Harrak and history

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Feb 5, 2007 at 13:00

Harrak wrote :

> Churchill would not hesitate striking a deal with Hitler if the latter was more logical.

Wrong! Hitler admired England ( "Mein Kampf" is full of laudatory words about the British) and did what he could to acquire England's good will and appreciation. On 24.05.1940 as c. 400 000 British and French were encircled in Dunkirk Hitler issued the so called Fuehrer's instruction nr 13 (die Führerweisung Nr. 13). He forbade Guderian's tanks to smash the British which saved them from a certain disaster. What did he expect from that in exchange ? Britain's gratitude and love ? Instead he received all the hatred and venom Churchill and the British people were capable of. As long as Germany dominated Europe there could be no reconciliation and no logic could change that. Churchill rejected all peace initiatives made by the Germans. He despised Hitler's proposal to send German soldiers to protect the British Empire in case of necessity.

> For the Churchill supporters, I want to say that Churchill was nothing if the USA did not save him and the rest of Europe.

In view of the fact that the Germans had nothing comparable to the Bitish Navy to transport their troops across the British Channel with , the real threat of a German invasion was not that extreme. Besides , ever since 22.06.1941 the best German forces were enagaged in the East where they gradually suffered so heavy losses that they could hardly regain their previous strength and morale. And so the Russo-German war saved Churchill more than what happened after Hitler declared war on the US in December 1941. To put it in a different way , it was Stalin who saved the Brits , not so much Roosevelt. As Churchill put it in the conditional mood : "If Hitler had invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons". He praised Stalin.

> What did he do! writing poems or fantasizing about history!

Among other things organizing the RAF to bomb the German cities into nothingness is worth mentioning though.

> If Churchill is ever to be called something, that is thanks to the United States of America.

Those who deal with those questions seriously would hardly subscribe to your view, Harrak. The British Empire provided enough troops and resources to enable Britain under Churchill's ruthless leadership to stand through the worst years of misfortunes and disasters between 1939-1941. These were the years without the United States of America.

> He was fool enough to think of invading Russia. .I rather say, he was fantasizing about such invasion.

When ? In 1919 ! You're mixing up things, Harrak. Chronology is sometimes more important than transcendent Muslim theology , you know.

> Churchill! name an American instead..

Everyone his due , Harrak. Churchill had his bad sides but he had also many positive sides. How about good sides of your heroes like Haji Amin al-Husseini , the grand mufti of Jerusalem ? Could you name a few as I can see none ?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".