bml00 said:

Britain elected its leaders for the 2nd World War there was little call if any for capitulation

Churchill wasn't elected by anyone except as an MP.

Nothing he'd done before the age of 65 was commendable other than "... four speeches, all of which were derivative of Shakespeare and Macaulay" - http://powerbase.info/index.php/Winston_Churchill

Churchill had been kept out of the government for over 10 years, he was saved from bankruptcy (and losing his beloved house where his reputation rested on his entertainment) by American agents.

I'm impressed by the book "Friendly Fire, the Secret War between the Allies" 2005 Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince, Stephen Prior with additional research by Robert Brydon (d. 2003).

p.146 ... In his memoirs. Churchill acknowledged that Halifax was given first refusal.[72. Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, vol. I, pp.522-4]

Yet his details are suspect - he even misdates this meeting, giving it as 10 May (when he was summoned by the King and took office).

One of his researchers, Sir William Deacon, said he was 'hamming [it] up ... he's being amusing, it's not to be taken seriously'.[73. Quoted in Roberts, 'The Holy Fox, p.204]

Halifax's biographer Andrew Roberts suggests that Churchill's account 'ought to be read as literature, rather than a factual account'.[74. Quoted in Roberts, 'The Holy Fox, p.204]

While admitting that Halifax's peerage was not the real problem, Roberts argues that he refused the job because he modestly felt he lacked the qualities to be a successful wartime Prime Minister. This seems unlikely because Halifax continued his efforts to find a compromise peace behind Churchill's back - and becoming head of government would have enabled him to make this official policy.

Halifax's own account makes it clear that he was uncertain that he would be able to exert due control over the war from the House of Lords, and so would become 'more or less an honorary Prime Minister'.[75. Halifax's account is reproduced in Ibid., p.205] But rather than doubting his own abilities, he seems rather to have been afraid that he would not be *allowed* that control: he told Sir Alexander Cadogan immediately after the meeting, 'If I was not in charge of the war (operations) and if I didn't lead in the house. I should be a cipher.'[76. Cadogan, p.280]

So who was to be in charge of the war? Regardless of who became Prime Minister, the answer most certainly was Winston Spencer Churchill.

Chamberlain seems to have wanted a compromise with Halifax as Prime Minister but with Churchill actually running the war. If Halifax refused these terms, the alternative was for Churchill to run the whole show: handing everything over to Halifax simply wasn't acceptable to Chamberlain, which is odd, since they shared the same war policies - and most decidedly Churchill did not.

Somehow, Churchill held the balance of power. In his diary, John Colville even refers mysteriously to Churchill's 'powers of blackmail' that swung the decision.[77. Colville, "The Fringes of Power" vol. I, p.141] What blackmail?

What did Churchill have that Halifax hadn't? Halifax had the support of the ruling party, the opposition, the King - and the people. Only one person supported Churchill and not Halifax: President Roosevelt.

CONTINUED:

CONTINUED:

(ed - sadly the passage above from Picknett's book is slightly misleading - Churchill bribed the leader of Labour, Clement Atlee, with the Deputy Prime Ministership. Labour also got the Ministry of Labour and the Home Office and "other key ministries". As the BBC adds, this political bargaining was enormously valuable to Labour, giving it "a wealth of experience in office which was to prove invaluable when the party went to the country" in 1945 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/special/politics97/ background/pastelec/ ge45.shtml)

"Friendly Fire" by Picknett continues:

By instigating the Roosevelt-Churchill correspondence, FDR had effectively given Churchill his blessing, handing him an ace. The President was announcing the identity of his favoured candidate as British leader. Having brought up the subject of Churchill as Prime Minister - then a remote possibility - with a horrified George VI in June 1939, clearly FDR had his eye on his man even then. Then there was his curious statement to Kennedy that he had instigated the correspondence because Churchill might soon be Prime Minister.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, Roosevelt made it dear through private intermediaries that aid would only be forthcoming if the British government took a tough line with Hitler: any further attempts at appeasement would jeopardise assistance. Halifax favoured peace negotiations: therefore only Churchill could bring American support to the table.

(Curiously, just a week after war broke out, during a discussion on the neutrality of Egypt - if it remained neutral it could be used as a 'back door' for American supplies - Churchill confidently declared. 'we certainly have no need to keep her neutral for the purpose of war purchases from the United States who will very soon give us all we want direct.'[78. Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, vol. VI, p.22, Churchill on 10 September 1939] How could he be so sure, when at that stage there was no certainty that Congress would repeal the embargo?)

Sure looks as if Churchill was forced on us by the US. As the US has since done to so many other nations under various forms of military threat.

The "Friendly Fire" book by Picknett also claims/implies that Churchill (out of power since 1929, remember) was an alcoholic extremist:

p.141 ... In the early months of the conflict, there were essentially three views in British political and industrial/financial circles: businessmen like Lord Beaverbrook and many Tories believed that as the war threatened to destroy Britain's interests so comprehensively, peace talks should begin immediately.

Others, such as Chamberlain and Halifax, who wanted a deal with a Hitler-free Germany - although his regime could remain - made overtures to Goering.

The third group believed the whole Nazi regime must go before attempting any settlement, favouring close cooperation with the anti-Hitlerites on the General Staff.

At that stage, not even Churchill advocated the fourth option - that *any* compromise with Germany under *any* leadership was out of the question."

One can go much further, since Churchill was not particularly popular in government. The British (Cabinet and people) would very likely have ended the British part in WW2 in May 1941 ... if they'd only been allowed to know what Rudolf Hess was offering.

In which case, there'd have been no WW2 as we know it - and the Holocaust (started only on 12th Dec 1941) would very possibly not have happened. Only one man, bribed by FD Roosevelt, brought about all the chaos and suffering we know of. In 1945, Churchill apparently wanted the war to go on and nuke Russia - had Roosevelt not just died, he might very well have had his way. Not that that would have saved the British Empire, which had been comprehensively bankrupted by one man recognised by all the world as "Greatest Briton". http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/11_november/25/greatbritons_final.shtml

Berry go bore somebody else to death with your ceaseless myopic lies about everything - Halifax wanted to negiotiate with Hitler he was a loser like you , Churchill knew you dont negoiate with the crocodile whilst your head is in its mouth .

Some of us stand and fight , we are not all yellow bellied liars with no honor

BM

bml00 said: Try the British and New Zealand can you go further than that for colonizing and do you need any more examples of countries in Africa the British colonized ?

Yes, the British that you hate have indeed attacked nations that could not retaliate.

bml00 said:

You are such an idiot when you try to revise history The British always used maximum force to ensure the Empire never retreated

No, the British that you hate have never used the kind of disproportionate force that Israel is using right now, today.

How about prosecuting people who fire rockets at civilians, BM - is that what you're calling for?

Or is there some reason you get very angry when people suggest that - you block anyone neutral from investigating - and even howl down a Zionist judge (with a daughter in the IDF) who dares to document the evils that Israel commits?

I've warned you not to ask questions of Americans that make them very angry.

Here's another warning for you - do not ask Israelis whether they want people firing rockets at civilians to be prosecuted for it.

They get even angrier at that question than Americans get over the "nations that can/cannot retaliate"!

Berry the British butchered where ever necessary to defend the empire you forget Amritsar or is that convenient amnesia , they fought the Scots the Welsh the Irish for centuries , they fought the 100 years war with France their Empirical Visions had no boundries and like they Romans they divided and ruled

you can fool some of the people some of the time with your rubbish etc

There is a VERY long list of British War Crimes google and find it out and then write a very long list of mindless lies and excuses or better stil ask David Irving who you love to Brown nose with for his opinion

BM

bml00 said:

Berry the British butchered where ever necessary to defend the empire you forget Amritsar or is that convenient amnesia

The very worst incident in 300 years and 2 Empires that covered 1/3 of the globe.

Carried out in 1919 by very shell-shocked soldiers.

Condemned in Parliament.

Your problem is that you hate the British.

So which regiments were shell shocked 2nd/9th Gurkkha Rifles - where had they served in the 1st  World war where ?????????????

The 54th and the 59th Sind Rifles of the Imperial Indian Army - they served  also in the 1st World where ???

You are a liar of the most stupid kind provide for this forum evidence that the above perpetrators served in the 1st World War

Why should I hate the British because I show the honest truth you try so hard to cover that is not hate nor love it is merely historic record - your friends try so hard to with revisionary history and you defend them .

Prove the above served anywhere in the war

BM

Everything I'm posting is either true, or at least well justified by public information from respectable (and in many cases, Zionist-friendly) media.

(But you may have caught me out in one of the facts I've presented - I don't know whether members of the British Army in 1919 were just back from the trenches or not).

How about the other "facts" I've presented - why is it so rare that you ever manage to correct me (as you think you've nearly done here)?

Meanwhile, listen with admiration to the world's most honourable people and Winston Churchill addressing Parliament:

... World War I was just over ... many members of Parliament knew, of many instances in which officers, in 'infinitely more trying' situation than the one in Bagh, had, unlike the general, displayed an ability to arrive 'at the right decision.'

... Dyer's most vocal champions agreed with Churchill's stand in Russia. It was compassion and its absence, he said, which marked the difference between Englishmen and Bolsheviks.

His own hatred of Lenin's regime was 'not founded on their silly system of economics, or their absurd doctrine of an impossible equality.' It arose from 'the bloody and devastating terrorism which they practice ... and by which alone their criminal regime can be maintained.'

It was intolerable in Russia; it was intolerable in Amritsar. 'I do not think,' he said, 'that it is in the interests of the British Empire or of the British Army for us to take a load of that sort for all time upon our backs. We have to make it absolutely clear, some way or another, that this is not the British way of doing business.'

He quoted Macaulay: "The most frightful of all spectables [is] the strength of civilisation without its mercy". England's 'reign in India, or anywhere else,' Churchill continued, 'has never stood on the basis of physical force alone, and it would be fatal to the British Empire if we were to try to base ourselves only upon it".

"The British way of doing things...has always meant and implied close and effectual cooperation with the people. In every part of the British Empire that has been our aim".

As for Dyer, Churchill himself would have preferred to see the general disciplined. Instead, he had been allowed to resign with no plan for further punishment, "and to those moderate and considered conclusions we confidently invite the assent of the House".

He sat and the house rose crying, 'Hear, hear.' After five more hours of debate they voted for the government, 247 to 37.

Quoted from: "The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill Visions of Glory 1874-1932" by William Manchester, 1983, Sphere Books Ltd, 1984. pp 568-570. (available atwww.ccp14.ac.uk/people/lachlan/churchill/am-man.htm)

What happened next?

The Hunter Commission ... After meeting in New Delhi on 29 October, the Commission took statements from witnesses over the following weeks. Witnesses were called in Delhi, Ahmedabad, Bombay and Lahore. ... wound up its initial inquiries by examining the principal witnesses to the events in Amritsar.

... the final report, comprising six volumes of evidence and released on 8 March 1920, unanimously condemned Dyer's actions.[42] In "continuing firing as long as he did, it appears to us that General Dyer committed a grave error."[46] 

• Lack of notice to disperse from the Bagh in the beginning was an error The length of firing showed a grave error
• Dyer's motive of producing a sufficient moral effect was to be condemned
• Dyer had overstepped the bounds of his authority
• There had not been any conspiracy to overthrow British rule in the Punjab
• The minority report of the Indian members further added that:
• Proclamations banning public meetings were insufficiently distributed
• There were innocent people in the crowd, and there had not been any violence in the Bagh beforehand
• Dyer should have either ordered his troops to help the wounded or instructed the civil authorities to do so
• Dyer's actions had been "inhuman and un-British" and had greatly injured the image of British rule in India.

... The Legal and Home Members on the Viceroy's Council ultimately decided that, though Dyer had acted in a callous and brutal way, military or legal prosecution would not be possible due to political reasons.

However, he was finally found guilty of a mistaken notion of duty and relieved of his command on 23 March. He had been recommended for a CBE as a result of his service in the Third Afghan War; this recommendation was cancelled on 29 March 1920. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

Halifax wanted appeasement in your language he wanted to surrender no need to discuss a word further

BM