It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

History Buffs - Churchill - About that quote...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   
East Coast Kid reports:

Winston Churchill in 1936 told an American newspaper in reference to the US entry into World War I: "America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war, the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American and other lives." Source


Muppet reports:

Just a heads up on that quote. Winston Churchill denied saying it, though the editior of the newspaper then filed a lawsuit insisting he had. He dropped the case in 1942. Source

A quote from the article:

It is a pity that most attention went (and still goes) to the question whether Churchill did, or did not utter these words. The opinion itself deserves more consideration. In 1936 the doom of new armed conflict was already hanging over Europe. As we can see now, afterwards, the arguments in the statement were pointing directly to the origins of the Second World War.

What kind of debate, if any, do Churchill scholars have over what is being said?

I don't know a lot about this part of history but I see no reason why someone - anybody - with the intellect we are talking about, could not have honestly criticized the entry of the US into their theater when peace negotiations were ongoing.

Despite of who he went on to be years later, could Churchill have been simply voicing popular opinion of the times? and perhaps pointing to who was indirectly but ultimately responsible for the conditions necessary to the eruption of World War Two?

How historically accurate is this?




posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Interesting. Especially considering the fact that Churchill and Roosevelt held talks aboard a ship to discuss how the US could get involved in the war. Roosevelt was looking for a way to get involved, but since WWI Americans had grown increasenly Isolationist in their views. Roosevelt knew the only way they would support another war was if something was to happen to happen on American soil.......then comes Pearl Harbor........and the rest is history.

As a Historian myself this is basic knowledge, but I dont understand why Churchill would have said such a thing knowing that both he and Roosevelt wanted the US to enter the war, but this was of course before that happened.

He may have been pointing fingers at the US, which we were in some ways not completely responsible for, but somewhat. WWII arose because of the debt that Germany incurred after the first war, and this combined with all the sanctions we put upon them ultimately led to the outbreak of WWII. In some ways, yes, you could say that the US was directly responsible for WWII, but that may be a stretch.

I could write more, but I think you get the point!



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I have to admit I'm a bit of a newbie Churchill scholar. I'm actually about half way through William Manchester's biography of him at the moment. (all 2,400 pages of it!).

When I saw that quote it seemed a bit odd since in 1936 he was running his own intelligence operation, under the noses of the UK government, trying to expose the Nazi threat and rally the world against Hitler. (Maybe Churchill should be the patron saint of ATS?
).

I googled the quote, and came up with the possible debunk link.. though that link is all I know about it.

To me though it doesn't tie in with Churchill's other statements of the time, but then again he was a man to say what he thought, when he thought it, and he did make some major gaffs as well.

I'm definitely interested though in finding out the truth. Right now I'm up to 1934 so I may soon learn Manchester's side of the story. If I find some useful quotes or evidence I'll post them.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Churchill is an interesting historical study to be sure. Two bits of Winston trivia for you hard core types.

According the a book about the history of oil called "The Prize" the reason that Saudi alligned with the US was because FDR did not smoke in from of Ibn Saud, while Winston insisted on doing so, and the US gave the leader a gift of a plane, while Winston showed up with some perfume and gems.

The other is that Churchill was the main pressure behind getting the US to kick out Mossadeq in Iran following his nationalizing thier oil company. The CIA initated operation AJAX and installed the Shaw in power, removing a democratically elected leader in the middle east.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 08:03 AM
link   
I was a somewhat surprised to read that quote, myself. But not TOO surprised, based on what I've learned about Churchill in recent years. (Especially in my studies on Iraqi history.) I encourage everyone to look into that. Look at Britain's occupation back in the 20's. Churchill actually gave orders to gas villages from airplanes. THAT IS A FACT. It's hard as hell to comprehend, but it's the truth. He was a hard-core MOFO.

One thing that's important to understand is that the international bankers were lusting for more WW1 action. Those at the highest levels of power in and out of the US gov. had every reason to push us into it. (They finance both sides and clean up.) I believe Churchill and FDR both were very aware of this. Altho, I have no opinion on who their masters actually were.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I was a somewhat surprised to read that quote, myself. But not TOO surprised, based on what I've learned about Churchill in recent years. (Especially in my studies on Iraqi history.) I encourage everyone to look into that. Look at Britain's occupation back in the 20's. Churchill actually gave orders to gas villages from airplanes. THAT IS A FACT. It's hard as hell to comprehend, but it's the truth. He was a hard-core MOFO.



I haven't come across that particular one, but I am sure you are correct, given what I'm learning. He was by no means a saint. He was a huge egotist, he was rude to his subordinates (although the rank and file soldiers loved him, in both world wars). He himself nearly got caught with banned Dum Dum bullets when he as captured by the Boars!

EDIT : I'm still a fan though.. he was a man of his time and stood up for what he believed in, right or wrong.

Another little churchill nugget for conspiracy buffs regarding the Spanish/American war, from www.spanamwar.com....


It was not, however. Just courtesy to his hosts that coloured Churchill's views when he returned to England after his expedition to Cuba. He foresaw that in the event of a rebel victory the predominant share in government that was likely to be demanded by the negro element among the insurgents, led by Antonio Maceo, would create renewed and even more bitter conflict of a racial kind and thus reduce 'the richest island in the world, the pearl of the Antilles,' to ruin. This was the reason that led Churchill to view the rebel cause with less enthusiasm than was popular in large sections of the English Press, and among such of his contemporaries as Hubert Howard, who was reporting for The Times, but on the rebel side (and who incidentally was one of the war correspondents later to be killed at Omdurman).

This, too, was the reasoning that led him to look askance at the American Government's recognition of the rebel forces in March 1896. But when America actually intervened and went to war with Spain in 1898 there was no doubt where his sympathy lay. Consistent with the views he had expressed more than two years earlier he now saw the opportunity for firm and stable government in an island which was rich in resources but which had been impoverished and debilitated by misgovernment and insurrection. 'America can give the Cubans peace' he told the Morning Post in an interview on 15 July 1898, 'and perhaps prosperity will then return. American annexation is what we must all urge, but possibly we shall not have to urge very long.'


The question is, did that interview appear IN the july 15th 1898 copy of the London Morning Post? or was the interview CARRIED OUT on july 15th 1898.

That date will be familiar "Maine-y" on this site!!


[edit on 23-7-2004 by muppet]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
uh why would he mention russia? they revolted a month before we joined the war.

in 1917 we joined to defend the brittish, the war only lasted longer is because russia left the war, freeing up german forces and allowed them to bring more troops to the western front, why would he say such a thing, i dont think he did because its so inaccurate.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   
It's probably a very thin line: while there weren't US troops fighting in Europe in 1917, the US was already supporting the Allies' war effort to a considerable degree. US coal was powering French steel mills and warming Belgian refugees, more than half of the wheat consumed in Italy was imported from the US and British and Canadian troops used many US-manufactured rifles and shells. While the US government denied direct involvement, it surely didn't prevent their industries from dealing with the Allies, while at the same time it ensured nobody sold anything to the Germans. Moreover, the US military effort was surely important, but not decisive. Apart from the USMC 1st Division (the "Old Breed"), all other US units needed to be trained from scratch, equipped with Allies-produced weapons (the US was lacking in many fields and there wasn't time to come up with new indigenous designs) and organized in field formations. The German offensive in 1918 required American units to be deployed piecemeal, to support faultering Allies troops: thye were not military decisive, but the sight of new troops, well equipped, skilfully trained and with an high morale, was surely a morale boost for the war-weary Allied troops.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join