Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Documentary - Churchill Saw Stalin As a Greater Threat To Western Civilization Than Hitler.

Posted on 02/09/2012 7:59:37 AM PST by pinochet

There is a great World War Two documentary, that was made in 2005, that shows the diplomatic disputes between Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin, as they planned their military campaigns against Hitler. The 4 part documentary is titled: Warlords. The DVD version was released in 2007, and it shows Winston Churchill as the true defender of freedom, democracy, Christianity, and Western Civilization - against three socialist dictators - Stalin, Hitler, and Roosevelt. Here is a an Amazon link to the documentary: http://www.amazon.com/Warlords-Churchill/dp/B000NVKZUG

Churchill noticed the obvious - that Stalinist Russia was more oppressive than Nazism. While Nazism was brutal in its persecution of Jews, Stalinism was brutal in its perseuction of both Jews and Christians. No regime in human history, with the exception of Islamist regimes, destroyed more Churches and Synagogues than Stalinist regimes in Russia and Eastern Europe. People often forget that Stalin killed more Jews than anyone in the 20th Century, with the exception of Hitler. Stalin killed more Jews than the Islamists did, in the 20th Century.

The documentary reveals that Churchill was opposed to the D-day invasion of France. Instead, Churchill supported the invasion of Nazi-held Eastern Europe through Italy in 1941, while Germany and Russia were still fighting on Russian territory. If Eastern Europe (including Poland) had been liberated from the Nazis by America and Britain, while Stalin was still fighting Hitler on Russian territory, the history of the world would have turned out differently. Most of the Nazi death camp victims were murdered after 1943. Churchill proposed the invasion of Nazi-held Eastern Europe as early as 1941. This means that the millions who were killed in Nazi death camps after 1943, would have lived, and Eastern European nations would have emerged as democratic nations in 1945.

It was more urgent to liberate Eastern Europe from Nazism, than Western Europe, because that would have kept Eastern Europe out of Stalin's hands. Many of the German Generals opposed Hitler, given their attempt to assassinate him in 1944, and it would have been possible for the West to do a deal with them in removing Hitler from power and securing a withdrawal from Western Europe.

But Roosevelt chose to side with Stalin, rather than with Churchill, in designing a plan to defeat Hitler. Roosevelt considered Stalin to be a more valuable ally than Churchill, and was personally fond of the mass murderer, and referred to him affectionately as "Uncle Joe".

Of course, Roosevelt and the American media elites, thought Stalin was better than Hitler, because Stalin was more open about his atheism, and he was more openly anti-Christian. It was FDR who appointed known communists in the State Department in the 1930s and 1940s, the ones that Joe McCarthy tried to remove in the 1950s.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Russia; United Kingdom; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: churchill; hitler; roosevelt; stalin; vanity
The shocking revelation of the documentary, is that Stalin's occupation of Eastern Europe was not accidental, but that FDR gave Eastern Europe to Stalin as a gift. FDR handed over Eastern Europe to the commies, over the objections of Churchill. FDR was looking to a post-war world, in which he and Stalin could rule the world together, and impose a socialist/communist paradise over the entire world. One wonders how far FDR would have gone with his New Deal, if it was not for the opposition he received from the Supreme Court, and from Senate Republicans such as Sen. Robert Taft. FDR was the first President to disregard America's democratic tradition of a 2 term limit, established by George Washington, by running for a third Presidential term in 1940.

Many American patriots in the 1930s and 1940s, regarded FDR as a secret communist. The documentary shows how FDR and Stalin conspired to undermine Churchill, as they waged their war effort in Europe, which gives credence to those claims.

One part of the documentary is available on Youtube, titled Churchill vs. Stalin. In almost every dispute that Churchill had with Stalin, FDR took the side of Stalin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUV8IJNszCg

Churchill was naive enough to consider America as an ally for the cause of Christianity, freedom, and Western civilization. He was wrong. Churchill is the true hero of World War Two. He opposed communism, even before he gave his famous 1946 speech, declaring the existence of a Cold War between communism and freedom.

1 posted on 02/09/2012 7:59:47 AM PST by pinochet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pinochet
The documentary reveals that Churchill was opposed to the D-day invasion of France. Instead, Churchill supported the invasion of Nazi-held Eastern Europe through Italy in 1941,...

scratchin my head, here. D-Day vs. 1941 ?
2 posted on 02/09/2012 8:03:33 AM PST by stylin19a (time to Obamanos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

>>>scratchin my head, here. D-Day vs. 1941 ?

D-day was in 1944. Churchill proposed an invasion of Italy in 1941, and did not find it necessary to wait until 1944, when America and Britain launched their D-day invasion.


3 posted on 02/09/2012 8:07:18 AM PST by pinochet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pinochet
So did Patton.
4 posted on 02/09/2012 8:08:30 AM PST by Joe the Pimpernel (Too many lawmakers, too many laws, too many lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet
There was a mentality in the FDR State Department that Russia was not a communist hegemon, but simply the inheritor of a paranoid historical legacy that left it terrified of invasion by foreign powers and ideologies. It would not seek to export its communist vision; it simply wanted to be secure within its own borders. Stalin wasn't an empire-builder; he was heir to the tsarist legacy of invasion, betrayal, and oppression.

The authors of that pacifist line of bilge were Roosevelt's State hacks, notably Dean Acheson, who gradually changed his policy from one of appeasement of Stalin to containment of the Soviet menace that later proved to be very real.

5 posted on 02/09/2012 8:11:35 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet
Interestingly liberals tend to constantly characterize things as innate rights that are not, while not defending those things that actually are innate God-given rights. Freedom and self-determination are innate God-given rights. ‘Wealth’ is not. Wealth is created by the industry of human beings working toward a better (self-determined) life. It doesn't exist on its own. If people don't work, there is no ‘wealth’. The GDP is not a measure of the cumulative amount of things that ‘just exist’ that a country has. It is a measure of the cumulative amount of things that those who create, invest in, and work have generated.

Wealth is not like water or air, things that exist independent of man's efforts (I'm not talking about water distribution, dams, purification etc., which are the result of individual efforts). Liberals want to take and redistribute those things that are the result of the efforts of individuals, but will not defend the innate rights of freedom and self-determination.

6 posted on 02/09/2012 8:12:46 AM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

The “soft underbelly” of Europe.


7 posted on 02/09/2012 8:20:28 AM PST by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pinochet
Churchill always believed that the doorway to Europe was "the soft underbelly" of Italy. As First Lord of the Admiralty in WWI, he was the driving force behind the disastrous Gallipoli campaign, and sought to redeem his reputation by repeating the campaign in WWII. Fortunately, Eisenhower squelched the idea or the Normandy invasion never would have come off.

Churchill was an incredible statesman, but not necessarily a brilliant military planner.

8 posted on 02/09/2012 8:22:08 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet
While an invasion of Europe through Italy in 1941 would have solved many of the post-war problems, it was not tactically possible. The British were not successful in Greece, Crete, and North Africa. An invasion of Italy would require substantial naval forces to navigate through the narrow straights of Gibralter-prime U-boat hunting grounds. Hitler was trying hard to have Spain join the axis and had he been successful, this would have made the entire route from England to Italy within range of air attack.

There was no way England could have attacked through Italy in 1941.

9 posted on 02/09/2012 8:29:03 AM PST by rightsmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

The main point of contention between the Americans & Britains after the US entry into the war was where to strike. French North Africa was initially chosen because of the need to secure the Mediterranean. But the argument began before the Germans were ejected from Tunisia as to where to strike next.

The US General Staff wanted to invade France in 1943. The Brits, far more conservative in their approach, wanted to wait for more favorable force ratios. The Sicily/Italian campaign began as a British gambit to tie delay preparations for a cross-channel invasion. They understood better than the Americans that we couldn’t do both in 1943.

We also need to remember that the U-boat menace wasn’t effectively countered until late in 1943. It would have been difficult to build up the necessary forces AND invade France until the U-boat Offensive was defeated.


10 posted on 02/09/2012 8:33:44 AM PST by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

Winston Churchill was GREAT as being a Great Britain Prime Minister and motivating his people but as a Military Planner he was a Cluster F*** of the First order. To see an example of a Churchill “Planned” Military Operation see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign


11 posted on 02/09/2012 8:34:35 AM PST by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Good points.

Eisenhower understood logistics and knew that only England provided a supply platform for what Eisenhower understood was going to be a long war across France.

The competing strategies of invasion through Vichy France, Italy, and Greece all lost out to Normandy because of resupply and refueling limitations of the Mediterranean Sea and the bottleneck of Gibraltar.

England as a launch point was a no-brainer to the Brit and American general staff.


12 posted on 02/09/2012 8:35:04 AM PST by gandalftb (11th MEU, 2/4 Echo, TRAP Force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

>>>There was a mentality in the FDR State Department that Russia was not a communist hegemon

Many in the FDR State Department were open communists, and were cheer-leaders for Stalin and his regime. They were the people whom Joe McCarthy was trying to remove in the early 1950s. The FDR administration had the highest infiltration of KNOWN communists of any adminstration in American history. Membership of the Communist Party USA, could not deny you a government job with high security clearance.

How else can you explain how America’s greatest secret, the plans of the atomic bomb, found their way into Soviet hands? Communists were also heavily represented in the mainstream media, as is the case today. When McCarthy tried to remove the communists in the State Department, the media attacked McCarthy, not the communists. It was a case of the commies defending their own.


13 posted on 02/09/2012 8:35:12 AM PST by pinochet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

That doesn’t make sense nor does it clear the confusion.
I don’t understand how the word “Instead” can be used in this context. D-Day wasn’t even a thought ‘41.

The USA wasn’t prepared for war nor did it declare war against Germany until Dec 11 1941.

The Brits just got their ass kicked at Dunkirk and were getting their butts bombed non-stop and Churchill was ready to invade via Italy in ‘41? without the US ?

Too much missing.

I suppose I should try and view the documentary.

Thanks


14 posted on 02/09/2012 8:40:23 AM PST by stylin19a (time to Obamanos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

Churchill visited Stalin during the war and both of them sat up all night “carving” up the world into spheres of influence and determining which part the Soviets would rule and which parts Great Britain would rule.

Churchill did not do anything to stop Stalin. Sorry, but I think he is just as responsible as FDR for the Soviet Union’s takeover of Eastern Europe.


15 posted on 02/09/2012 8:41:58 AM PST by AnnGora (I'm suing my tagline for sexual harrassment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

Roosevelt opposed anything that would weaken the USSR or lead to the downfall of Stalin and the communists.

He even ordered Eisenhower to delay the American Army entry into Berlin until the Soviet Red Army got there so they could occupy part of Berlin and half of Germany. Thanks to FDR a hundred million people lived under the iron fist of the USSR communists for almost half a century.

This is documented fact, not tin-foil-hat paranoia as liberal, one-worlders would have you believe.

FDR was every bit as bad as Obama at heart, and even worse in practice (so far). In fact, he laid the groundwork so a socialist like Obama could someday be elected to the US presidency. Obama is just finishing up the work started by FDR.

Both of therm are traitors to the oath they took to protect the US Constitution.


16 posted on 02/09/2012 8:42:38 AM PST by Iron Munro ("Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight he'll just kill you." John Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

My mother claimed until her passing that Roosevelt was a communist. I learned early that eastern Europe was payment to Stalin. No surprise there.


17 posted on 02/09/2012 9:17:02 AM PST by Conservative4Ever (Waiting for the new tagline to download)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a; pinochet
Churchill supported the invasion of Nazi-held Eastern Europe through Italy in 1941,..

With what, exactly?

They'd just left ALL of their means to fight (other than manpower) on the beaches at Dunkirk. German UBoats had largely stopped traffic in the Atlantic, as decent convoy / hunter-killer tactics hadn't been invented yet. The US was just barely cranking up war production, and its armies hadn't been significantly blooded. And that's just what I come up with off the top of my head.

Churchill was right. But being right, and being able to prove it, are two different things.

18 posted on 02/09/2012 9:17:57 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pinochet
I agree with the assumption. FDR was the biggest trader in US history.. He gave away and betrayed the Polish people. And the rest of eastern Europe.. How many people died because of FDR's failed policies regarding Stalin. Communism has killed more people then Hitler ever did. Not justifying what Hitler did but making a observation.
19 posted on 02/09/2012 9:21:23 AM PST by crazydad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crazydad

And traitor...


20 posted on 02/09/2012 9:25:42 AM PST by crazydad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Joe the Pimpernel
Patton was right too, but as I posted re: Churchill, I'm not sure he had the means to back it up.

We had better logistics and far more air power. The Russians had better armor and more of it. Also more men, and most important - the political will to throw them all into a meat grinder.

Now, something that *might* have been interesting was what some of the errant Nazis (read: Hitler's internal opponents) were proposing in the summer of '44. Namely a German alliance with the Allies to fight the Russians. German technology + allied logistics and air power = no more Soviet Union.

21 posted on 02/09/2012 9:29:48 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson