about it, but it's a safe bet that he's identifying with the book's portrayal of Churchill, not Chamberlain. But I think Bush's hero would be bemused, to say the least, by the president's wrapping himself in the Churchillian cloak. Indeed, the more you understand the historical record, the more the parallels leap out -- but they're between Bush and Chamberlain, not Bush and Churchill....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The meeting with Putin the other day reminded me of- “Peace in our time!”.
I’d say the author doesn’t know her subject matter very well, or does and objects to who won WWII.
Total distortion of history w.r.t. Bush's efforts, and personally I would think that Churchill would not have gone it alone if he needed to, rather than roll over at Hitler's aggression.
Bush could have been a Great President.
Would you rather him NOT talk with the leader of Russia???
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Churchill actually go it alone against Hitler for a time prior to America’s entry into WWII?
The United States/FDR’s reluctance to enter the war did NOT stop Churchill from fighting Nazi Germany.
And Hitler wasn’t buying off the US with under the table deals.
A poor article. It's basically a twist on the "WOT is not really serious, it's just a bumper sticker" argument, and basically trying to marshal Churchill on the same side of the debate with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and John Edwards. Not buying.
Only one similar paralell vis-a-vis Bush and Winnie:
Churchill understood, like a great many of his contemporaries did not, that there was no accomodation with Nazism to be made (none that was desireable, in any case), and so, he determined the only course of action available to him; resistance. Bush has reached (almost) the same conclusion vis-a-vis radical Islam.
The major difference, of course, is that Bush has made the mistake of not understanding that the way to peace with the Islamic world is a systematic destruction of the Islamic system and world view, making it apparent that it is bankrupt morally, socially, economically, politically, but to attempt to “save” it with enlightened reason, “democracy” and charity.
Churchill did not fall into that trap: he realized that Nazism could only be completely discredited and overcome by abject defeat, which entailed the total destruction of Germany. The Nazis would have held on forever if the German people had not been reduced to an existance of incredible suffering, and the same is true of Islamic fundamentalism.
Until people are drinking puddle water and picking undigested oats from horse dung for susentance, they will not begin to question the fundamental viability of their current system. Without that impetus, they will never make the great mental leap (and then muster the physical courage required) to change their circumstances, and perhaps, put their energies and devotion into something far more peaceful and productive.
Just my $0.02
Michael Moore, who says, " There is no terrorist threat."
Or Ward Churchill, who says the victimes of 9/11 were "little Hitlers."
For one year Churchill not only fought Hitler alone but also had to contend with a large group of appeasers and communists in England who wanted to throw in the towel.
I wanted to buy this when I saw it in a book store a few months ago, but I already had 3 in hand (I still have over 2 dozen unopened books to read).
Now seeing the replies on here, I’m hesitant to buy it now.
1. The oil-for-food program was corrupt
2. The weapons inspections were a farce
3. US and allied planes were targeted
4. Uninspected flights to Baghdad gutted the sanctions
5. Terrorists were training in Iraq
6. Saddam supported terrorism - $25,000 to each family of a suicide bomber (Thanks, Prost1).
7. Saddam brutalized our fellow human beings
Saddam was thumbing his nose at decent people as he rewarded his collaborators.
Bush interrupted Saddam's staging of a comeback.
Stupid claim 1: That Bush is like Chamberlain because he was inexperienced with foreign policy and Churchill was experienced.
Reality: Churchill's only "foreign policy" experience was dealing with colonial administrators of his own government. He was not a foreign policy expert.
Stupid claim 2: That Bush and Chamberlain were surrounded by like-minded advisers and do not heed outside advice.
Reality: Churchill kept his own counsel and did not take advice from outside sources - he did not brook contradiction.
Stupid claim 3: That Bush and Chamberlain believed in "going it alone" while Churchill was a coalition-builder.
Reality: Both Bush and Churchill appealed to the UN/League Of Nations and attempted to build a consensus for their initiatives.
Stupid claim 4: That Bush and Chamberlain "evaded the checks and balances of government", while Churchill "revered Parliament."
Reality: Bush has been criticized by many for almost never vetoing a Congressional bill, and Churchill was widely criticized by parliament for his far-reaching wartime measures.
Stupid claim 5: That Bush and Chamberlain eroded civil liberties while Churchill defended them.
Reality: the PATRIOT Act is mealymouthed compared to Roosevelt's war measures and Churchill - as the article even admits - interned 20,000 UK residents indefinitely without trial.
Here we have the writing of a pseudohistorian afflicted with BDS who is trying desperately to disassociate Churchill from Bush because she likes Churchill.
This column is historically false and full of unwarranted assumptions. In short, its rubbish.
I think you are absolutely right. We have terrible things to come, I wonder if we have to guts to prevail.
Who is Putin visiting with the President or his son "W" ?
As you know, Bush wasn’t in favor of going it alone.
A better analogy would be Churchill refusing to fight Hitler if he couldn’t get everybody in Europe to agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.