Claim: Legendary WW2 Leader Winston Churchill Would have been a “Climate Leader”

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.

Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/15/opinions/churchill-would-have-been-a-climate-leader-opinion/index.html

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ed Zuiderwijk

More likely WC would have recognized the pseudoscience for what it is: an excuse for totalitarians to control our lives.

Tom O

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.

Ian_UK

A broadcast from Planet Corbyn?

Stu

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.

Harry Passfield

How old are you, Tom O? (serious question – to the nearest decade, if you wish. Assumes a number greater than 1)

M Montgomery

Hate to burst your bubble, but you’ve been socially engineered.

Joel Snider

Tom O.
There’s a product of modern Progressive education for you.

Designator

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.

Greg Strebel

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’.

Sunsettommy

Winston was flawed, but he was a good wartime PR.

Sunsettommy

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.

Harrow Sceptic

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.

Designator

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.

Michael 2

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.

Martin M

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.

Michael 2

Possible but unlikely. There’s never enough lebensraum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

Designator

That guy called you a progressive, TomO. Lol!

Sunsettommy

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

Terry

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.

Walter Sobchak

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.

Auto

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

catweazle666

“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.

Designator

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

kenji

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 …

tgmccoy

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

AB

Not only was he brilliant but he was completely scathing to conmen and BS artists.

Henning Nielsen

Probably, but I would not be so sure about Lord Cherwell.

John Hardy

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!

nottoobrite

Call him what you want,,, but never ever STUPID !!
TOM, o so ignorant.

Tom13 - the non climate scientist

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”

Tom13 - the non climate scientist

Churchill unlike numerous others Was’t taken in by Hitler’s promises of peace.
sorry Typo –

Curious George

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.

commieBob

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.

Alba

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.

“Alba January 22, 2018 at 11:27 am
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.

Tom O

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.

Tom13 - the non climate scientist

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)

Harry Passfield

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)

Joel Snider

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.

Sparky

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

Malcolm Carter

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.

Javert Chip

That’s why it’s silly (at best) to get your history from fiction.

Malcolm Carter

Javert perhaps you missed the part about “well researched”.

co2islife

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/

ResourceGuy

The Ministry of Truth is attempting to rewrite history again. Get the airbrush ready.

TA

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.

AGW is not Science

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.

SAMURAI

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.”

James Francisco

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 .

AGW is not Science

Agreed – his grandson is delusional and old Winston is probably spinning in his grave listening to his grandson’s stupidity.

MarkW

If only we could hook old Winston up to a generator.

Sunsettommy

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

Designator

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.

MarkW

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.

Michael 2

“You don’t realize what a fake the guy was.”

Fortunately I realize your own fakery.

Designator

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

Sunsettommy

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.

Sunsettommy

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………..

Horace Jason Oxboggle

And your authority for your rant is what, exactly?

MarkW

“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.

MarkW

“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.

NCCoder

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

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.

Michael 2

Designator humorously writes “So little evidence? Do I have to point it out to you?”

Nothing HERE is evidence, not even you 🙂

Sunsettommy

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.

Sunsettommy

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……

catweazle666

“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!

Mike

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.

HotScot

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

catweazle666

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.

MarkW

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.

Jules

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.

gator69

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:

“In 1896, he went to India; his first book, published in 1898, was an account of his experiences in India’s Northwest Frontier Province. In 1899, the London Morning Post sent him to cover the Boer War in South Africa, but he was captured by enemy soldiers almost as soon as he arrived. (News of Churchill’s daring escape through a bathroom window made him a minor celebrity back home in Britain.) By the time he returned to England in 1900, the 26-year-old Churchill had published five books.”

“Churchill was more nuanced about India than is com­mon­ly under­stood. For instance, he defend­ed the Indi­an minor­i­ty in South Africa when he was at the Colo­nial Office in 1906. This left Gand­hi quite favor­ably dis­posed toward him. In 1935, Churchill, who had soft­ened his view of the Mahat­ma, sent this mes­sage to Gandhi:

“I do not care whether you are more or less loy­al to Great Britain. I do not mind about edu­ca­tion, but give the mass­es more butter….Tell Mr. Gand­hi to use the pow­ers that are offered and make the thing a success….I am gen­uine­ly sym­pa­thet­ic towards India. I have got real fears about the future…But you have got the things now; make a suc­cess and if you do I will advo­cate your get­ting much more.”

Gandhi, Birla, Nehru
Churchill wrote this to Ghan­shyam Das Bir­la, a Gand­hi sup­port­er who had lunched with Churchill at Chartwell. Bir­la repeat­ed the con­ver­sa­tion. Gand­hi replied: “I have got a good rec­ol­lec­tion of Mr. Churchill when he was in the Colo­nial Office and some­how or oth­er since then I have held the opin­ion that I can always rely on his sym­pa­thy and goodwill.”

Part of Churchill’s friend­ly over­ture to Gand­hi in 1935 was prompt­ed by Gandhi’s (and Birla’s) defense of the Dalit, or Untouch­ables.”

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.

“gator69 January 22, 2018 at 8:04 am”

You beat me to the response, gator69. Thank you for a great and educational rebuttal.

Jules

Why is the death of millions fun, fool?

co2islife

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?

icisil

“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

Harry Passfield

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.

MarkW

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.

MarkW

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.

Tim Neilson

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.

Michael 2

“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.

GREY LENSMAN

Or those that revolted against the Moghuls, or Ashoka or the many Rajahs. Silence there.

catweazle666

“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

My route into politics came via involvement with Green activism locally

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

using the might of the public sector to drive differential behavior

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”….

Jan Lindström

“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.

DC Cowboy

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.

Tom13 - the non climate scientist

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.

Justanelectrician

“Even if UK surrended Europe would eventually have been liberated by the red army. ”

Not exactly my definition of “liberated”

MarkW

Those countries “liberated” by the Red Army spent the next 50 years fighting for their freedom.

MarkW

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.

Hans-Georg

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

joelobryan

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.

DC Cowboy

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.

Nigel S

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

Nigel S

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?”.
comment image

Typical racist comment. Everything is not about the color of ones skin. Sometimes it has to to with the way a certain people think.

paqyfelyc

“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.

AGW is not Science

“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.

mike the morlock

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

Designator

“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.

MarkW

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.

RockyRoad

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.

Gunga Din

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.

Michael 2

you people just don’t get it”

Which you people do you mean? Many you people exist and vary widely.

Michael 2

“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.

Designator

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.

Sunsettommy

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.

catweazle666

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!

Michael 2

Alas, there’s no way to replay history and see “what if” this or that had been done differently.

Mike

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..

catweazle666

“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..

Sheri

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

jclarke341

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.

AGW is not Science

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.”

Dave Anderson

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.

Gamecock

Charlemagne, my great, great, . . . grandfather would have been a “Climate Leader.”

joelobryan

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.

joelobryan

err, the once-frozen Alps into Italy with elephants

Gary

Nicholas Soames seems to be confusing his grandfather with Winston Smith.

RockyRoad

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.

dodgy geezer

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…

Dave Anderson

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.

wws

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.

Nigel S

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!

Peta of Newark

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.

icisil

“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.

Brent Hargreaves

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.”

AGW is not Science

LMFAO – that’s priceless.

Ian Magness

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….

Peter Maxwell

Never forget that Nicholas Soames is a close friend of Prince Charles!

Jules

Its funny how Margret Thatcher saw through the scam I suspect Churchill would have as well.

Mack

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.

Jules

Spot on.

AGW is not Science

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??

mike the morlock

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

fretslider

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

Michael 2

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.

alexei

@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.

MarkW

Trimming a small amount from one department’s budget is proof that Trump doesn’t care about conservation?
Over react much?

Michael 2

“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.

ResourceGuy

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.

Nigel S

‘What if the Brits’ hadn’t given radar technology and RR jet engines to USA?

ResourceGuy

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.

Nigel S

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’.

catweazle666

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.

Nigel S

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.

Nigel S

‘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.

ResourceGuy

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.

Not civilians.

I’m sure Hollywood agrees.

RockyRoad

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.

Michael 2

“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]

Michael 2

Revisionist histories are mildly amusing. The United States has many “first and only” to its credit.

MarkW

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.

Steve Ta

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

MarkW

Funny thing, the larger the government gets, the bigger the gap between rich and poor becomes.

RockyRoad

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.

MarkW

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.

Sasha

British energy bosses rake in millions as they raise bills and abuse their monopoly

National Grid, Scottish Power and SSE have a monopoly on the pipes and cables that bring gas and electricity to homes – earning profits of almost £8 billion.

National Grid is the biggest firm and paid its 13 board members a total of £19.5m in 2016. The firm’s finance chief Andrew Bonfield was paid £5.9m. Chief executive John Pettigrew got £4.6m and a £500,000 bonus when the company moved offices as a relocation allowance. More than a quarter of the current average annual bill of £290 goes to these firms.

MPS and the Citizens Advice Bureau said the profits made by the 10 gas and electricity transmission and distribution network firms are excessive for businesses. They claim if the companies made a 5% profit the average household bill would fall by almost £60 a year.

Tory MP Neil Parish, chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, said ‘The amount of money these network companies make is astronomical. They are monopoly businesses and the profits they make end up on customers’ bills. It’s time for Government and Ofgem to rein in the network companies, make them cut bills and get a fair deal for all consumers.’

In Britain, the energy companies monopoly position means they never have to worry about losing customers. There are seven companies who transmit and distribute electricity and four for gas. Each has sole rights for the region they cover meaning there is no competition or incentive to control prices. Profits for the network firms has risen by 15% in the last four years, a rise of £1 billion. They do not charge families directly, but they bill energy suppliers – such as British Gas or EDF – who pass the cost on.

There are two types of network firms, those dealing with transmission and distribution. There is only one transmission operator for gas, National Grid, which moves gas in high-pressure pipes from coastal terminals to local distribution centres. There are four distribution firms take it from there into people’s homes; SGN, Wales and West Utilities, Northern Gas Networks and Cadent Gas.

For the electricity distribution companies, the profit margin varies from 25% to 39%, which is an average of 32%. The typical profit margin at a supermarket is 5%.

These amounts are tiny compared to the cost od subsidising renewables, which will soon reach £13bn a year.

Don’t believe lying MPs like Neil Parish, who are trying to balme energy companies on price increases, that they themselves have brought about

Sasha

The Office for Budget Responsibility says the cost of the subsidies would more than treble over the next five years, from £4.6  billion in 2015/16 to £13.5 billion in 2021/22. The costs of ‘decarbonisation’ account for around 20% of typical electricity bills. Consumers will have paid well over £100 billion by 2030.

An investigation into the energy market by the Competition and Markets Authority concluded in 2016 that the big six suppliers are overcharging British customers by £1.4 billion every year.

During the 2017 election campaign, Theresa May pledged to cap bills for 17 million families on the worst-value energy tariffs, but the plan was dropped from the Queen’s speech – to the delight of the big energy companies.

MarkW

Government created and regulated monopolies.
If the profits are too large, it’s because the government regulators have permitted it.
The same government regulators that so many people want to put in charge of energy production as well.

paqyfelyc

“The typical profit margin at a supermarket is 5%.”
Actually, the typical profit margin at a supermarket is ~0%, they gain money thanks to the delay between the cash in from customers and the cash out to providers, several month later.

ResourceGuy

For the next armed conflict in Europe someone needs to test the conscientious objector exemption from service against going to war based on climate pseudoscience.

Sasha

British Consumers Foot The Bill For Failed Climate Policy

“Government has got into the business of ‘picking winners’. Unfortunately, losers are good at picking governments.”

Subsidies to renewable electricity cost £5 billion a year at present and will rise to more than £8 billion a year by 2020 — all drawn from the bills of domestic and business consumers. One third of this hits households directly through their electricity bills — 20% of their bills — while the other two thirds, paid in the first instance by businesses, will be passed on to households in the general cost of living.

The Tory Government has obfuscated these facts, and, since 2014, has published no price impacts. When costs could not be hidden, the Tory government has claimed that climate policy made them unavoidable.

Now, in an authoritative and excoriating report commissioned by the Tory government, Dieter Helm, professor of energy policy at Oxford University, has torn away the fig leaf covering the Tory government’s nakedness. Policy interventions, he tells us, are so numerous and badly designed that they have resulted in costs well in excess of what is needed to meet emissions targets. These subsidies will cost £100 billion by 2030.

Much of this wasteful policy cannot be cancelled, due to contractual and other legal commitments. The Tory government has given the rent-seekers firm entitlements that the courts must defend. Did the civil servants explain these liabilities to the responsible ministers, and if so why was the consumer interest neglected, and why were such bad deals struck, again and again and again? Professor Helm does not hesitate to tell us “Government has got into the business of ‘picking winners.’ Unfortunately, losers are good at picking governments, and inevitably — as in most such picking-winners strategies — the results end up being vulnerable to lobbying, to the general detriment of household and industrial customers.”

Professor Helm’s diagnoses and remedies are sweeping and brilliant. The present policies are counterproductive and erode public support. They must be replaced by firm capacity auctions, so renewables pay for their own intermittency. The “legacy” burden of the failed policies should be bundled into a “bad bank” with the costs charged to domestic consumers directly (rather than hidden in the cost of living), and stated separately on the bill as a lingering souvenir of 20 years of negligence and folly in energy policy.

MarkW

“When politicians control buying and selling, the first thing bought and sold will be politicians.”
P.J. O’Roarke

SteveT

Sasha
January 22, 2018 at 8:12 am

British Consumers Foot The Bill For Failed Climate Policy
……………….
Subsidies to renewable electricity cost £5 billion a year at present and will rise to more than £8 billion a year by 2020 — all drawn from the bills of domestic and business consumers. One third of this hits households directly through their electricity bills — 20% of their bills — while the other two thirds, paid in the first instance by businesses, will be passed on to households in the general cost of living.

The Tory Government has obfuscated these facts, and, since 2014, has published no price impacts. When costs could not be hidden, the Tory government has claimed that climate policy made them unavoidable.
……………….
Much of this wasteful policy cannot be cancelled, due to contractual and other legal commitments. The Tory government has given the rent-seekers firm entitlements that the courts must defend. Did the civil servants explain these liabilities to the responsible ministers, and if so why was the consumer interest neglected, and why were such bad deals struck, again and again and again?

Please don’t forget this is not just a Tory idea, the original Climate Change Act was prepared by Ed Miliband and passed by Labour.

There should be continuous exposure of the hiding of new taxes in domestic energy bills. Perhaps this would stir up some interest in climate change and people would see it for what it really is – a way to control peoples lives through taxes and legislation.

While contracts may not be legally cancelled, there are other ways of recouping the cost of subsidies. Windfall taxes on income/profits if the recipient is connected to the grid was proposed in Spain (I don’t know if it was implemented). If there’s a will there’s a way. These could then be returned to energy customers.

SteveT

Sasha

Soames IS DELUDED, BUT WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS NEVER HAD A REAL JOB IN HIS LIFE?

Britain’s 17 Years Of Lost Pay Growth

23
Nov 2017

Real average earnings in Britain will not return to their 2008 level until 2025, and households face the longest sustained fall in living standards for at least 60 years, if the projections in Wednesday’s Budget prove correct. Economic growth was sharply downgraded by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Resolution Foundation think-tank said the consequences would be grim for households.

“While the result for the public finances is grim . . . the outlook for family finances . . . is worse,” said Torsten Bell, director of the foundation. “Our incomes are expected to be £540 lower by the start of 2022 than previously thought and pay is not set to return to pre-crisis levels until the middle of the next decade.”

Chancellor Philip Hammond said in his Budget speech that he understood “the frustration of families where real incomes are under pressure”. But he announced little in the way of new measures to support household disposable incomes.

The think-tank calculates that average household disposable income will fall in real terms by 3.1% over the period from the end of 2015 to spring 2022. This is not as deep as the 5.1% fall in the aftermath of the financial crisis, but is the longest squeeze since data began to be collected in 1956.

The OBR’s forecasts say that by the start of 2022, average annual earnings will be £1,000 lower in real terms than they had predicted they would be in March.

The hit to annual pay would have been even larger had the OBR not revised up its forecasts for hours of work.

Mark - Helsinki

The left would absolutely HATE Churchill if he were alive and the same man today. They’d hate his guts lol

MarkW

They hated his guts while he was still alive.

mikewaite

And so did much of the Tory party , which is why he spent the Thirties out of office and unsuccessfully trying to convince the county’s leaders of the evils of fascism and of Hitler in particular.
It could not happen in the US of course . You would not , to take an outrageous example , have a Republican president disowned by the very Republicans who selected him and voted him into office.

Soames has long been a member of the establishment and a pr@t to boot. Food and fuel poverty increases are the direct result of the insane Climate Change Act and the resultant renewables.

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.

Cold in Wisconsin

The British people relied on Churchill when they had to, but as soon as Hitler was defeated, they went back to their socialist tendencies. He was warning of a new threat, the Cold War, with his warning about an Iron Curtain descending over Europe. He was right again on that score. He was very technologically savvy, reaching out to advisors in key scientific areas, but he relied on engineering, not scientific theory. If you couldn’t use it to build something useful, he was not interested. Climate Science does not provide any particularly useful solutions to our daily lives, and it really is not offering anything other than stopping progress in other areas. When they come up with something positive that provides cheap energy without new problems, the world, Trump included, will be listening.

Duncan Smith

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchhill

AGW is not Science

Great quote from a man who knew how to use – and didn’t mince – words.

Ellen

Churchill cannot possibly have any moral authority. He smoked cigars, which are prodigal emitters of both CO2 *and* carcinogens. And he apparently enjoyed the habit. /sarc

NorwegianSceptic

At least Cognac contains BIO-ethanol…….

sy computing

Why should Trump care what Mr. Churchill would have thought regarding climate change???

Mr. Soames, shame on you for using your grandfather’s good name to get your name in the papers…now go away and make your own mark on the world, if you’re able.

AGW is not Science

More to the point, why should Trump care when some idiot grandchild of Winston Churchill who is insulting his very memory by suggesting he would have supported this Eco-Fascism SAYS Mr. Churchill would have thought?!

catweazle666

“now go away and make your own mark on the world, if you’re able.”

He isn’t, not even close.

Richard

This is like making claims of environmental disaster 100 years down the line. They can’t prove, we can’t disprove it, so they take it as fact.

MarkW

Anything that can’t be disproven, must be true.
Funny thing, they say just the opposite for every other religion.

Prime Minister David Cameron awarded his hairdresser the MBE, an honour for those who contribute to the nation’s well-being without thought of monetary reward. It was for services to hairdressing. It’s a shame to see such tokens of recognition devalued — more fitting recipients would be the engineers running the UK Grid for the way they are keeping the lights burning and the wheels turning, especially for their careful husbanding of the old coal-fired generators. I feel like saluting every evening as we negotiate another few hours of peak demand.

In their desperate attempt to lose the ‘nasty party’ nickname, our government has fallen hook line and sinker for the biggest scam the world has ever seen. When you consider Mr Soames is the product of the finest education that money could buy then the cause of our plight is obvious: we are ruled by an inept and ignorant political class, left and right, and a civil service which would not know a differential equation if it bit them.

JF

Steve Zell

Winston Churchill in the 1930’s saw a clear and rising danger in Nazism’s hateful ideology and military buildup, which threatened to annihilate democracy in Europe within a decade if it was not opposed by a superior military force. This danger became clear to most Britons by 1940 (the bombing of London), so they massively supported Churchill’s war effort to save their own country and western Europe.

But it’s highly unlikely that Churchill would have reacted much if someone had told him that the weather might get a little warmer by 2050 if the world didn’t stop burning coal. The British Isles are not known for warm sunny beaches, and Britain has a long history of colonizing islands in warmer climates, so Churchill probably would have welcomed a little warming.

Margaret Thatcher, when she became Prime Minister, initially embraced global warming theory when she thought she could use it to defeat the coal-miner’s union, which voted heavily for the Labour party. But in the 1980’s, when oil was discovered under the North Sea, Thatcher realized the positive economic impact the oil could have on Britain, so “global warming” was forgotten.

Mr. Soames, stop trying to put words into your grandfather’s mouth. His words were great enough to stand on their own, but Mr. Soames didn’t inherit much of his grandfather’s intellect.

Bruce Cobb

I’m guessing Churchill would recognize the danger that Climatism poses to science, to truth, to democracy, and to humanity in general, and would oppose it with every fiber of his being. Oh, and his nincompoop grandson would be disavowed and disinherited.

Reality check. What percentage of people feel confident that they could assess what their grandparents views might be on modern issues of today? What percent of those is it reasonable to assume might be correct? What percentage of people trust that their grandchildren would be able to assume their likely take on political issues of the future?

People change over time. I don’t know that knowing my Dad’s views at 40 that he or I could have predicted his views at 70.

Michael 2

100, 90, 80.

Your mileage may vary.

co2islife

Sir Nicholas Soames must have been dropped on his head as a child. He clearly didn’t know his grandfather. When Hitler was invading countries for Oil, Churchill wasn’t building wind and solar farms, he was bombing Berlin. The Freedoms we have today is due to Hitler not having oil, and the rest of the world did. It is that simple. You can’t win a war without oil. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because we were blocking their access to Indonesian Oil. The risk Liberals are putting the world at by avoiding oil is astronomical. By drilling oil we can bankrupt Terrorist Nations like Iran. Just look how lower oil prices destroyed the Socialists in Venezuela. Drill baby drill is the path to freedom and security, without oil, we are certain to be conquered. Britain owes its freedom to the US War Machine and the coal and oil that powered it. Fact.

gbaikie

One can do something about “climate change” by exploring the Moon.
Trump is doing this and so would Mr Churchill.

Exploring the moon could lead to having Earth power satellites which could provide the world with unlimited electrical power- without any CO2 emission.

The reason the Moon should be explored is to determine if there is minable lunar water.
If there is minable water, then one would use solar power split the water to make rocket fuel.

The lunar poles are much better place to harvest solar power as compared to Earth surface..
There places in lunar polar region where one can get 80% sunlight per year. and with lunar polar region grid one can sunlight 100% of the time.
With earth solar one only gets solar power about 25% of time- assuming one doesn’t have clouds very much and that is major problem with harvesting solar energy on Earth.

So the price of electrical energy on the Moon would start at high price but over time, the price could lower by a lot.
The high cost of electrical power on the Moon would make the cost of make rocket fuel quite expensive compared to price rocket fuel on Earth, but if rocket fuel on the Moon started at $2000
per kg the is cheap price of rocket fuel on the Moon.
Rocket fuel is most oxygen. And Oxygen is cheap on Earth. Liquid oxygen on earth is about 10 cent per kg, which makes the combination of Kerosene or Hydrogen with Oxygen work up to be about $1 per kg [or less]. Or lunar rocket fuel could be 2000 times more expensive as Earth rocket fuel and be cheap.
The lunar surface is about about 40% by mass oxygen, but it’s oxidized with the lunar rock and cost a lot energy to separate this oxygen from the rock. But water required less energy to split to get oxygen. and plus of course you get Hydrogen. Per 9 kg of water, you get 8 kg of oxygen and 1 kg of hydrogen. And because you get more oxygen, the oxygen is more valuable than the Hydrogen. So kg of liquid oxygen on the Moon could worth say $1000 per kg and Liquid Hydrogen could worth $4000 per kg, and 9 kg of water gets $8000 of oxygen and $4000 of hydrogen.
And rocket mixture is usually about 1 part hydrogen per 6 parts oxygen.
So 7 kg of rocket fuel would be: 6 times 1000 plus 4000 divided by 7:
10,000 ./ 7 is price of rocket fuel of $1428.57 per kg.
With earth with liquid hydrogen it’s 60 cent plus about $6 divided 7 = .94 cents per kg.

Currently, if you buy rocket fuel on the Moon at 10,000 per kg, it would be cheap. At that price it
would make to cost of going to the Moon be about or less than 1/2 the cost.
The main cost is leaving Earth, but if lunar rocket fuel on the Moon was 1500 or 2000 per kg
it makes it cheaper as compared to cheap price of 10,000 kg.
The main factor is that if there rocket fuel on the Moon, you can make a reusable lunar lander- so to get to the Moon you don’;t need to bring a lunar lander from Earth each time, in order to land on and leave the Moon. This reduces cost by 1/4 [at least]- but still have cost of getting anything else from Earth. But the costs of shipping anything off the Moon become a lot cheaper with lunar rocket fuel and reusable lunar lander- it’s like 1/20th or 1/100th of cost depend on price of lunar rocket fuel.
But another factor is the more earth launches, would lower the cost of launching anything from Earth. Or over time, the more Earth launch has already lowered launch cost from Earth- we at around 100 launch per year and ever increasing and over decades of time. Due mostly to the satellite market.which globally is about 200 billion dollar industry- because every country wants/needs satellites. This rough rule would also apply to the Moon- more launches and over decades, lowers it’s launch cost. But Earth’s gravity well and rocket equation. has more of limit as compared to the Moon- the Moon can become very cheap to leave- like $1 per kg of payload or
less. As compared to Earth of about $100 per kg of payload [it’s currently at about $2000 per kg of payload- heading towards $1000 per kg [$100 per kg would require ten or more times more total launches per year and time [and technological and management improvement].

So in decades of time and mining lunar water, one could get solar power satellite from the Moon for Earth orbit- giving solar power from space to earth surface..

joelobryan

gbaikie wrote “One can do something about “climate change” by exploring the Moon.”

You actually spent time writing that gibberish?
I see an imminent Peak Lunar Water coming any century now!! LOL.

Michael 2

joelobryan asks “You actually spent time writing that gibberish?”

Good heavens, no. It is instantaneous; or to be more precise, no writing. Merely a thought, and his new iPad thought-recognition App turned it into what you see. It took more time to transmit it than to think it.

As it happens the analysis seems pretty good.

gbaikie

The peaks of eternal light are related to lunar water mining:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_eternal_light

And there is thought to be billions of tons of water at lunar poles.
This is shortage of water for general human use- the US draws about 600 billion tons
of water per year. But in terms use for rocket fuel it is a vast amount water and a gross value of
that water worth trillions of dollars- even were and when price of lunar water lowers to less than $1 per kg.
But significant aspect of the Moon is that if one make lunar rocket fuel, the Moon becomes the gateway to solar system [and star systems]. And for that use, the Moon has lots of water, but solar system has many times more water [fresh water] than the saltwater of all of earth’s oceans. Or in in our solar system there is plenty of water and water in space could become cheaper than water
on Earth.

TA

Solar Power Satellites are definitely in humanity’s future.

MarkW

Much like fusion power.

gbaikie

The sun is fusion power. The moon could be gateway to Mercury [or closer to the. fusion reactor- the Sun].
Another thing is fusion.energy becomes easier when you have cubic km of vacuum to play with..

Dave_G

“Britain’s economy has grown by 45%……” – I just wonder how much it would have grown on the back of cheap, and reliable energy untouched by green taxes and carbon restrictions?

AGW is not Science

First of all, sounds like BS to me. Second of all, I’d like to know what this idiot is defining as “growth.” Probably counts all the subsidies as “growth” of “green jobs” LMAO. Take a look at European countries that went hook, line and sinker for “green” jobs/CO2 emission reduction, destroying about four REAL jobs for each make-work “green” job created.

WhiteRabbit

Churchill was not afraid to speak out against the cosy status quo. He was banned by the BBC during the 1930s because his anti Nazi views were unpopular with the consensus and frowned upon by the establishment elites and the government. Soames IS the establishment.

Britain created the modern world via parliamentary democracy and the industrial revolution.

Britain created a world wide, ethnically diverse system of law and order via the creation of the British Commonwealth and the various Dominions which was substantially mirrored in the independent USA.

Britain’s technological expertise spread around the world to create most of the systems and techniques that are relied upon by all nations to this day.

Britain subordinated its own commercial interests to the suppression of the slave trade and despite the burden of Empire led the world towards the vision of diversity and individual freedom that is such a sensitive issue today.

The British Empire was accidentally acquired as a result of the need to protect morally legitimate trading activities and was never a military objective.

Britain stood alone against Nazi tyranny and genocidal violence whilst the USA stood aside and Russia sought to benefit on the back of Nazism.

Britain created the modern world and saved it from itself.

Britain now leads the retreat from globalism towards mutual cooperation between independent nations around the world. That is where the future lies and as so often in the last 1000 years Britain provides the guiding light.

joelobryan

Stephen,
Don’t get so full of yourself or of Great Britain and Brexit from the tyranny of a despotic government. The USA did it first in 1776.

Declaring Independence from a Tyrannical Ruler.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Yeah, the UK may have its Brexit today from EU tyranny and usurpation of unchecked immigration demands, but the American colonies led the world in this example of Independence from tyranny over 200 years ago.

MarkW

First off, our political systems were inherited from the British ones.
Secondly, our current Federal government makes King George seem like a pussy cat in comparison.

Stephen Wilde says, “Britain created the modern world via parliamentary democracy and the industrial revolution.”

Yes sir. The reason the Colonies even declared independence in the first place was because they expected to have the rights of English citizens. Those rights are enumerated in the Petition of Rights of 1628, and also the Bill of Rights of 1689. Ah the glorious revolution. (:

Both were developed at times when Parliament was curtailing the abuses of the Monarchy.

joelobryan

MarkW,

The Progressives and the Democratic Party chafe at the US’s Bill of Rights. King George and the current British government do not have to worry with such “nuisances.”
The US Bill of Rights severely limits what the the Democratic Socialists in the US would like to impose. The US Left has always seen the Liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights as something granted By the Government. The rationale being, that something the government giveth, the government can thus taketh.

While the Right (Conservatives) have always correctly understood the Bill of Rights as Liberties reserved To the People, By the People, and onto which the Government may not tread. And those rights not reserved to the People are given to the several State unless the Constitution specifically enumerates them to Congress.

Since then, many Supreme Court decisions have eroded what were always States Rights, most recently the regulation of marriage between consenting adults. If Donald Trump can do anything, it is my deepest hope that dishonest Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg will die a natural but quick death (just like Justice Scalia) in the next few years so that they may be replaced by honest jurists. With the likely retirement of Kennedy this summer, that would ensure a return to constitutional law for the next 20 years. The Progs are desperate to stop that possibility, which is what is animating their current push to re-take the Senate into Democratic Party majority.

Sasha

You have obviously forgotten all about the Magna Carta, 1215.

joelobryan

Furthermore Stephen,

I think anyone knowledgeable of Great Britain’s treatment of India or China during colonial times would NOT find much credence in your “Britain created the modern world and saved it from itself.” Ever read much on the practices of the East India Company?

Seems to me the Brits of colonial times were quite enamored with Chinese silks, porcelain “china”, and gun powder tech. And also quite taken with teas and spices from India. So enamored in fact, those Brits were quite happy to cultivate opium from Pakistan-Afghanistan to ship to China to intoxicate and create the despair of opium addiction on an entire population many times greater than Great Britain itself. Nice legacy.

I might also add, that there was considerable consternation by Thomas Jefferson when the entire paragraph on how Great Britain was forcing African slavery and slave trade into the Western Hemisphere and into the American colonies was stricken from his early drafts of the Declaration of Independence. That removed paragraph quite an indictment on Great Britain and its culpability into slavery and slave trading.

Good try Joel but your problems are the US treatment of the indigenous Red Indians whom Britain tried to protect and the continuation of slavery long after the UK sought to abolish it.
And the US did not invent parliamentary democracy nor the industrial revolution.
How do you think a few hundred Brits could have administered India for 300 years without the consent of the majority?
The vast majority of the civil servants in India were locals who were pleased that Britain and the rule of law had put an end to centuries of vicious tribal warfare.
Eventually, the Empire outlived its usefulness and was given up voluntarily. No other Empire ever did that.

Oh, and how about the US failed attempt to invade Canada which got Washington razed to the ground?

Looks like Jefferson was pretty conflicted over slavery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

Although he proposed abolishing it before the UK did his version of abolition was highly conditional and informed by a racist attitude towards slaves whereas Britain’s approach was unconditional and non racist.

Extreme Hiatus

Stephen, Could you please elaborate on this statement: “the US treatment of the indigenous Red Indians whom Britain tried to protect.”

Are you talking about Canada?

joelobryan

Great Britain cannot escape its history of the African slave trade until the 19th Century. Even the story of John Newton’s Amazing Grace is a very British tale of asking for redemption from the horrors it visited upon foreign shores via slavery to bring wealth back to London and the Crown.

joelobryan

The key point is that Great Britain didn’t begin to reform its ways until it had decisively lost the American colonies to independence; that is after 1814. And then it took over 100 years for Britinia’s rule “o’er the waves” to collapse as colonialism came to an end by the rise of US power due to its dominant natural resource position.

joelobryan

“indigenous Red Indians whom Britain tried to protect”

The first ever recorded acts of Biological Warfare were the British Army supplying Smallpox blankets to American Indians during the American colonial period. The effect was certainly devastating to the immunity-naive American Indian populations.

MarkW

joel, I have yet to hear you refute any of the original claims. Just go on and on about how the British Empire failed to live up to modern sensibilities. Got news for you. Nobody else in that period did either.
In fact the British while not perfect, were much better than just about everyone else at that time.

MarkW

Stephen, the US attempt to invade Canada was during the war of 1812. At the time, Canada was still part of the British Empire which made it a legitimate target.

joelobryan

MarkW,
Your comment hardly required rebuttal. It was hyperbole and fact-free.
But anyway, if you insist. You wrote,
“our political systems were inherited from the British ones.”

That’s funny, considering that European monarchies were still the rule without exception in the late 18th Century. Because when the USA created its constitution, there was nothing else like it in the world.
Britain was a monarchy in the late 18th Century. The King did what he pleased with the Parliament taking care of the mundane issuance of laws to regulate crimes and commerce.
The US Constitution remains largely unchanged since then. The major changes have been the abolition of slavery, and suffrage, and an income tax. But not to the system of governance itself.

“Secondly, our current Federal government makes King George seem like a pussy cat in comparison.”

Hyperbole. Simple hyperbole. Go back and read the Declaration of Independence. TJ clearly laid out the “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”
The current US government, while far from what our Founders envisioned, is still significantly not anything like the injustices the colonies faced from British Army rule in the 1770’s.

Michael 2

Many ideas in the formation of the United States were French; others derived from Greek and Roman sources. Rather a lot of Saxon common law.

The French Revolution (and its impetus) came after the earlier US revolution.
Its ideals and its thoughts were from both local sources (A strong bureaucracy with a very strong central government vs the American ideal of of the original British ideal of a de-centralized government controlled by local republican (NOT democratic) government.)

The Indian Tribes, of which there were perhaps 2000, were allying themselves with either the French, the British, the Spanish or the Colonies. It is incredibly complex. Some who fought with the British in the French-Indian War helped the colonies later gain independence from Britain.

Each tribe made choices, and each tribe has a unique and honorable history and most were and are very important contributors to the US. Don’t talk about them like they are no longer here.

And for God’s sake, every one was dying of cholera, yellow fever, malaria, small pox and other diseases. Europeans and New Englanders died by the thousands in these outbreaks at the same time. There was no immunity. Do I have to list deadly pandemics of New England?

Michael 2

Zeke writes “Do I have to list deadly pandemics of New England?”

Yes! You will have no peace until you do!

joelobryan

Zeke,

The emigrants to the American colonies in the 18th Century were European populations and came with a certain amount of herd immunity to smallpox and measles. (Google: “herd immunity” , if that term is unfamiliar to you). The American Indians had zero immunity to those viruses.

London 1623 Smallpox, dysentery and typhus outbreak, preceded the Plague
London smallpox outbreak 1667
London smallpox outbreak 1674
London smallpox outbreak 1681 “three of the worst outbreaks”
London smallpox epidemic 1721

Boston smallpox 1666
Boston smallpox 1677
Boston smallpox 1702
Boston smallpox 1721

Massachusetts smallpox 1633
Massachusetts smallpox 1648

These decimated British populations, with estimates that the disease killed at minimum one in four; survivors of the skin eruptions had scars, pockmarks, spotty skin; some suffered blindness and infertility. Keep in mind about half of the Plymouth Colony of 1620 died in the first winter. This is just one disease and I began with the first settlers in the New World and stopped at 1721. I feel that a lot of people play fast and loose with the word immunity, and this is why.

MarkW

joel, your attempt to refute merely indicates lack of thought and knowledge.
I make a claim about Britain, you attempt to refute me by referring to Europe.
Fails due to non-responsiveness.
Britain hadn’t been a pure monarchy for generations. The idea that individuals had rights that government could not trample on we inherited from the British.
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote of the Crown’s trampling on their rights as British CItizens. He wasn’t inventing something new, he was calling on the Crown to live up to standards the British had set.

Michael 2

“The idea that individuals had rights that government could not trample on we inherited from the British.”

Who inherited the idea from the Vikings, the true source of all that’s good and wonderful (or terrible).

joelobryan. As per my previous comments on concentration camps. There is a complete alternative view AND FACTS regarding slavery. Herewith a link: Google “slavery terrorism and islam peter hammond”. You should perhaps consider a broader research of what happened in history. Always good for a balanced perspective to verify information with three independent sources (my personal rule anyway).

Michael 2

“Always good for a balanced perspective to verify information”

Balance is needed when information is not available, only claims. Where facts exist “balance” serves no particular purpose.

icisil

I believe Britain was first to utilize concentration camps.

John B

So? You can believe anything you want. If you expect others to listen though you need to provide proof.

Correct ICISIL. Boer War 1899 – 1902. Britain invaded South Africa. Could not win the war. Burned the Boer farms, killed all the animals, captured and thrown woman and children in concentration camps. Sadly 27,000 lost their lives lives in these camps. Britain is part and parcel of the NWO. WW11 was staged as most of all the other conflicts on our planet. The real Nazi’s were Eisenhower, Churchill and Stalin. Finding the truth should be all good men’s mission. Climate change lies and propaganda – just another NWO agenda.

joelobryan

staalbal,
you wrote:
“Eisenhower, Churchill and Stalin”

your history is lacking severely. Eisenhower was a US Army 5 star General in WW2. FD Roosevelt was the US President until his April 1945 death.

Since you do not know historical names, it is unlikely you know much else about that period.
Go away Troll.

Sasha

Did the British invent concentration camps?

No, but neo-Nazis and their dupes like to pretend we did.

It is not clear who invented the concentration camp – it was probably the Romans; however, a more well-known example is the ‘reconcentrados’ of Imperial Spain, used to put down an uprising of the Cubans in 1895-1898.

The British Army sent two observers to Cuba to evaluate the Spanish tactic. One of these was Winston Churchill. Kitchener was definitely aware of the tactic and its use in Spain. There is a description of the Spanish camps here, made by US Senator Redfield Proctor. It appears in Clara Barton’s THE RED CROSS, entitled ‘Concentration Camps of Cuba 1895-1898.’

see http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagld003.php

As you can see, the Spanish reconcentrados (that means ‘reconcentrating place’) display the sinister morphology of the concentration camp – the barbed wire, the watch towers, the location near rail junctions, interned civilians, guards, ditches…

You can see the effect of the Spanish camps here
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/reconcentrado.htm

Since 1895 is definitely before 1899, the dishonor for inventing concentration camps belongs to the Spanish. The Spanish camps killed far more people than the British camps; the Havana camp alone killed 50,000 people; nearly twice as many victims as the 28,000 Boer deaths. It is estimated the Spanish camps killed up to 300,000 people in total.

Here is Castro addressing Pope John Paul on the subject: ‘Under extremely difficult conditions, Cuba was able to constitute a nation. It had to fight alone for its independence with insurmountable heroism and, exactly 100 years ago, it suffered a real holocaust in the concentration camps were a large part of its population perished, mostly old men, women and children; a crime whose monstrosity is not diminished by the fact that it has been forgotten by humanity’s conscience. As a son of Poland and a witness of Oswiecim, you can understand this better than anyone.’

Maybe Castro was upset because neo-Nazis and their dupes have dismissed the death of 200,000 Cuban civilians as a non-event in order to saddle the British with the discredit for inventing concentration camps.

joelobryan. No need to call me a troll. I do not agree with you, that’s all. There is another version of history. Try this for an alternative view: Google “world war 2 the truth”. Do not have to be nasty. You are correct about Roosevelt. If you study the alternative view you will discover how POW’s (Germans) were treated by the “5 star General of the US army”.

catweazle666

“I believe Britain was first to utilize concentration camps.”

You believe wrong.

February, 1896: Reconcentration Policy
In 1896, General Weyler of Spain implemented the first wave of the Spanish “Reconcentracion Policy” that sent thousands of Cubans into concentration camps. Under Weyler’s policy, the rural population had eight days to move into designated camps located in fortified towns; any person who failed to obey was shot. The housing in these areas was typically abandoned, decaying, roofless, and virtually unihabitable. Food was scarce and famine and disease quickly swept through the camps. By 1898, one third of Cuba’s population had been forcibly sent into the concentration camps. Over 400,000 Cubans died as a result of the Spanish Reconcentration Policy.

http://www.pbs.org/crucible/tl4.html

In any case, the only thing that was original about concentration camps was the use of the term “concentration”, the methodology has been in use since time immemorial.

catweazle666

“The real Nazi’s were Eisenhower, Churchill and Stalin.”
Ah, another historically illiterate Nazi sympathiser rears its stupid, ugly head, just like the rest of your odious ilk you really haven’t a clue what you’re rabbiting about, have you?
The real Nazis were the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the clue is in the Nationalsozialistische bit, see if you can work it out.

MarkW

Compare countries that were once colonized by Britain to countries colonized by any of the other colonial powers. Most of the British ones are doing pretty good. Almost universally, those countries colonized by the other European powers are basket cases today.
Countries that were never colonized fall somewhere between those two extremes.

MarkW says, “Almost universally, those countries colonized by the other European powers are basket cases today.”

Look at S and C America, the Spanish Colonies. It is not unusual for a country to have declared independence from Spain, set up a Republic like ours, and then to suffer a military coup immediately afterward. In some cases, there have been 93 different forms of governments since then!

joelobryan

The difference is the corruption that Catholicism and the corrupt practices of the Jesuits that forced Catholicism brought on those societies. The Jesuits have been, always have been, and are today corrupt, and are predators of young children.

MarkW

Britain allowed it’s colonies self rule, Spanish colonies were ruled from Spain.
Now everything is the fault of Catholicism?
Sheesh.

Stephen Wilde says, “The British Empire was accidentally acquired as a result of the need to protect morally legitimate trading activities and was never a military objective.”

The 300 years of British expansion was a system of shipping and trade. In 1839 it was recommended that Canada should have self-government, and later the British Empire evolved into a voluntary association of free and equal countries called the Commonwealth. It covers 1/5 of the land surface of the earth and has 1/4 of the population. It is a very diverse bunch of countries, but it does share English traditions and law. Requirements for members include having popular/plurality rule, parliament, and rule of law/constituion. Previous colonies remained in and others joined afterwards.

Britain’s entry into the EU required it to give up its trade preferences with these countries, and stay in its insular little EU market, and every one lost!

That is not to say that the East India Co was not on the Dark Side sometimes.

Michael 2

I thought that whole thing was a clever bit of sarcasm but I am beginning to think you believe all that.

“Britain” did none of those things; people do things. Some of those people happen to be British, and after nearly a thousand years of struggle, some people were finally permitted to be neither Lord (Britain still has them), or Vassal (still has those I suppose). I’m thinking particularly of Mr. Watt’s steam engine and the Bessemer process for refining steel.

Simon Ruszczak

He’s absolutely correct about his ancestor, Churchiil, Meaning, they’re both crocks of shit.

DaveS

Wheras you are just full of it ?

whiten

Churchill…

The guy or the man who ended up to carpet bomb Germany…
Wow…Hopefully we will not get to the point of another Churchill at this times…
Hopefully…as it still may end up to be the most effective way to consider it as inescapable way to Victory…when all else may fail…

Really sorry for being so direct…

In the way of my understanding, Churchill and Gores, or Bamas, or Hillies, or whatever lost, can not be equated under any circumstances as with the same “spirit” of the guy or man known as Churchill… no any way to be considered as under the same “Equation”…That guy for the best or worst happens to be a model of a great man…as far as I can tell,,, hopefully I am not so wrong with this…

It is a shame that “whores” try to equalize with a proper man, like Churchill…
Sorry again for being so direct and not much politically correct.

cheers.

MarkW

Being a person of such pure heart, how would you have fought against Germany prior to Normandy?
Remember, precision bombing is an invention of the last 20 or 30 years. It wasn’t an option back in the 40’s.

catweazle666

“The guy or the man who ended up to carpet bomb Germany…

Copying the Germans, who developed carpet bombing starting with Guernica in the Spanish Civil War, perfected it during their attacks on Poland and the Low Countries, finishing with the Blitz on Great Britain during which several hundred Luftwaffe bombers carpet bombed London round the clock for 56 out of 57 consecutive days and nights, and not forgetting the many raids that devastated Coventry, Bristol and several other British cities.

Funny how you hate-filled lot never seem to remember things like that, isn’t it?

Joel Snider

Well, Hitler would have. He was then.

AGW is not Science

+1,000 Of course the “progressives” will insist Hitler was politically “right” but he was as “left” as they come.

MarkW

The left has convinced themselves that all bad people are of the right. Since they know beyond doubt that they and people who agree with them are perfect.

Gareth

Believing that Hitler was left wing is one of the more silly beliefs in political science. The fact is Hitler was not really left, or right, he was a fascist, and that is a section all of it’s own.

MarkW

The desperate desire of the left to deny that fascism is a form of socialism is duly noted.

catweazle666

Indeed, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei – the National Socialist German Workers’ Party is pretty unequivocal, notwithstanding the frantic efforts of the modern Socialists to lie in their teeth in their attempts to disassociate themselves from the general inhumanity of Socialism, the repulsive, inhuman pseudo-religion that replaced worship of “God(s)” with worship of “The State” or “The People”, and was responsible for the deaths of up to two hundred million of its own people, merely speedbumps on the highway to the Glorious Socialist Workers’ Paradise during the 20th century.

The Left even try to pretend that Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot – to name but a few –
weren’t really Socialists either…

Bengt Abelsson

W.C. was at odds with his party in some point. When asked to remain loyal to the party line he is supposed to have answered: I will change party for my opinion, I will not change my opinion for my party.