Proposed peace conditions in 1940?

This has been discussed before with you. It is NOT an authentic Churchill quote.

Kindly cease from spreading islamist neo-nazi garbage from the mind of David Pidcock.

 

The book is "The Capitalist Holocaust", and you are referring to chapter 9 in it.

Peter Cohen is a Marxist.

Who do you imagine he is going to blame?

How much glossing over of Soviet aggression does he do?



Add chunks of Finland.

Yet even Peter Cohen doesn't use those misquotes from David Pidcock's fevered brain.

If Peter Cohen wishes to go scrounging around for some twisted Capitalist Anglo-German Conspiracy theory to destroy the USSR, fine. That's one of the prerogatives of being a Marxist Soviet apologist.

 

On the map above it would be: "Regained territories" taken byPolish aggression after the Great War. How can a country "annex" ownn territory?

 

The original German text of that proposal is:

1. Das britische Empire mit allen seinen Kolonien und Mandaten
bleibt bestehen,
2. die Vorherrschaft Deutschlands auf dem Kontinent darf nicht in
Frage gestellt werden,
3. alle Fragen bezüglich des Mittelmeeres, der französischen,
belgischen und holländischen Kolonien bleiben offen,
4. es soll ein polnischer Staat bestehen bleiben,
5. die Tschechoslowakei muß zu Deutschland gehören.
Die anderen, von Deutschland besetzten Staaten erhalten ihre
Souveränität mit voller innerer Freiheit zurück.

I don't know why you have mistranslated that text and ommitted important part. Now, proper translation:

1. The British Empire remains with all its colonies and mandates,
2. supremacy of Germany on the continent can not be questioned,
3. All questions concerning the Mediterranean, the French,
Belgian and Dutch colonies remain open,
4. Polish state remains,
5. Czechoslovakia must belong to Germany.
The other states, occupied by Germany states get their
sovereignty back with full inner freedom.

The last statement is particularly problematic - you've simply ommitted that.

By using simple words: The entire continental Europe along with their colonies turns into German vasal states, Czechoslovakia and large portion of Poland remain annexed to the Reich, Poland reduces to "Generalgouvernement".

But, the most important of all is point 3: Mediterranean the "soft underbelly of Europe". Even more important are collonies - that implies free acces for Germany to oceans and the Mediterranean. These two were the only British chance to beat the Third Reich in an attrition war: with complete blockade of Atlantic and the Mediterranean, with aim to involve USA and USSR into alliance.

Only a fool would have accepted these "generous" conditions.

 

It is precisely this thinking that has caused problems in Central / Eastern Europe for centuries. When does one ethnicity / identity ever have sole right?

 

So if it was a righteous act for Russia to reclaim it's lost territory after signing a treaty accepting those changes, why was it naughty for Germany to do the very same thing?

Whoa dude! are we giving Hitler a bad rap?

 

That really is faked by some Islamic nut?

 

You can't argue cited sources and documents from the actual diplomats that participated in government, talks, cables, etc. Churchill even said he tried to strangle the bolshevik menace in its cradle, and that's NOT made-up. The West disliked Communism and Bolshevism no matter how you want to spin it.

 

Anthony Eden was documented towards the end of the war talking about how Winston was saying we ought not to beat the Germans down to bad because we need them lined up against the Soviets.

 

Yes.

 

Yes, it is made up. The actual quote, from the House of Commons debate of 26 January 1949 is "I think the day will come when it will be recognized without doubt, not only on one side of the House, but throughout the civilized world, that the strangling of Bolshevism at its birth would have been an untold blessing to the human race." Quite a different context and thrust.

 

You are the one quoting false Churchill quotes. You are putting "spin" on things.

Or should we quote Marx, Engels, Lenin, and the agendas of the assorted Anarcho-communists from the 1840's to 1910's to see why capitalists may have had some legitimate fears about their intents?

“The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”
― Karl Marx

"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property."
― Karl Marx

etc...

So firstly, strangling bolshevism in its cradle is not necessarily a bad thing. Especially if you like to be able to choose

Secondly Peter Cohen's consistent excusing of Soviet excesses is vile. Completely ignoring Soviet aggression in Finland. But the Anglo-French response is clearly a capitalist desire to oppress the Bolsheviks.... Please.

No one has denied Churchill's dislike of Communism. Your ranting and spouting of vile islamo-nazi propaganda does not aid your cause, however. Select your literature more judiciously.

 

No, I'm not saying that Germany was naughty for doing the same thing. They tried to get back what once belonged to them but weren't that lucky. I am trying to see history from the right side: Germans were aggressors, Soviets were aggressors, Poles were aggressors, Germans were anti-Semites, Poles were anti-Semites. Who were the good guys who deserve to be defended here and who are to be blamed for everything?

 

I'm just making the point that the narrative and mainstream history isn't always as peachy and straightforward as claimed. I'm certainly no Jihadist neo-nazi. But The West's view of Communism can't be denied. And if someone overlooks Stalin's and the Soviets barbarities they are just as wrong.

 

I have no problems with Churchill disliking Bolshevism and wanting Western troops to fight in the Russian Civil War to stop the spread of Bolshevism. None at all.

 

In Churchill's memoirs he talked about his first trip to Moscow and recollecting how in the early 20s he viewed Soviet Russia as a menace and the enemy, and how he had to change his views.

 

He did give a speech in 1919 about the Bolshevik Menace. That's not incorrect. And he supported troops fighting in the Russian Civil War to stop the Revolution. That's not made up.

I am not in disagreement with these beliefs. Just pointing it out.

 

Not the same topic, but in doing some reading on this I came across a view where if the Soviets were beaten when the Revolution happened then Britain wouldn't have been able to win WWII without Soviet Russia. Why wouldn't have the British had been able to beat the Germans on their own, but the Germans could beat the British alone?

 

Except he didn't. Exactly the opposite in fact. He did not want to delay demobilization post Great War in order to keep BRitish troops fighting Bolsheviks.