Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Nicholas Soames, grandson of legendary British WW2 leader Winston Churchill, has attacked President Trump’s climate policies with a claim that Churchill would have opposed President Trump’s climate policies. Soames also claims that cutting carbon emissions “helps your economy grow faster”.
Dear President Trump: Churchill would have been a climate leader
By Sir Nicholas Soames
Updated 1558 GMT (2358 HKT) January 15, 2018
There could be no starker illustration of the profound differences that exist between Washington and London — despite alignment on many other issues — than comments this week by our two leaders on climate change and the environment.
For President Trump, the Paris Agreement is a bad deal that will close US businesses — perhaps even has closed some already.
Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s man at the Environmental Protection Agency, added the detail — promising to repeal regulations protecting US watercourses from pollution and reduce power plant emissions.The best-performing nation on growth is also, notably, the best at cutting emissions.
And it is… the UK. In that period, the average Briton has grown 45% wealthier, while reducing his/her carbon footprint by 33%. The USA has not done badly, coming mid-table on both measures. But the overall conclusion is obvious: there is no conflict between making your people richer and cutting greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, from the evidence, one could well draw the opposite conclusion — a consistent goal and a systematic plan for cutting carbon emissions helps your economy grow faster.
The key figure in starting all this was another Conservative figure for whom I hope the President would have some regard: Margaret Thatcher. And it has brought no threat to energy security, or to jobs.
The evidence, therefore, is entirely against the world view of Donald Trump and entirely consistent with that of Theresa May.
My grandfather, Sir Winston Churchill, knew a thing or two about courage. President Trump is, I gather, a fan, having a bust of him in the Oval Office. Without Churchill’s determination, the Nazis would have won the war in Europe. But this is equally true of his respect for evidence. You cannot defeat an enemy of markedly superior forces unless you have better information and make better decisions.
Were he our Prime Minister today, it is pretty clear he would have said the same things on climate change as Theresa May has this week. Because, simply, she is right, and she is acting in the interests of her people.
Back in the real world, poverty in Britain is getting worse – in part thanks to high energy prices.
Poverty hits more children and pensioners, says charity
4 December 2017
Thousands of people are struggling to make ends meet in the UK every day, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said.
An additional 700,000 UK children and pensioners have fallen into relative poverty – households with less than 60% the median income – over the past four years.
The charity said it was the first time in 20 years that poverty in these groups had seen sustained rises.
Ministers say their support is helping pensioners and families out of poverty.
…
The charity says ending the benefits freeze is the single biggest change the government could do to help the 14m people – 4m children and 1.9m pensioners – now living in poverty.
New threats to the poorest households include rising housing costs, higher food and energy bills, debts and not being able to contribute to a pension, said the foundation.
The latest figures represent a “real warning sign that our hard-fought progress is in peril,” Mr Robb added.
…
Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42218682
The full JRF Report is available here
I once met and spoke with Nicholas Soames. My impression wasn’t good. He is no Winston Churchill.
President Trump won people’s trust because he promised to address their concerns, because he understood people’s concerns. Trump promised to remove the roadblocks to American prosperity, to ease the cost of living burdens and security concerns of ordinary Americans.
Contrast this with Nicholas Soames, and his arrogant claim that life in Britain is better than the USA, that expensive green energy policies enhance prosperity.
For some people, likely the kind of people Soames normally hangs out with, life undoubtably is good. Owners of vast, desolate, windswept hereditary estates have done very well out of Britain’s green energy revolution. But for hundreds of thousands of Soames’ fellow Britons, even people with full time jobs, life is a brutal struggle to feed their children and heat their homes.
Britain’s hideously expensive green energy policies are hurting poor people. In my opinion, to claim that expensive green energy helps alleviate poverty verges on delusional.
More likely WC would have recognized the pseudoscience for what it is: an excuse for totalitarians to control our lives.
I don’t doubt that Churchill would have been in the pocket of the AGW crowd. There was little he did for England except grandstand during WW2, and never once put the English people ahead of his ego.
A broadcast from Planet Corbyn?
I think you have a rather shallow understanding of Churchill. He was brilliant. Probably the greatest PM England ever had. It might be worth your while to pick up and read a biography on the man… there are several good ones out there.
How old are you, Tom O? (serious question – to the nearest decade, if you wish. Assumes a number greater than 1)
Hate to burst your bubble, but you’ve been socially engineered.
Tom O.
There’s a product of modern Progressive education for you.
Agreed. There is no doubt he would be in the pocket of the same people he was during WWII. Without Churchill, there wouldn’t have been a WWII. There also wouldn’t have been a Cold War. He was a drunk, a psychopath, and a fraud. I’m surprised climate skeptics haven’t picked up on the realities of the jp.
And according to historian James Perloff, Churchill had a major role in the sinking of the Lusitania, an incident that was designed to change the popular anti-war (WW1) sentiment that Pres. Wilson campaigned on and got elected for. Search online for ‘False Flag at Sea’.
Winston was flawed, but he was a good wartime PR.
Danger hilariously thinks Winston was responsible in starting WW2,
“There is no doubt he would be in the pocket of the same people he was during WWII. Without Churchill, there wouldn’t have been a WWII.”
If you read what Hitler planned, it was inevitable. Besides that Poland was attacked and conquered BEFORE Winston was even appointed Prime Minister, which happened near the ending of the invasion of France and Belgium.
He writes wrongly again,
“There also wouldn’t have been a Cold War.”
Winston Churchill was out of power BEFORE WW2 ended.
It was Stalin who pushed the “cold war” not Winston, FDR or Truman.
Tom O I wonder how good your German is. if it hadn”t been for Churchill it would now be pretty good as we would all be speaking it. In 1939 the government and indeed many of the “ruling class” were pro German and in favour of appeasement. Churchill, for whatever other faults he had, had the vision and the ball$ to stand up to Hitler. As for the quote elsewhere in another anti-Churchill rant that a his “on the beaches” speech was read by an actor well i just despair of the mentality of these people.
Tom O you are a natural fool, so its good you are going with that as hard as you are, it gives all the sane, decent folk a good laugh when you so ably display just how low, low can be.
It’s hilarious when people like Sunsette think Churchill had no power before he was PM. Lol! You obviously don’t have a clue, buddy. His role in starting WWI would certainly be too much for you to handle then if you can’t even grasp that one.
Ronald Reagan did some grandstanding and the Berlin Wall came down. I’m not entirely sure that one leads to the other, but that is what a leader DOES. Other people always do the work. A leader simply provides direction, and that involves a certain amount of “grandstanding”. It hardly even matters his true motivations; I am amazed at how many people can read the minds of dead men.
Actually, WWII COULD have been avoided altogether, or would have been a completely different conflict. Hitler and the NAZIs plan for Germany was basically expansion to the East and conflict with the Communists. Germany sued for peace after the successful invasion of Poland, but Britain and France wouldn’t have it. France was politically weak at the time, and Britain was leading the opposition to Germany. Had Britain and France simply let Poland go, the may well have been the end of the conflict. Worse case being that Germany started a conflict with Soviet Russia. No WWII. No war for Britain, France, or the USA. No Cold War. (Other evils of NAZI Germany not withstanding). A huge blow to Soviet Russia may have also altered the outcome of the civil war in China, so perhaps no Communist China. This blow to communism could also have meant no Korean War, no war in Vietnam (First or Second!), no continuous wars in Africa, delayed decolonization and possibly more stability in formerly colonial areas. The list of war, misery, and suffering being deleted goes on.
Possible but unlikely. There’s never enough lebensraum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
That guy called you a progressive, TomO. Lol!
I see that Designator didn’t acknowledge his errors since Winston was NOT the one who declared war on Germany. He was NOT the one who created the treaty with Poland either. He had no say in Cabinet matters either.
Designator blusters,
“It’s hilarious when people like Sunsette think Churchill had no power before he was PM. Lol! You obviously don’t have a clue, buddy. His role in starting WWI would certainly be too much for you to handle then if you can’t even grasp that one.”
I know he was the First Lord of the Admiralty which is a NAVAL based position on which he was appointed on September 3, 1939, THE FIRST DAY OF WW 2!
Maybe you should stop braying anymore since Winston had ZERO power of office between 1929- 1939 time period. He had ZERO cabinet power during the 1930’s as he was in political exile, the “wilderness years”.
Start reading some basic history on Winston before you make another dumb unsupported comment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Return_to_the_Admiralty
Tom you are wrong. When England faced it darkest hour and Europe was lost, he stood alone with England against the Nazi ternary and rallied us all to fight it. This man saved the free world.
The nut jobs are out tonight:
“Without Churchill, there wouldn’t have been a WWII.”
Incredible. Churchill was not in the Cabinet until after Germany attacked Poland. Unless of course you are of the opinion that no one should have resisted Hitler.
“There also wouldn’t have been a Cold War.” Once again ahistoric. Stalin started the Cold War by his armed hegemony over the Eastern Europe. The western countries did not begin to resist until the Truman Doctrine of 1947. Churchill resigned as PM in July 1945, and England was governed by the Labour Party from then through 1952, but which time the Cold war Was hot in Korea. Unless of course you are of the opinion that no one should have resisted Stalin.
“Churchill had a major role in the sinking of the Lusitania, an incident that was designed to change the popular anti-war (WW1) sentiment that Pres. Wilson campaigned on and got elected for.”
Good grief. The Lusitania was a British Ship sunk off of Ireland by a German sub in May 1915. Wilson ran his “He kept us out of war” campaign a year and a half later. It was German resumption of “unrestricted submarine warfare” in 1917, and the Zimmerman Telegram q.v. that caused Wilson to reverse course. Churchill had been removed from the Admiralty in 1915 because of the Dardanelles fiasco. He did not return to the Government until after the American declaration of war.
Coming late to this thread – Cave Canem.
Interesting historical fiction ideas on display below.
Some knowledge, too.
[More than I have, on most subjects!].
Auto
“There was little he did for England except grandstand during WW2, and never once put the English people ahead of his ego.”
That is without a shadow of a doubt the most ill-informed, pusillanimous, totally moronic statement I have ever seen on this board in a number of years.
You truly haven’t the first clue what you are wittering about.
Wow, Sunsette. With all that Wikipedia you can’t figure out the FIRST time Winston was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. Amazing.. though, I’m glad you finally figured out what wilderness years means.
“Winston very bellicose and demanding immediate
mobilization…. Winston, who has got all his war paint on, is
longing for a sea fight in the early hours of the morning to
result in the sinking of the Goeben. The whole thing fills me
with sadness.” – Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith
Ha ha ha ha … yeah … and (climate champion) Prince Charles would be King … if he weren’t such a FREAK!!! His mum would have passed the crown long ago. But she KNOWS what he is …
I think Elizabeth is holding on to see if the male Windsor genetics kick in and Charles is found face down in his organic green salad
Not only was he brilliant but he was completely scathing to conmen and BS artists.
Probably, but I would not be so sure about Lord Cherwell.
Ed – I agree. His tolerance for blithering nonsense was low
Absolutely right Ed, if fact Winston made several speeches warning us about allowing scientists, the military complex and politicians getting into bed with each other, as did Eisenhower. Unlike “Climate Muggins” and his socialistic inspired lies.
Trump, by the way, replaced the bust of Churchill that was a gifted to the American people by the Queen after the war as his first action as President…after Obama had removed it as one of his first.
Churchill always fought for freedom from tyranny, just as Trump is doing in his astonishing stand against the globalists. And they both have the knack of being the last man standing, vote in the midterms guys, you know they are going to cheat like hell. Because “they” hate your freedom, just see how much they hate it when they are rioting and screaming their hatred of Trump…who is merely representing you and your freedoms. Freedoms hard fought for by Churchill over the various forces of brutal tyranny, and now under severe pressure from the likes of Obama, the Clinton Crime Family and Soros…a man who described his early days in Hungary 1942 where he went about with the Nazis turfing Jews out of their homes and stealing all their stuff…”as the happiest days of his life.”
You can see what will happen to you and yours should they regain power…..and the rest of us around the world rely on your vote as well. Believe me on this!
Call him what you want,,, but never ever STUPID !!
TOM, o so ignorant.
Winston Churchill was one of the very few individuals and leaders that saw Hitler for what he was – Churchill unlike numerous others was taken in by Hitler’s promises of peace. Most of all, Churchill had a great sense of reality. Churchill was also very unpopular in the late 30’s for his constant warnings about Hitler. – He certainly was bucking the “Consensus”.
Based on his known history – it is extremely unlikely that Churchill would have been fooled by the climate activists the same way that Chamberlin was fooled at Munich ” Peace in our Time”
Churchill unlike numerous others Was’t taken in by Hitler’s promises of peace.
sorry Typo –
Sir Winston Churchill had a clear, penetrating vision. He was not afraid of going against the public opinion. When the country celebrated the Munich Agreement, he he wrote that the government was faced with a choice between “war and shame” and that having chosen shame would later get war on less favourable terms.
My thoughts exactly.
Excellent succinct summary, Tom13!
It is sad when formerly stolid bloodlines obviously run thin and weaken.
It is also key to note that “Nicholas Soames” words are generic, without specificity or examples. Leaving Soames as just another delusional leftist groupie saying words without understanding their meanings or impact.
In a country where electricity prices are climbing, industry is fleeing, government drains revenues from the productive for distribution amongst the non-productive; it is impossible for his wealth claims to have any merit.
Soames, sure sounds like he voted against Brexit and is likely hoping Brexit fails.
Leaving Soames as exactly one of the political types of people, his grandsire, Winston Churchill despised; vocal and closet socialists and communists working to eliminate freedoms for commoners.
Most of what you say is probably correct but the Conservative MP for Mid-Sussex might well be scratching his head at your description of him as a leftist groupie.
Are you claiming that Soames practices conservativism?
Examples would be nice.
However, re-writing history is not a normal conservative practice. Especially rewriting history to give eco-looney claims some veracity.
Some people use a telescope to look at something or someone, while others use a microscope. You see what you wish to see or was taught to see. Churchill was a British blunder almost as large as his ego.
Tom 0 – “Churchill was a British blunder almost as large as his ego.”
You mean like his blunder at munich – “Peace in our time”
Oh wait – Churchill eerie warning about capitulation greatly increased the likelihood of war. (sarc)
What were you ‘taught to see’, Tom O? Have you read any of the many biographies of the great man? Have you any, any understanding of the accomplishments – and admitted failures – that he crammed into a long life dedicated to his country and its survival? Are you even a patriot of this (GB) country? (Silly question. I guess you are not. You’ll be one of the takers in our society, not one of the contributors)
Tom O – that’s your second post, with the same Progressive piss-ant perspective.
You’ve already demonstrated what kind of case-study you were raised to be – no need to belabor the point.
Provide evidence, Tom O…like an adult does when they argue a strongly held belief, they have actual evidence to support their assertions. You however are a child and clearly have no bloody idea about anything. I strongly suspect you are low IQ. And a socialist. The two going hand in hand generally by necessity, as to be one, one also needs to be the other.
Would not count out Churchill supporting AGW as he supported Eugenics. He wasn’t infallible.
A lot of people supported eugenics, mostly on the left, but there was widespread support, there was even a sterilization bill put forward by a Labour MP, but thankfully there was enough science “deniers” around to defeat it
The recent well researched historical/fiction Munich by Robert Harris is a very good read and gives insights into both Hitler’s and Chamberlain’s agendas at the Munich conference. Spoiler alert – Chamberlain comes out more as a self sacrificing hero than a altruistic dupe.
That’s why it’s silly (at best) to get your history from fiction.
Javert perhaps you missed the part about “well researched”.
Speak of the Devil. I just wrote about that:
Climate Skeptics are Modern Day Churchills
The Britains, having ignored the warnings of Churchill for years, eventually got punched in the face by reality, and they were completely unprepared. They almost lost a vast majority of their army at Dunkirk, a defeat that was followed up by Britain losing their “invincible” Pacific stronghold Singapore. What contribution did the Left-Wing Labor Party make to the struggling nascent war effort? The publically attacked Churchill as a “Dictator indistinguishable from Hitler.” The Left-Wing Labor Party, of course, had no answer, they just saw the political opportunity in Churchill’s struggles. Today, we are building Wind and Solar Farms in preparation for continued warming during one of the coldest winters on record, and ice core data demonstrate that the greatest risk facing society is the inevitable ice age, not CAGW.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/22/climate-skeptics-are-modern-day-churchills/
The Ministry of Truth is attempting to rewrite history again. Get the airbrush ready.
And Britain’s citizens are probably going to be hurting more in the future as their political leaders continue to make bad decisions on energy production and drive up the costs even more.
Windmills are not a viable option to power Britain’s economy.
Windmills and solar panels are not viable options to power ANYONE’S economy, unless you like lights,HVAC, and appliances that go on and off with the whims of the wind and sun. “Renewable” energy = “NO” energy.
Winston Churchill HATED Socialism, calling it, “a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
I’ve never read more succinct and accurate definition of Leftist’s CAGW ho@x than thiis.
Mr. Soames is delusional if he thinks his grandfather would have been a proponent of CAGW…
Winston Churchill would, “fight CAGW on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”
Samurai. Now that you mention it, most of CAGW advocates that I know are in self induced misery and seem to enjoy bringing as many people as they can to their pity party .
Agreed – his grandson is delusional and old Winston is probably spinning in his grave listening to his grandson’s stupidity.
If only we could hook old Winston up to a generator.
NCCoder astutely writes,
“Wait, so above, you were saying how he had enough clout to be a major influence in causing WWII, yet now you’re telling us he was a huckster selling fake paintings? Are we talking about the same guy?”
Designator completely ignored it!
LOL
You don’t realize what a fake the guy was. Even that speech you quoted was read over the radio by a voice actor. When he was in the “wilderness” he got by selling fake paintings. He was a drunk fraud only concerned with his ego, fame, and jewish money.
I see the tin foil hat brigade has finally arrived.
PS: It’s always boils down to the Jews with you guys, doesn’t it.
“You don’t realize what a fake the guy was.”
Fortunately I realize your own fakery.
Right… because Ernst Zundel, David Irving, and thousands of other revisionists are sooooo tinfoil hat-ish. Truth fears no investigation, yet these people were jailed, beaten, kicked out of nations, houses burnt down, for questioning such things about WWII. And AGW skeptics think they’re persecuted. lol! AGW is too obvious of a lie. This one is a little more complex, so you people who sit around places like this preaching to the choir will probably never figure it out. Even the “Greatest Generation” didn’t bat an eye when Rainbow 5 was exposed. Watergate was nothing compared to that. Read something by a real historian: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p261_Irving.html
I see that loudmouth Designator calls Winston Churchill a fake, quoting him,
“You don’t realize what a fake the guy was.”
Yeah riiiight!
A quick biography:
Was Major of the Queen’s Own Oxfordshire Hussars (1905-1916)
Was in Army reserve as Major (1916-1924)
First Lord of the Admiralty (1911–15)
Chancellor of the Exchequer (1924–29)
First Lord of the Admiralty (1939-1940)
First term as prime minister (1940–45)
Leader of Opposition (1945-1951)
Second term as prime minister (1951–55)
Plus a few small offices he was elected to.
Wrote a few good history books, won a prize for best painting among other small hobbies.
He was real and a busy man for decades, some of it in elected positions of power.
Will end with this roll HONORS list to show this was not a “fake” person that Designator idiotically asserts
Honours
In addition to the honour of a state funeral, Churchill received a wide range of awards and other honours, including the following, chronologically:
Churchill was appointed to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom in 1907.
He was conferred the Order of the Companions of Honour in 1922.[414]
He was awarded the Territorial Decoration for his long service in the Territorial Army in 1924.[414]
Churchill was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1941[414]
In 1941, he was appointed to the Privy Council of Canada.[415]
In 1945, while Churchill was mentioned by Halvdan Koht as one of seven appropriate candidates for the Nobel Prize in Peace, the nomination went to Cordell Hull.[416]
He was conferred the Order of Merit in 1946.[414]
In 1953, Churchill was invested as a Knight of the Garter (becoming Sir Winston Churchill, KG), and awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for his numerous published works, especially his six-volume set The Second World War.
In 1958, Churchill College, Cambridge was founded in his honour.
In 1963, Churchill was named an Honorary Citizen of the United States by Public Law 88-6/H.R. 4374 (approved/enacted 9 April 1963).[417][418]
On 29 November 1995, during a visit to the United Kingdom, President Bill Clinton of the United States announced to both Houses of Parliament that an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer would be named the USS Winston S. Churchill. This was the first United States warship to be named after an Englishman since the end of the American Revolution.[419]
In a BBC poll of the “100 Greatest Britons” in 2002, he was proclaimed “The Greatest of Them All” based on approximately a million votes from BBC viewers.[420] Churchill was also rated as one of the most influential leaders in history by TIME.[421]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Return_to_the_Admiralty
You are a one trick mule, Designator.
Continuing to beat on Designators slanderous comments against Winston Churchill:
“When he was in the “wilderness” he got by selling fake paintings.”
Reality:
“In 1925 Lord Duveen, Kenneth Clark, and Oswald Birley selected his Winter Sunshine as the prize winner in a contest for anonymous amateur artists.”
Here is the rest of the reality as seen and known by others and by the EXISTENCE of his collections being preserved.:
“Churchill was an accomplished amateur artist and took great pleasure in painting, especially after his resignation as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1915. He found a haven in art to overcome the spells of depression which he suffered throughout his life. As William Rees-Mogg has stated, “In his own life, he had to suffer the ‘black dog’ of depression. In his landscapes and still lives there is no sign of depression.”[378] Churchill was persuaded and taught to paint by his artist friend, Paul Maze, whom he met during the First World War. Maze was a great influence on Churchill’s painting and became a lifelong painting companion.
Churchill’s best known paintings are impressionist landscapes, many of which were painted while on holiday in the South of France, Egypt or Morocco.[378] Using the pseudonym “Charles Morin”,[230] he continued his hobby throughout his life and painted hundreds of paintings, many of which are on show in the studio at Chartwell as well as private collections.[380] Most of his paintings are oil-based and feature landscapes, but he also did a number of interior scenes and portraits.
In 1925 Lord Duveen, Kenneth Clark, and Oswald Birley selected his Winter Sunshine as the prize winner in a contest for anonymous amateur artists.[381]:46–47 Due to obvious time constraints, Churchill attempted only one painting during the Second World War. He completed the painting from the tower of the Villa Taylor in Marrakesh.
Some of his paintings can today be seen in the Wendy and Emery Reves Collection at the Dallas Museum of Art. Emery Reves was Churchill’s American publisher, as well as a close friend and Churchill often visited Emery and his wife Wendy Russell Reves at their villa, La Pausa, in the South of France, which had originally been built in 1927 for Coco Chanel by her lover the 2nd Duke of Westminster. The villa was rebuilt within the museum in 1985 with a gallery of Churchill paintings and memorabilia.”
He earned almost all his money by writing:
“From his first book in 1898 until his second stint as Prime Minister, Churchill’s income while out of office was almost entirely made from writing books and opinion pieces for newspapers and magazines, among them the fortnightly columns that appeared in the Evening Standard from 1936 warning of the rise of Hitler and the danger of the policy of appeasement”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Return_to_the_Admiralty
His paintings were real and of sufficient quality to win a prize and some be kept in collections for people to view.
Once again your irrational hatred of Winston was exposed………..
And your authority for your rant is what, exactly?
“yet these people were jailed, beaten, kicked out of nations, houses burnt down”
So much paranoia. So little actual evidence.
The tinfoil hat brigade is scraping the bottom of the barrel with this guy.
“yet these people were jailed, beaten, kicked out of nations, houses burnt down”
Wow, you do realize that when in a hole, the best advice is to stop digging.
The tinfoil hat brigade is scrapping the bottom of the barrel with this guy.
Wait, so above, you were saying how he had enough clout to be a major influence in causing WWII, yet now you’re telling us he was a huckster selling fake paintings? Are we talking about the same guy?
Sunset sitting around quoting Wikipedia… And MarkW it appears has never learned how to look anything up outside his own biases. So little evidence? Do I have to point it out to you? Look it up. It’s everywhere. Even Ernst Zundel’s lawyer was arrested in court and jailed for defending her client. Sunset, even FDR knew about Churchill’s paintings he signed with the name of a famous dead French artist. He pointed it out to him so Churchill would know he had some dirt to hold over his head if he ever needed to.
Designator humorously writes “So little evidence? Do I have to point it out to you?”
Nothing HERE is evidence, not even you 🙂
Designator turning into a troll as he NEVER backs up his assertions, yet has the GALL to complain about real evidence I presented which are backed up by listed sources.
He writes,
“Sunset sitting around quoting Wikipedia… And MarkW it appears has never learned how to look anything up outside his own biases. So little evidence? Do I have to point it out to you?”
You present ZERO evidence.
I keep expecting you to counter my sources claims, yet you fail THREE times now.
I present evidence that he won a painting prize in reply that you claim he is a fake painter.
I present evidence that he is a real person in reply you call him a fake person.
You come back with unsubstantiated drivel.
You are lousy at this.
Designator,
why can’t you dispute this list?
“Honours
In addition to the honour of a state funeral, Churchill received a wide range of awards and other honours, including the following, chronologically:
Churchill was appointed to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom in 1907.
He was conferred the Order of the Companions of Honour in 1922.
He was awarded the Territorial Decoration for his long service in the Territorial Army in 1924.
Churchill was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1941
In 1941, he was appointed to the Privy Council of Canada.
In 1945, while Churchill was mentioned by Halvdan Koht as one of seven appropriate candidates for the Nobel Prize in Peace, the nomination went to Cordell Hull.
He was conferred the Order of Merit in 1946.
In 1953, Churchill was invested as a Knight of the Garter (becoming Sir Winston Churchill, KG), and awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for his numerous published works, especially his six-volume set The Second World War.
In 1958, Churchill College, Cambridge was founded in his honour.
In 1963, Churchill was named an Honorary Citizen of the United States by Public Law 88-6/H.R. 4374 (approved/enacted 9 April 1963).
On 29 November 1995, during a visit to the United Kingdom, President Bill Clinton of the United States announced to both Houses of Parliament that an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer would be named the USS Winston S. Churchill. This was the first United States warship to be named after an Englishman since the end of the American Revolution.
In a BBC poll of the “100 Greatest Britons” in 2002, he was proclaimed “The Greatest of Them All” based on approximately a million votes from BBC viewers.[420] Churchill was also rated as one of the most influential leaders in history by TIME.
You going call all of it “fake”?
Snicker……
“Read something by a real historian”
David Irving a “real historian”…
Dear oh dear…
So you’re a Holocaust denier too, aren’t you?
SOD OFF NAZI BOY!
The problem with the Churchill’s is that every 300 years they produce a genius which makes up for idiots they normally produce. If you think Soames is an idiot he is cross between Solomon and St Francis when compared to Randolph, Winstons son.
I suspect Winnie would have been egging Trump on.
They are both men of their times. Churchill was about as popular with the opposition as Trump is right now because he had some difficult and unpopular decisions to make, as Trump must.
Nick Soames is, in my opinion, a man who has lived vicariously on his grandfathers success and latter popularity. Presenting Winnie as some sort of bleeding heart liberal insults the memory of the great man; Winnie fought tyranny of any description and would have recognised the tyranny of the climate change movement.
Oddly enough, Nick Soames was born in 1948. By 1959, Mr. Churchill was mentally incapacitated due to two strokes and possible chronic depression essentially removing him from public life when Mr. Soames was 11 years old and died in 1965 when Mr. Soames was 17 years old, which seemingly suggests that Mr. Soames was not his grandfather’s ideological confidante. Are we supposed to believe that Mr. Soames is intrinsically dialed into scientific and political positions that Mr. Churchill could not have possibly conceived during his lifetime?
+1
A man who has lived vicariously on selected bits of his grandfather’s legacy
You could fit a field sports team on Winston’s coat tails
Indeed Hotscot.
Unlike the hilarious ‘Fatty’ Soames, no-one could ever have described Sir Winston S Churchill of being either a watermelon (Green on the outside etc.) or a bedwetter.
This is like claiming that breaking windows is good for the economy.
WC was a murderous imperialist A-H – just ask the East Indians/Sepoy revolt who also bequeathed us the Israeli/Palestinian mess in the Middle East.
This should be fun:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=palemoon&q=churchill+site%3Atwitter.com%2Fcrimesofbrits&ia=web
https://twitter.com/crimesofbrits/status/928445522180009984
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.
It is a fact that millions of Indians starved. It is a fact that India was at the time a member of the British Empire (as it is today a self-governing member of the British Commonwealth; Britain laid the ground for this by establishing institutions of self-government in India that had not existed before the British came).
It is also a fact that Britain under Churchill, along with other countries, shipped hundreds of thousands of tons of grain to India to replace the deficiency. The shortage was caused by crop failures and the Japanese invasion of Burma and nearby countries that had previously supplied rice to India. Herman concludes that without Churchill the Bengal famine would have been worse. Vox doesn’t mention the effects on food supplies of Japanese incursions, corrupt local officials, and merchants who hoarded grain in the hope of higher prices.
Instead we are given Churchill statements made in moments of exasperation: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” We are not told that Churchill said this after learning that Indian separatists were urging only passive resistance to Japanese invaders. His outburst is often quoted to suggest his supposed racism—which is denied by his friendships with such Indians as Birla and Nehru (whom he called “the light of Asia”); or his final words of encouragement to Gandhi (see “Churchill on India”).
‘His Majesty’s Government could only provide further relief for the Indian situation at the cost of incurring grave difficulties in other directions.’
Critics who offer isolated, out-of-context quotes as broad statements of opinion would not credit Churchill for any balancing remarks—so we will. From the War Cabinet meeting of 24 April 1944: “The Prime Minister said that it was clear that His Majesty’s Government could only provide further relief for the Indian situation at the cost of incurring grave difficulties in other directions….At the same time his sympathy was great for the sufferings of the people of India.”
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/24/the-4-worst-winston-churchill-myths-from-vox/
Isn’t amazing how uneducated history cherry pickers distort the facts? Whether it’s distorting climate or attempting to rewrite history…
India:
• Birth through death caste system carried to extremes.
• An amazing lack of sanitary recognition, practices or procedures.
• A seriously dense universe of deities.
• Kali worship, including thuggees.
And thousands of other differences that are rude shocks to traditional British standards of living.
Nor is Winston Churchill responsible for “killed 4 million in Bengal”.
Winston arrived in India at age 22, then left by age 26:
The British did not “bequeathed us the Israeli/Palestinian mess in the Middle East”!
That mess was nurtured and fostered by anti-Jews after the British managed to succor refugees trying to escape Hitler.
You beat me to the response, gator69. Thank you for a great and educational rebuttal.
Why is the death of millions fun, fool?
Don’t forget why Pakistan exists today. The Indians deported all the Muslims. This is a great warning for Europe. The Indians tried to coexist with the Muslims, and it didn’t work… all. Europe is trying to replicate India before the breakup, and it is certain to fail. Just what do those Elitists think is going to happen when Italy becomes a majority Muslim and they surround the Vatican?
“Why is the death of millions fun, fool?”
The fun is clicking on the link and learning more about Churchill by reading some of his quotes. Like this one:
https://twitter.com/crimesofbrits/status/929293474670706688
Nick: I object very strongly to your use of the term, ‘murderous’ as it implies that Churchill killed with premeditated intent. As for him being and imperialist, he was nought but a man of his time, living in an imperialist world (what do you think Germany was?). At least he was no snowflake, and I commend to you the biography of him written by Roy Jenkins (a fine biographer).
BTW: Please don’t bother with a reply with which you expect me to interact. You have insulted a great man and I have no further desire to debate you given your incredible antipathy, not to say, bias.
If Churchill had actually been the murderous A-H that you believe him to have been, the death toll would have been way higher.
Ghandi’s pacifism only worked because Britain and Churchill were at their core good people.
A truly murderous regime would have just gunned down Gandhi and anyone who stood with him.
That was supposed to be a response to Nick. Sorry Harry.
Gallipoli.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/10346568/Winston-Churchill-authorised-use-of-chemical-weapons.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article999.htm
“I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.”
“I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. (e.g. the Kurds) The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.“
W.C.
Nick”reality”65 refers to Gallipoli.
You’re parrotting, in your ignorance, the propaganda you’ve been fed.
Gallipoli was the only really good strategic idea of WWI. It wasn’t Churchill who landed the ANZACs at the wrong place. That was the commanders on the spot. If you visit Gallipoli your Turkish guide will show you where they should have been landed and will point out how they could have successfully seized the peninsula on the first day.
BTW I’m an Australian whose grandmother’s cousin was killed at Gallipoli.
“just ask the East Indians/Sepoy revolt”
I might if I had more interest in this topic and if you provided some contact details to make this possible. Then we’d have a proper he said / he said situation leaving it to me to decide who is telling the truth and how much of it there might be.
Or those that revolted against the Moghuls, or Ashoka or the many Rajahs. Silence there.
“WC was a murderous imperialist A-H”
Yet another historically illiterate cherrypicker rears its ugly head.
You really haven’t the first clue, have you?
Some Tories are desperately trying to dress up in Green gladrags – witness
Claire Perry – Minister of State at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
and more <a href="https://soundcloud.com/carbonbrief/claire-perry-mp-royal-meteorological-society-17-jan-2018 "HERE courtesy of ahem… Carbon Brief … Royal Meteorological Society, London on 17 January 2018
and more – I have not the enthusiasm to sit through the entire speech (2 minutes was enough!) – but maybe somebody a bit more determined can pluck some more from the lady’s presentation.
It would seem that the lady is a fifth columnist …. since she plays down her connections to the Green Blob while trumpeting a series of egregious untruths at their behest – like the first “subsidy free solar farm in the UK”….
“Without Churchill’s determination, the Nazis would have won the war in Europe”. Even if UK surrended Europe would eventually have been liberated by the red army. The efforts from UK in the war compared to the sacrifices in the east cannot be compared. Typical anglocentric viewpoint far away from reality.
Perhaps, but the Red Army’s task would have been significantly more daunting if Germany had been able to devote the troops & equipment tied down by Britain in France & northern Africa to the battle on the Eastern front. That and without England the US would not have been able to provide Russia with the materials it did during the war. Not a significant blow, but it would have affected the Red Army’s capacity to fight.
That and the German’s would not have had Von Paulus in charge in Russia, they could have put someone far more competent, like Rommel, in charge. Further, if England had surrendered Hitler would not have had to divert the German effort from Moscow (leaving the main Russian armies around Moscow, which were on the verge of collapse, intact to resupply, refit, and eventually crush the German flank) to Stalingrad in an attempt to secure a source of oil because they would have obtained the British holdings in Arabia as well as freedom of navigation in the Med/North Sea.
Had britain been defeated, The german luffwaffe would have been able to stay on the eastern front instead of defending from the british and american bombing campaigns.
“Even if UK surrended Europe would eventually have been liberated by the red army. ”
Not exactly my definition of “liberated”
Those countries “liberated” by the Red Army spent the next 50 years fighting for their freedom.
I’ve read that in the countries that Germany captured from the Russians, the people at first treated the German’s as liberators. Because the Germans proceeded to treat these people with contempt, the people stopped helping the Germans and started working to hinder them. Had the Germans treated the people in these countries with respect, it’s entirely possible that Germany could have defeated the Red Army. They came pretty close to doing so even with these self imposed handicaps.
That’s right. The German army was welcomed almost everywhere in the Stalin empire as a liberator. Only the succeeding SS – with their purges of both Jewish and Ukrainian and Russian people – quickly changed this impression. Hitler made so many mistakes in this war. These would be enough for 3 more wars of the same category. But are we happy about the outcome. In the end, freedom has conquered oppression, albeit only 45 years later in the case of the Eastern bloc.
Russia would not have got the arms and supplies it needed if Britain had caved in. Without them, they would not have lasted a year
That was without any doubt Hitler’s biggest strategic blunder. He opened up the Eastern Front against Stalin’s Russia before he had secured the Western Front War with a British surrender. The German Army fightingBritian and then the US in North Africa and then the Italian campaign in 1941-43 drained significant reserves and resources that prevented Germany’s complete victory on the Eastern front during the savage winters of 1941-2 and 1942-3.
it is 1 or 2. My vote would go to the decision to leave the main Russian armies intact (battered but intact) around Moscow and pivot to Stalingrad. If he had finished the Russian army and captured Moscow it would have been the end of organized Russian resistance.
Jan Lindström: USSR and Germany were allies at the time of Dunkirk (June 1940) having agreed to divide up Europe starting with Poland. Barbarossa (June 1941) changed all that. These are the most basic facts. It’s hard to believe you thought otherwise.
Nope, they were not allies. Check any history book. They had a non-aggression pact. Something completely different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
Yup in fact, even Wiki makes it pretty plain ‘The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, also known as … the German-Soviet Pact of Aggression’ (to carve up Europe).
This famous Low cartoon ‘Rendezvous’ of 20 September 1939 gives the contemporary view. “The scum of the earth, I believe?”. “The bloody assassin of the workers, I presume?”.
Typical racist comment. Everything is not about the color of ones skin. Sometimes it has to to with the way a certain people think.
“Even if UK surrended Europe would eventually have been liberated by the red army. ”
Typical Red viewpoint, far away from reality.
With “if”, anything can happen. among other “anything”, UK surrendering would had meant
* Canada, Australia etc. also stepping out
* huge boost to german diplomacy and propaganda, while UK’s disappeared or even changed side. US-German business opportunities, and possibilities for german to gain more friends in USA, and change to question in USA from “should we fight against Germany?” into “should we fight communists?” .
* Italy + Afrika Korps in Egypt; access to Middle East Oil, and pretty much all needed strategic stuff, for axis…
* …including Japan. No effect of US oil embargo on Japan (and, probably, no embargo at all, in fact, since it was a common UK-USA decision). No need to invade land under British control to gain access to these strategic stuff, so, no need to fend off USA, no Pearl Harbor.
* lend lease of US material could go to Germany instead of to USSR; and, even if lend-lease to USSR happened, then Murmansk and Iranian ports would had been practically closed, leaving only the pacific route (that Japan tolerated, on the condition that no war material was included)
* no strategic bombing (from British land) of German industry and railways, Romanian oil field, etc. This strategic bombing dramatically prevented german war production, which is less spectacular than destroying it in battle, but just as effective.
* no western front at all, including
** no submarine warfare; no hurting of US people and business.
** no german war effort on the west. Luftwaffe fully on Eastern front, instead of fighting UK+USA
** Overlord was hard, doing it from New york, impossible.
** Italy free to help Germany on Eastern front more that the symbolic hand it helped.
** no UK support to Resistance and exiled governments
* no convoy to Murmansk, no US shipping through Iran
* no way the USA could continue support to China against Japan. Ultimate demise of China at Japanese hands
All this translate into a Red army defeat, not a victory, and a much different world today. Most probably completely fascist, which includes more obsessed with purity and environment than government currently are.
“Without Churchill’s determination, the Nazis would have won the war in Europe”. Even if UK surrended Europe would eventually have been taken over by by the red army and turned into Soviet Socialist hell holes.”
There, fixed it for you.
Jan Lindström January 22, 2018 at 7:00 am
The CCCP’s chances of survival in 1941 were slim. They lucked in in that they had a spy in Japan that informed them that Japan would not enter the war. This allowed the Russians to transfer the Siberian divisions east in time for the counter offensive at Moscow-Tula. The German southern offensives in 1942 were stopped with the lavish use of American lend lease. Ever hear off the P-39, And the P-40? Half of the P-39s produced were shipped through Iran to CCCP That’s over 4500 P-39s They were used during the Stalingrad counter offensive. They were used both as ground attack fighters,there were also several high scoring Soviet aces that flew them. Also note that 99% of their aviation fuel came from the USA. The trucks to move troops? Ford, Studebaker.
Also note what the Finns did to the Russians in the “Winter War”.
The UK probably would have gotten a better deal then the French did, but some of the same requirements would have been made of them, free passage of territories and waters and trade. Also the requirement that they defend these areas from enemies of Germany. Just like the French had to. Or see all of France. occupied. I could go on, but CCCP defeating the Germans in 1942 alone without lend lease was not in the cards. Oh yeah if the Brits had surrendered the Germans would have found out their enigma code was broken. While the Poles had managed to keep it a secret that they had broken the code and passed it on to the Brits their is no reason to think that the UK would not use it as a bargaining chip.
Very dark world without Churchill, very dark indeed.
michael
“Liberated” by the red army? Now, that’s funny. Gawd, you people just don’t get it. You claim to hate communists, yet you speak like that? Churchill even admitted, “We slaughtered the wrong pig.” Churchill failed miserably at everything. Don’t let your propaganda schooling get in the way of a real education.
When Schindler’s List came out, kids were forced to watch that smut in schools. Now they feed them An Inconvenient Truth. If you want to read actual history written by actual historians who throw off the propaganda and go to actual primary documents, read the revisionists. Read David Irving’s Churchill’s War and read Thomas Fleming go back to WWI and describe the Creel Commission and Wellington House. 20th century history is the history of influencing public opinion. Figuring out AGW is bs is a piece of cake compared to realizing the Germans were the good guys. Don’t be intellectually lazy.
Mod, is there any reason to tolerate such blatant anti-semitism.
PS: One guy makes a comment favorable to WWII era Soviets, a comment that is immeadiately refuted by multiple posts, and you conclude that “you guys” only claim to hate communism? That tin foil hat you are wearing is cutting of the blood supply to your brain.
These same people have probably never heard of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. They need to read his Gulag Archipelago masterpiece and let the consequences sink in.
Maybe they’d be a little smarter if they did.
War had already been declared on Germany for invading Poland. (Which Russia did also after the about two weeks after Britain and France declared war on Germany. If you remember your history, neither were left in a position to also declare war of Russia after the Blitzkrieg.)
Russia was only counted among the Allies because Germany invaded Russia.
Russia was at war with Germany and it’s axis…except Japan. Russian didn’t declare war on Japan until AFTER the A-Bomb was dropped. They got some territory from Japan at a very cheap price.
you people just don’t get it”
Which you people do you mean? Many you people exist and vary widely.
“the Germans were the good guys”
You have an interesting, although somewhat uncommon, idea of “good” that I seem not to share.
As it happens I recognize that some Germans were/are good, some were/are bad, by pretty much any definition you care to name.
As to world war 2, I deem them the Bad Guys and so it shall stay because a few words on a blog are not sufficient to change my judgment.
MarkW,
“blatant Antisemitism”?? Are you nuts? Do you really think Shindler’s List was a true story? It’s based on a FICTIONAL novel. It’s as real as Al Gore’s mess of an argument.
AS usual Designator make bald unsupported claims In his smarmy attacks on Churchill and Oskar Schindler, who did exist, did rescue over 1,000 Jews.
Oskar Schindler: After the War
“Oskar Schindler’s story of how he saved countless Jews during World War II has been documented and celebrated through books and film. But his life after the war and how the “Schindler Jews” saved his life right back is lesser known.”
https://www.biography.com/news/oskar-schindler-after-the-war
It is true the well made movie Schindler’s list was not 100% accurate, which shouldn’t be surprising as it is a COMMERCIAL based production,
As for Churchill failing at everything, as Designator illogically asserts, he sure manage to be honored many times for being, I quote you:
“Churchill failed miserably at everything.”
From Wikipedia,
“Honours
In addition to the honour of a state funeral, Churchill received a wide range of awards and other honours, including the following, chronologically:
Churchill was appointed to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom in 1907.
He was conferred the Order of the Companions of Honour in 1922.[414]
He was awarded the Territorial Decoration for his long service in the Territorial Army in 1924.[414]
Churchill was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1941[414]
In 1941, he was appointed to the Privy Council of Canada.[415]
In 1945, while Churchill was mentioned by Halvdan Koht as one of seven appropriate candidates for the Nobel Prize in Peace, the nomination went to Cordell Hull.[416]
He was conferred the Order of Merit in 1946.[414]
In 1953, Churchill was invested as a Knight of the Garter (becoming Sir Winston Churchill, KG), and awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for his numerous published works, especially his six-volume set The Second World War.
In 1958, Churchill College, Cambridge was founded in his honour.
In 1963, Churchill was named an Honorary Citizen of the United States by Public Law 88-6/H.R. 4374 (approved/enacted 9 April 1963).[417][418]
On 29 November 1995, during a visit to the United Kingdom, President Bill Clinton of the United States announced to both Houses of Parliament that an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer would be named the USS Winston S. Churchill. This was the first United States warship to be named after an Englishman since the end of the American Revolution.[419]
In a BBC poll of the “100 Greatest Britons” in 2002, he was proclaimed “The Greatest of Them All” based on approximately a million votes from BBC viewers.[420] Churchill was also rated as one of the most influential leaders in history by TIME.[421]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Return_to_the_Admiralty
You have no credibility, when you are wrong every single time in your stupid attacks on men of significance.
You know Designator you foolish little antisemitic buffoon, if your posterboy Adolf hadn’t decided to use the Jews as a scapegoat to whip up support for the Nazi party, killed many millions and caused many of the more perceptive to get the hell out and save their skins, those Jewish scientists wouldn’t taken their knowledge of nuclear physics to the USA, they would have stayed in Germany and given it to the Third Reich.
Then in 1943 or 1944, Moscow, Stalingrad and sundry other Soviet cities would have been reduced to radioactive slag, Hitler would have had the ultimate weapon, the whole world including China would now be using German as its first language, and the Thousand Year Reich would have become the reality.
That is the price you Nazis paid for your antisemitism, you threw away the biggest prize that there has ever been or ever could be, and now you are deservedly the utterly despised scum of the Earth.
Congratulations!
Alas, there’s no way to replay history and see “what if” this or that had been done differently.
Churchill, Keynes, Pershing and lloyd George predicted another war with Germany within a generation due to the nature of the armistice and reperations.
The German started training in the Ukraine with the USSR from the late 1920s. The USSR officers who trained with the Germans and understood their tactics were largely killed in the purges. Communists supported the nazis in Uk and occupied countries up to May 1941. Arctic convoys kept the USSR supplied with weapons. The bombing of Germany kept 750,000 men, 50,000 guns inlcuding the 88mm which was a very good anti tank weapon and thousands of planes away from the eastern front. Stalin ignored the warnings of the Nazi attack from Britain which we had due to Bletchley.
What saved the USSR was an early winter in 1941 and Hitler switching and changing tactics. If Rommel had taken over tactics prior to Kursk and moved 88mm guns from german air defence to anti tank tank role and nigth fighters, then Germany could have won. The Germans destroyed 5x as many tanks as the USSR who could repair them if hit by 37mm or 50mm shells. A 88mm gun could destroy any tank 100s of metre before it’s own gun came in range and the shell would have totally destroyed it, preventing repair. Look at how Rommel destroyed 100s of British tanks with two batteries of 88mm guns.
El Alamein was the first time the Germans were defeated in a land battle and it kept the Africa Corp out of Russia.
Mike said, “Churchill, Keynes, Pershing and lloyd George predicted another war with Germany within a generation due to the nature of the armistice and reperations.”
Actually, what General Pershing said is that the Germans should have been forced to surrender. Instead, the Kaiser was banished and there was an armistice with the Weimar Republic — which Adolf considered illegitimate. Germany never surrendered, so Gen. Pershing said he feared we will have to fight Germany again.
Totally opposite from the Keynesians, the German sympathizers and appologists, who blame the people defending Europe from the Second Reich, for creating Hi ler.
Here is my ref.
Nigel Farage on Breitbart News Saturday (11/11/2017), dur. 11:18
@4:20
You might really enjoy the rest of this brief interview with NIgel Farage about WWI also..
“Even if UK surrended Europe would eventually have been liberated by the red army.”
That is a new definition of the word “liberated” that I have not previously come across.
It took nearly half a century of Cold War to free the “liberated” Eastern Europeans from the iron boot of the Soviet Union.
Read the history of the failed 1956 Hungarian revolt and 1968 Prague Spring to determine just how “liberated” the Eastern Europeans were under the Communists..
It’s not enough they use computerized crystal balls to predict the future, now they hold seances to tell us dead folks were on board with global warming. Will science ever even enter the discussion?
nope
Real science is and always has been the enemy of the climate crisis movement. They will do anything to avoid it. Their MO is to appeal to the emotions and make up fictional science. It is the only thing they got.
Agreed. As soon as they played the “consensus” card you knew they didn’t have any good scientific support for the “cause.” If they did, they would simply present it, and stop with the pointless appeals to (lousy) “authority.”
Some have claimed Thatcher was the first politician to embrace the danger of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. She used as a cudgel in her battle with the coal miner’s union and as an argument for nuclear energy which she supported.
Charlemagne, my great, great, . . . grandfather would have been a “Climate Leader.”
Hannibal was indeed a Climate Leader at the beginning of the Roman Warm Period. He is widely regarded as the greatest military strategist to probably ever have lived.
Hannibal was thus the first documented Climate Leader because he used the significantly warming planet to cross the Alps once frozen into Italy with Elephants and conquer most of the Mediterranean by 200 BC.
err, the once-frozen Alps into Italy with elephants
Nicholas Soames seems to be confusing his grandfather with Winston Smith.
They say a rich man’s son is never a rich man’s father. That seems to apply to brains as much as it applies to money.
Actually. H*t*er was the WW2 leader who was the dummy for fashionable ideas. He pushed vegetarianism and eugenics – was adored by the celebs of the day like Unity Mitford – built up his image with top film directors like Leni Riefenstahl and huge rallies. There was a whole personality cult around him that was not surpassed until the Beatles.
He would have been completely at home with fashionable environmental and population scares.
By contrast, Winston was an old-school upper class Edwardian, who wanted a static, class-based society in which Britain, and British manufacture, competed in world markets aided by the Empire connections. He would not have supported any diminution of British wealth, or threat to the Western advance of civilisation which environmental socialism automatically entails…
A BBC documentary I recently watched on Netfix claimed that the marriage to Mrs. Simpson was and excuse to hide the real reason Edward VIII was pressured to resign – he was a full fledged Nazi.
Actually I have thought that for quite some time, having studied the materials of the era. In every discussion of the crisis from the serious political players of the day, there is this sense of “Oh good we can get rid of him over this idiotic marriage, and we don’t have to openly talk about why we’re really doing it.”
Edward VIII was a colossal idiot to have allowed his enemies such an easy way to dispose of him. But then Wallace Simpson wasn’t just his lover; she was Edwards direct contact to Hitler’s government through her Nazi’s Foreign Minister, von Ribbentrop.
And this is why they packed Edward up and made sure he spent the rest of his life in Bermuda. Although he was nominally the governor general, in reality it was a gilded cage that he was not allowed to leave, much like sending Napoleon to Elba.
The Duke and Duchess of Windsor returned to live in France after WW2 and spent the rest of their lives there. Even Wiki knows that!
If you possibly can, watch program 3 of the BBC series ‘Fit to Rule’ – especially from 49 minutes in.
Its on BBC iPlayer now but maybe only in the UK
At that point the presenter is looking at letters Edward wrote to his mistress while in Australia on a world tour
He was bad-mouthing his own father and speaking/writing to her in an extremely infantile manner/words.
Later in the program it’s described how Simpson was a domineering woman, she had him round her little finger and he patently loved every bit of it.
“the UK. In that period, the average Briton has grown 45% wealthier, while reducing his/her carbon footprint by 33%”
Smoke and mirrors. Wood pellets burned at Drax emit more CO2 than the coal they replaced, but that CO2 is not included in calculating UK carbon footprint because wood pellets are considered renewable by the EU.
A female acquaintance of Soames commented on his amourous attempts a year or two ago. She said “It was like being fallen on by a wardrobe. With the key sticking out.”
LMFAO – that’s priceless.
Nicholas Soames is a very sad remainer – still desperate for the UK to stay in his beloved EU.
I bet his grandfather would have had something to say about that too….
Never forget that Nicholas Soames is a close friend of Prince Charles!
Its funny how Margret Thatcher saw through the scam I suspect Churchill would have as well.
Spot on. Maggie did initially fall hook, line and sinker for the global warming mantra as told by Hansen and Houghton and was instrumental in launching the IPCC. However, she soon came to regret her prior enthusiasm and realised she had been hoodwinked.
As Christopher Booker has previously so ably noted, in the ‘Hot Air and Global Warming ‘ chapter of Thatcher’s 2003 book ‘Statecraft’, ‘She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the “doomsters”, she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of “costly and economically damaging” schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.’
Churchill was an accomplished student of history. His grandson clearly isn’t.
Spot on.
The only thing wrong with that is that there is no temperature rise since the MWP, it’s cooler today. If you don’t believe that, tell it to the ghosts who occupy graves of those who were farming in Greenland back then, who are today beneath the permafrost. Maybe that was supposed to be LIA, and degrees Fahrenheit??
Below is a “reading” list of his books. Student of history, quite.
https://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/writings-articles-and-books/the-books-of-sir-winston-churchill/
michael
Poor old fatty Soames is as deluded as ever.
Remember what Winnie wrote about a certain faith system in his book ‘The River Wars.’? If you read it aloud in public you’ll be locked up for hate speech; pronto.
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities thousands have become brave and loyal soldiers of the queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
Soames, in your vernacular, is a globalist. His views are generally diametrically opposed to those of Winston Churchill
No longer ‘fatty’ which may explain a lot.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3791554/Political-heavyweight-Sir-Nicholas-Soames-used-tip-scales-20-stones-presents-streamlined-new-look.html
fretslider writes: “If you read it aloud in public you’ll be locked up for hate speech; pronto.”
Perhaps; but I notice that you do not deny the claims made therein.
@Fretslider: ” if you read it aloud in public you’ll be locked up for hate speech; pronto.”
And indeed that is exactly what happened on 26 April 2014, Paul Weston, chairman of the party Liberty GB, made the speech on the steps of Winchester Guildhall on Saturday – prompting a member of the public to call police. He was arrested for failing to comply with a dispersal notice issued under section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 as he was reading out a passage from Winston Churchill’s 1899 book The River War that is critical of Islam.
For Trump, conservation is also a “bad deal”, or why would he be cutting National Parks authority by $1.5 billion? fb.me/wydrhino
A common theme from one of the elite, not knowing that all of the money in the economy is in peoples pockets. If you get rid of cheap coal, gas and oil and replace them with something that costs a whole lot more, that extra money can only come from the pockets of people. He will not notice but the vast majority of the public would and does.
Wini must be turning in his grave.
Trimming a small amount from one department’s budget is proof that Trump doesn’t care about conservation?
Over react much?
“why would he be cutting National Parks authority by $1.5 billion?”
You came to the right place; the Trump Mind Readers be here!
Alas, I am not one of them. I can only guess that with expenditures hugely exceeding revenue, some cuts must be made. Social programs are “locked in” and cannot be cut, not by the President anyway, so you look around the various agencies of the executive branch and that’s pretty much the only place the President can trim some fat.
Since we are doing “what ifs” here, what if the Brits after Churchill had not given the jet engine to Stalin as a goodwill gift so he could turn around and supply the communist Korean War effort with Mig fighters? How many Koreans and Americans would have lived and gone on to do other more productive things? The same type question applies to Europe in the absence of two world wars.
‘What if the Brits’ hadn’t given radar technology and RR jet engines to USA?
For radar I suppose the convoys would have stopped and for jets I suppose the whole Korean peninsula would be dark on nighttime satellite photos today instead of just the north half. I’m not sure if Japan would be free today either and Stalin would have taken another look at Finland and the Baltic region as a whole including Denmark.
Radar was the cavity magnetron which made radar in aircraft feasible.
James Phinney Baxter III, Official Historian of the Office of Scientific Research and Development: ‘When the members of the Tizard Mission brought one cavity magnetron to America in 1940, they carried the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores’.
Unfortunately, the traitorous UK Socialist Government also gave Rolls Royce jet engines to the Communists, which nearly caused the UN forces to lose the Korean war.
The British shared Whittle’s technology with the U.S., allowing General Electric (GE) to build jet engines for America’s first jet fighter, the Bell XP-59. The British continued to develop new jet engines from Whittle’s designs, with Rolls-Royce initiating work on the Nene engine during 1944. The company sold Nenes to the Soviets—a Soviet version of the engine, in fact, powered the MiG-15 jet fighter that later fought U.S. fighters and bombers during the Korean War.
Microwave radar made its appearance in 1943, after the magnetron was developed into a high-power, producible device. Low-power klystrons had long been used as local oscillators for superheterodyne receivers, as had parabolic reflector antennas. It required only a year to make the transition from the laboratory magnetron (mid-1940, in England) to the first 10-cm experimental tracker at the MIT Radiation Laboratory.
The first fighter plane with jet engines was the Messerschmidt 262. The Russians had access to prototypes and experts from Germany and were not dependent on British know-how.
Regarding the casualties in the Korean war: most of those were inflicted by America’s merciless bombing campaign. Given the unfortunate experiences of other countries targeted by recent American “liberation” efforts, the “crazy” North Koreans are in fact perfectly rational in their attempt to ward off a reenactment through nuclear deterrence.
This was meant as a reply to ResourceGuy.
‘Resource Guy’ has a point in that USSR reverse engineered and enlarged the centrifugal flow RR Nene for the MiG15 (German axial flow WW2 engine designs were too fragile at first).
In the US the RR Nene was built under licence as the Pratt & Whitney J42, and it powered the Grumman F9F Panther. Its most widespread use was in the form of the Klimov VK-1, a reverse-engineered, modified and enlarged version used in MiG15.
No I think the kill zones set up by Gen. Ridgeway did the real work on NK and Chinese forces–not cilvians. Also, the WWII bombers had to removed because of the Mig threat.
I’m sure Hollywood agrees.
And it was the South Koreans who were the initial perpetrators of the Korean conflict, Michael?
That’s a revision of history only North Koreans have brainwashed themselves with.
“the “crazy” North Koreans are in fact perfectly rational in their attempt to ward off a reenactment through nuclear deterrence.”
I have no knowledge of nearly all North Koreans and I have a doubt you have special knowledge. Seems to me there’s only one North Korean of any consequence and his intentions do not seem to be mere “deterrence”.
@RockyRoad — that is entirely beside the point. Have you heard about the Geneva Convention by any chance? No country has violated it more often and more severely than the United States, by systematically targeting the civilians; the Korean war is but one example.
The division of Korea into North and South — a country that had been the victim of Japanese aggression, and which supposedly was “liberated” by the Allies — and its subsequent devastation were a collaborative effort by Russia and the U.S. Both sides were simply fighting over a colony and are equally at fault. No, it wasn’t about “freedom” that time either — the U.S. happily endorsed corrupt and dictatorial regimes in the South for many decades afterwards, just as they did in South Vietnam.
@Michael 2 — unless and until the North Koreans actually attack anyone, the U.S. remain the only country to have used nuclear arms, without any military necessity. (No, it didn’t save any American soldiers’ lives. Japan was ready to capitulate anyway after the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, with or without the atomic bombs.)
[??? .mod]
Revisionist histories are mildly amusing. The United States has many “first and only” to its credit.
I see Michael’s desire to rewrite history continues unabated.
This merciless bombing campaign exists mostly in your imagination.
The N. Koreans are the ones who attacked first.
The myth that there was no need for the Hiroshima bombing has been refuted so many times that only the terminally clueless hand on to it.
the average Briton has grown 45% wealthier
An additional 700,000 UK children and pensioners have fallen into relative poverty
These are not contradictory statements, particularly when you take the latest Oxfam report into account:
Inequality gap widens as 42 people hold same wealth as 3.7bn poorest
I.e. – there is no such thing as “the average Briton”.
The key word is “relative”.
They may have fallen into relative poverty (which I believe is 60% of average income), but that does not mean they are actually worse off
Funny thing, the larger the government gets, the bigger the gap between rich and poor becomes.
You have a point–one might say the Soviet Union had saturated their country with their government and the consequence was a very small but very rich class sponging off a very large but very large poor class.
The bigger the government gets, the richer those who run government get.
The bigger the government gets, the more it leaches off of the citizens resulting in them getting poorer.