November 11th, 2017

On Churchill’s becoming Prime Minister

Churchill became Prime Minister during an extraordinarily difficult crisis early in World War II. This was his mindset:

I was conscious of a profound sense of relief.

Relief? Most people would be terrified and/or despairing. Hitler was engaged in swiftly taking over most of Europe. The British forces were cornered at Dunkirk.

But Churchill was not most people:

At last I had authority to give directions over the whole scene. I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial.

He welcomed being in control, because he trusted himself. But that trust wasn’t just narcissism; he had reason to trust himself, and he thought the British people had reason to trust him, too:

Ten years in the political wilderness had freed me from ordinary party antagonisms. My warnings over the last six years had been so numerous, so detailed, and were now so terribly vindicated, that no one could gainsay me. I could not be reproached either for making the war or with want of preparation for it. I thought I knew a good deal about it all, and I was sure I should not fail.

He had been ostracized and ridiculed for his dire prognosications and warnings, and had stood virtually alone. And then it turned out he’d been correct all along. This, added to Churchill’s natural confidence, must have increased that confidence immeasurably:

Therefore, although impatient for the morning, I slept soundly and had no need for cheering dreams. Facts are better than dreams.

[NOTE: You can find the quote here, but it’s also in innumerable biographies of Churchill.]

23 Responses to “On Churchill’s becoming Prime Minister”

  1. AesopFan Says:

    Not wanting to detract from Churchill’s greatness, and his being the right man in the right place at the right time, but had the people been fully aware of his somewhat eccentric proclivities, maybe they would have insisted that he be denied the post of Prime Minister, because he just wasn’t pure enough.

    http://www.throughouthistory.com/?p=1874

    – Churchill was a prolific drinker and smoker, consuming up to two bottles of champagne a day.

    – Churchill’s nakedness wasn’t just limited to the bathroom where it might be expected. While he dictated speeches, or was busy sounding out new ones, he would sometimes get so distracted by his work that it wasn’t unknown for him to wander around Chartwell completely naked and forget that he wasn’t wearing any clothes! This fact was gleamed from the director’s commentary of ‘The Gathering Storm’, if anyone wants to know.

    – Churchill suffered from Depression.

    Probably not surprising, considering what he went through in life!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/03/the-dark-side-of-winston-churchills-legacy-no-one-should-forget/?utm_term=.3bac308fad91

    But there’s another side to Churchill’s politics and career that should not be forgotten amid the endless parade of eulogies. To many outside the West, he remains a grotesque racist and a stubborn imperialist, forever on the wrong side of history.

    * * *
    However, he was never, SFAIK, accused of sexual immorality — this may be the closest he ever came:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11155416/Sir-Winston-Churchill-the-famous-lines-that-he-never-said.html

    At a reception in Canada when Churchill was sitting next to a Methodist bishop, the two men were offered sherry by a waitress. Churchill took a glass, but the bishop said: “Young lady, I would rather commit adultery than take an intoxicating beverage.”
    Churchill said to the waitress: “Come back lassie, I didn’t know we had a choice!”

    (Churchill’s response may seem less likely than the bishop’s. YMMV)

    The article also debunks this famous story: When Nancy Astor, Britain’s first female MP, told Sir Winston Churchill that: “If I were your wife I would put poison in your coffee,” Churchill famously replied: “Nancy, if I were your husband I would drink it.”

    (believable though it is, the jest has been attributed to many other people through the years — most of the really good quotes are “fake news” that way)

    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/08/27/drink-it/

  2. John F. MacMichael Says:

    Reminds me of a line from U. S. Grant’s memoirs. His campaign to take Vicksburg was long and hard-fought. Finally he resorted to a desperate tactic: he ran his steam boats past the Confederate batteries at night. He marched his troops down the the west side of the Mississippi and below Vicksburg. Then the boats ferried them across the river.

    This put Grant in what many of his officers considered a very bad military situation. His river boats could not have survived going back up the river. Moving slowly against the current, they would have been shot to pieces by the guns at Vicksburg. So he had only the most tenuous lines of communication and supply.

    Grant was perfectly aware of the risks he was taking. But, as he later wrote “None of that mattered because I was on dry ground on the same side of the river as the enemy.”

  3. Frog Says:

    Aesop Fan’s warning,”But there’s another side to Churchill’s politics and career that should not be forgotten amid the endless parade of eulogies. To many outside the West, he remains a grotesque racist and a stubborn imperialist, forever on the wrong side of history” is both ignorant and biased.

    Churchill was 100% correct in his (negative) observations about Islam and the Mid-East, for example. If that’s raaacist, so be it. Further, the British Empire was the greatest single civilizing force on the planet until England ran out of gas post-WWII.

    “The wrong [or right)] side of history” is as stupid a statement as ever emerged from Obama’s mouth. It is however entirely consistent with the Progressives’ self-righteous pursuit of social perfection, 100 million dead notwithstanding.

  4. AesopFan Says:

    Not my warning: it’s a quote.”To many outside the West” being the keywords.

    The object was to point out that every leader has someone who objects to some of their positions or qualities of character; whether the complaint is justified or not is up for dispute.

    I personally think Churchill was a very astute observer.
    The people most affected by his actions had a different view. If theirs had prevailed, he might not have been named Prime Minister when he was needed.

    Check out this recent post on PowerLine for another example of unheeded warnings.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/the-prophet-of-affirmative-action.php

  5. Frog Says:

    Aesop:
    Missed that you were quoting, the WaPo in that instance. Why anyone would read that and the other rags at this point in time eludes me. It is akin to licking rat poison, just to check what it tastes like, and whether the flavor has changed.

    I had just forwarded the Powerline piece to my kids!

  6. TommyJay Says:

    I was surprised to learn some years ago, that a young Churchill was an/the (?) architect of the WWI disaster at Gallipoli. I don’t know much about the battle beyond the Hollywood version, so perhaps a smarter theater commander would have yielded better results. At the time, some said it was a career ender for Churchill.

    The other surprise, for me, was that early in WWII, Churchill had to blow up two or three major French warships, in port in Africa, in spite of the fact that French Navy leadership was very friendly to the Brits.

    The lore surrounding that battle was that if the British Navy had sent a more senior officer to the French demanding surrender, they might have done so. More disturbing was that FDR was looking for a do-or-die level of determination from the Brits before supporting them, and told them so. So a bunch of French sailors had to die, to convince FDR, or so some have claimed.

  7. Barry Meislin Says:

    I believe he gave the order to blow them up so that they wouldn’t fall into the hands of the Nazis who either had just conquered or were about to conquer France.

  8. kevino Says:

    In sports, winners like having the ball in their hands. They don’t mind that it’s all up to them: they want it that way.

    John F. MacMichael:
    If you don’t know, you should read how Gen. Grant told Washington about the plan to take Vicksburg.

    He started out into the wilderness (south) and sent word. He knew it would take days for messengers to get to a telegraph station to send word to Washington. Gen Halleck [?] would certainly tell him to stop doing what he was doing, but the order to stop would take days to reach him, and by then it would be too late.

    As the key battle was taking place East of Vicksburg, a messenger did, indeed, ride up with orders not to attack Vicksburg. Grant just laughed.

  9. John F. MacMichael Says:

    Kevin @11/12 4:53 PM, I do recall reading about that incident. I think it was in Bruce Catton’s biography of Grant.

    The Civil War did see the beginnings of our modern military curse of micromanagement thanks to the then new technology of the telegraph. Another example had Grant on the other side when he (by then in command of all U.S. forces) grew impatient with Gen. George H. Thomas’ failure to attack Nashville. After repeatedly prodding Thomas by telegram, Grant sent General Logan to replace him in command. Before Logan got there, Gen. Thomas did attack and destroyed Hood’s army at the Battle of Nashville. Logan kept the order in his pocket and quietly went back to Washington.

  10. Frog Says:

    TommyJay:
    From history.com:
    “The [Gallipoli] invasion had been scuttled by incompetence and hesitancy by military commanders, but, fairly or unfairly, Churchill was the scapegoat. The Gallipoli disaster threw the government into crisis, and the Liberal prime minister was forced to bring the opposition Conservatives into a coalition government. As part of their agreement to share power, the Conservatives wanted Churchill, a renegade politician who had bolted their party a decade earlier, out from the Admiralty. In May 1915, Churchill was demoted to an obscure cabinet post.

    “I am the victim of a political intrigue,” he lamented to a friend.

  11. Mike K Says:

    a young Churchill was an/the (?) architect of the WWI disaster at Gallipoli.

    Gallipoli was a sound strategic plan to try to flank the horrible trench warfare on the western front. I visited Ypres in 2015. there is a memorial arch to the 57,000 British soldiers whose remains were never found.

    The British Navy botched the Dardanelles campaign out of more concern with their warships than the war. They would not run the gauntlet and the invasion was also botched.

    Halifax very nearly became PM because the Tories were not enthusiastic about Churchill and the King did not like him. Had Halifax gotten the job, the war would likely have been lost.
    Read Lukacs, “Five Days in London, May 1940.”

  12. AesopFan Says:

    This blog is better than The History Channel.
    Needs more pictures, though. 😉

  13. David Foster Says:

    TommyJay…”early in WWII, Churchill had to blow up two or three major French warships, in port in Africa”

    I posted about this tragic affair here:

    https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/53322.html

  14. Chester Draws Says:

    To many outside the West, he remains a grotesque racist and a stubborn imperialist, forever on the wrong side of history.

    Time is tending to blur these things, but Churchill was hated by many inside the West too.

    The number of Australians he sent to their deaths in Gallipoli, Greece, Crete and Singapore has not been forgotten. (He knew the operations were dangerous, so he made sure that as many colonials were used as could be found, so that English troops were not so endangered. Prick.)

    Don’t ask people of Cossack background of his agreement to hand them over to Stalin. Nor have many Poles much time for him.

    He was a conceited bigot. Perfect for the time, of course, but there’s no need to think he was a good man.

  15. Gordon Says:

    If the British Army leadership had shown a bit of hustle, Gallipoli would have been a resounding success.

    And yeah, Churchill wasn’t always right, and sometimes had to make decisions that were ugly. He became PM because Lord Halifax didn’t really want the job. And when France collapsed, Halifax wanted to negotiate a settlement with Hitler. Churchill didn’t. By putting his friend Lord Beaverbrook in charge of aircraft production, Churchill won the Battle of Britain, finishing that fight with more aircraft then when it started.

  16. Frog Says:

    Chester:
    Roosevelt sent many, many Americans to their European deaths and gave Eastern Europe to Stalin. He was hated by many in the West also.
    War was declared on Hitler’s Germany only after it, as a Japanese ally, declared war on the USA. Hitler’s single greatest mistake. A case can be made that US could have limited its part in WWII to fighting only Japan, leaving the European theater to the two warring socialist/communist parties. Which the Russians, with their limitless supply of cannon fodder, might well have won, though German technical superiority might also have carried the day.

  17. om Says:

    Chester when you hate there’s no need to think.

  18. Mike K Says:

    Perfect for the time, of course, but there’s no need to think he was a good man.

    I think he was a better man than Hitler, which is what counted. He was also a better man than Halifax.

    Interesting to see the opinions by those who lives are far more comfortable because he lived.

    When I was applying to medical school, I was interviewed and was asked who I thought was the greatest man of the 20th century. I answered quickly and honestly with “Churchill.” Afterword, I thought I had blown it by not naming some medical figure like Salk. I got in anyway.

  19. arfldgrs Says:

    “You must look at the facts because they look at you.” Winston Churchill

    What we learn from history is that no one learns from history. – Bismark

    if you want to understand what was happening in europe and such just before that which informed churchill, then you have to read a few things THEY DONT (refuse) to talk about

    the key is
    “The Magyar Struggle”

    In the period of Churchil the Magyar means hungarian, it also means a person. [in fact you wont hear hungarian used till later… ]

    but this was 1848, and engels was making his prediction of what had to be done… and even fantasized about who would do it.

    back then, such a thing would be read and well known,a and IF you read it and known it, you would know that “My Struggle” was the man taking up Engels charge in the Magyar struggle…

    you would ALSO know of a man named:
    Lajos Kossuth de Udvard et Kossuthfalva
    [the magyar]

    in fact, they go so far as to never translate the title!!
    if you look up My Strugg, you will find, Mein Kampf – there have even been other books that tend to misdirect you if you look for it in english. Like Karl Ove Knausgaard.. My Struggle

    the wiki for the one in question goes:
    Mein Kampf (German: [maɪ̯n kampf], My Struggle)

    but it does not do the same for the magyar
    Starting with an article called “The Magyar Struggle”, written on 8 January 1849, Engels, himself, began a series of reports on the Revolution and War for Independence of the newly founded Hungarian Republic

    These articles are almost never read and often have apologists to them!!! why? cause they lay out the holocaust, and the main states and the exterminations of jews and other “hide bound” nationalities like the slavs (Who trotsky called racist later for not wanting to give up being slavs and turned into international soviets)

    The LATVIANS know this because we were forced to study it, and even today, our documentaries now out cover it… (but westerners, why would they care about the people who were there guarding the austrian, and later conscripted by both and later the guards at neuremberg???)

    History Lessons: The Revolutionary Holocaust and Soviet Story
    https://obrlnews.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/opposing-red-propaganda-the-revolutionary-holocaust-and-soviet-story-3/

    the philosophy of Marx-Engels, which in fact always was a totalitarian impulse, and which led to a slaughter of human life maybe four times as great as that of the Nazis, hardly gets any criticism at all. In some faux-intellectual circles, Communism is “fashionable”, chic! and something the coffey-house revolutionaries will have “interesting conversations” about, even as they hungrily devour, believe and recommend to others the primary modern propagandists for hard Red Fascism — such as Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky. But the excuse is always made, the wonderful ideas of Marx and Engels were perverted by a bad Stalin and bad Mao. And Trotsky tried to stop Stalin, and would have been different if he had got the power. Those also are Marxist lies. Marx and Engels knew fully well that bloodshed and violence would be necessary to institute their Communism, and they wrote about this issue explicitly in their lesser-known articles and papers.

    Here’s a few alarming but lesser-known quotations from the “founding fathers” of communism, which go to the core of the problem:

    ” the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism”. – Karl Marx, “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, November 7, 1848.

    Among all the nations and sub-nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and are still capable of life – the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm [or “revolutionary
    holocaust” J.D.] For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary. these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character

    [A general war will] wipe out all these racial trash [Völkerabfälle] down to their very names.

    The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.” – Friedrich Engels, “The Magyar Struggle,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 13, 1849

    As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the ‘sacredness of human life.’ We were revolutionaries in opposition, and have remained revolutionaries in power. … this problem can only be solved by blood and iron.” – Leon Trotsky, Dictatorship Vs, Democracy (Terrorism and Communism): A Reply to Karl Kautsky, London: Workers Party of America, NY, 1922, p.63 (Reprint from a c.1920 London edition with the alarming title: In Defense of Terrorism) Reprint publication from Cornell University Library, Digital Collections Edition, NY, 2009.

    Der Magyarische Kampf preceded and informed herr leaders full ideas in Mein Kampf, which is why he chose THAT title…

    he wanted his struggle to be that of the hungarian engels envied and predicted would make this happen (nearly 80 years before WWII and before WWI)

    “The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way… They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust”
    – Karl Marx ( Marx People’s Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981 )

  20. arfldgrs Says:

    The bust of Kossuth that was added to the United States Capitol in 1990 is presently displayed in that building’s “Freedom Foyer” alongside busts of Václav Havel and Winston Churchill.

    For the first time after a long period we meet with a truly revolutionary figure, a man who in the name of his people dares to accept the challenge of a desperate struggle, who for his nation is Danton and Carnot in one person — Lajos Kossuth. – The Magyar Struggle in Neue Rheinische Zeitung (13 January 1849).

    and you probably dont know him..
    hiding him became important.

    why were hitlers speeches so important, cause thats what the magyar was known for. over and over you will find he copies this person to be what he was

    As the most influential contemporary American journalist Horace Greeley said of Kossuth: “Among the orators, patriots, statesmen, exiles, he has, living or dead, no superior.”

    He was widely honored during his lifetime, including in Great Britain and the United States, as a freedom fighter and bellwether of democracy in Europe. Kossuth’s bronze bust can be found in the United States Capitol with the inscription: Father of Hungarian Democracy, Hungarian Statesman, Freedom Fighter, 1848–1849.

    so churchill knew the man and his stuff, his speech ability and the stuff by engels the westerners dont read. you can look and you wont fine any history book that neo may have read that has them both together and puts it out right..

    There is no country in Europe which does not have in some corner or other one or several ruined fragments of peoples (Völkerruinen), the remnant of a former population that was suppressed and held in bondage by the nation which later became the main vehicle of historical development. These relics of a nation mercilessly trampled under foot in the course of history, as Hegel says, these residual fragments of peoples (Völkerabfälle) always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution.

    The Magyar Struggle in Neue Rheinische Zeitung (13 January 1849).

    you wont find it unless you search for extirpation, as we did not use extermination till later when our english skills were lessened.. we use the wrong term today, but hide engels

    annihilate: to reduce to nothing
    extirpate: to pluck out by the root
    exterminate: to banish, exile

    So hitler did not want to exterminate the jews, he wanted to extirpate..
    tons and tons of stuff you can see work to hide things from you
    and of course, no one who knows can teach you, you would have heard about it
    and since you havent, it must be nutters…

    Marx NEVER planned a peaceful revolution and Engels had no compuction against genoicide [but many words had not been made up, so if you dont use the old words you wont find the old texts or refernces!!!]

    István Széchenyi criticized Kossuth for “pitting one nationality against another” [and what did his protege do later? ] By combining this nationalism with an insistence on the superiority of the Hungarian culture to the culture of Slavonic inhabitants of Hungary, he sowed the seeds of both the collapse of Hungary in 1849 and his own political demise.

    so there is your model.. in that history we did not learn, and have little idea of
    Kossuth turned the people against the Slavics that were living there (just as trotsky hated them too for likeing being slavic)… this spliting of the society is what hitler used and what the left is now using targetting white males…

    engels had no problem with NATIONALISM / his HERO of his revolutionary dreams was a nationalist, not a communist – which he and engels saw as coming later..

    He continued to agitate on behalf of both political and commercial independence for Hungary. He adopted the economic principles of Friedrich List, and was the founder of a “Védegylet” society whose members consumed only Hungarian produce

    and List? he is forgotten as the inventor of the european union a long time before it

    Georg Friedrich List (August 6, 1789 – November 30, 1846) was a leading 19th-century German with dual American citizenship economist who developed the “National System” or what some would call today the National System of Innovation. He was a forefather of the German historical school of economics, and argued for the German Customs Union from a Nationalist standpoint. His ideas were the basis for the European Economic Community.

    i listen to you guys gab and not one of you brings up munzenberg, chase, list, Kossuth, and so on… and if you dont, then you dont know the history, yo only know the bs history they spoon fed you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    List’s theory of “national economics” differed from the doctrines of “individual economics” and “cosmopolitan economics” by Adam Smith and J.B. Say. List contrasted the economic behaviour of an individual with that of a nation. An individual promotes only his own personal interests but a state fosters the welfare of all its citizens. An individual may prosper from activities which harm the interests of a nation. “Slavery may be a public calamity for a country, nevertheless some people may do very well in carrying on the slave trade and in holding slaves.” Likewise, activities beneficial to society may injure the interests of certain individuals.

    “Canals and railroads may do great good to a nation, but all waggoners will complain of this improvement. Every new invention has some inconvenience for a number of individuals, and is nevertheless a public blessing”.

    List argued that although some government action was essential to stimulate the economy, an overzealous government might do more harm than good. “It is bad policy to regulate everything and to promote everything by employing social powers, where things may better regulate themselves and can be better promoted by private exertions; but it is no less bad policy to let those things alone which can only be promoted by interfering social power.

    List had a more complicated view of things than who came later in the lesser education systems

    cont…

  21. arfldgrs Says:

    They were building a socialist nationalist state.. the European union…

    Due to the “universal union” that nations have with their populace, List stated that “from this political union originates their commercial union, and it is in consequence of the perpetual peace thus maintained that commercial union has become so beneficial to them.

    The result of a general free trade would not be a universal republic, but, on the contrary, a universal subjection of the less advanced nations to the predominant manufacturing, commercial and naval power, is a conclusion for which the reasons are very strong. …

    A universal republic …, i.e. a union of the nations of the earth whereby they recognise the same conditions of right among themselves and renounce self-redress, can only be realised if a large number of nationalities attain to as nearly the same degree as possible of industry and civilisation, political cultivation and power.

    Only with the gradual formation of this union can free trade be developed; only as a result of this union can it confer on all nations the same great advantages which are now experienced by those provinces and states which are politically united

    the league of nations (united nations) and the eropean union…
    way before the other elites picked it up, like the very manipulative brother of Aldous huxley who tried to warn everyone about a “Brave new world”

    Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals
    By Aldous Huxley
    the Long Campaign of non violent resistance and non co operation conducted by the Hungarians under Deak was crowned with the complete success in 1867. …it is significant that the name of Kossuth, the leader of the violent hungarian revoluition of 1848 was and still is far better known thatn deak. Kossuth was a ambitious, power loving militarist, who completely faled to liberate his country….

    ALL these people who are the movers of this know this.
    all the peopel who are victims and wondering and discussing here
    have no idea of this stuff, nor do they apprecaite being told

    List inspired all the nationalists, stuart chase, FDR, churchill new cause the hungarian revoltion was like WWII is today…

    List contended that Smith’s economic system is not an industrial system but a mercantile system, and called it “the exchange-value system”. Contrary to Smith, he argued that the immediate private interest of individuals would not lead to the highest good of society. The nation stood between the individual and humanity, and was defined by its language, manners, historical development, culture and constitution. This unity must be the first condition of the security, well-being, progress and civilization of the individual. Private economic interests, like all others, must be subordinated to the maintenance, completion and strengthening of the nation./blockquote>

    so you can see taht all the elite are following this pedegree
    and their rubes are not taught it and cant even make a cogent argument they would listen to as it woudl not have the right information in it to declare you know what they know and so should be heard!!!

    above is why Trotsky endeavored to destroy the slavs as hitler did, and hitler was taking austria, Poland, Germany… then hungary

    Before 1914, List and Marx were the two best-known German economists and theorists of development, although Marx can hardly be classified as a development economist since he (unlike List) devised no policies to promote development and instead stuck to policies that primarily promoted revolution.

    “This book has been more frequently translated than the works of any other German economist, except Karl Marx.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List#Economics_based_on_nations
    He is credited with influencing National Socialism in Germany, and his ideas are credited as forming the basis of the European Economic Community. // In Ireland he influenced Arthur Griffith of Sinn Féin and these theories were used by the Fianna Fáil government in the 1930s to instigate protectionism with a view to developing Irish industry.

    and you dont know List? and you dont know Kossuth?
    and you wont learn about it eitehr as Bismark said..

    List and Kossuth influenced a lot including a man nmed Witte

    Witte was approached by the Tsar’s advisers, in an effort to save the country from complete collapse, and on 9 October 1905 Witte arrived to be met at the Winter Palace. Here he told ‘with brutal frankness’ the Tsar that the country was on the verge of a catastrophic revolution, which he said ‘would sweep away a thousand years of history’. He presented the Tsar with two choices: either appoint a military dictator, or agree to broad and major reforms. In a memorandum arguing for a manifesto, Witte outlined the reforms needed to appease the masses, and this he brought with him to the Tsar. The reforms he presented were the creation of a legislative parliament (Imperial Duma) elected via a democratic franchise; granting of civil liberties; a cabinet government; and a ‘constitutional order’.

    cont…

  22. arfldgrs Says:

    Yes, it was witte who set things up for lening and the Latvian rifle men.. (the 10,000 that would do things and were mentioned but seldom by name)
    These demands, which basically was the political programme of the Liberation Movement, was an attempt to isolate the political Left by pacifying the liberals (a group that lenin later wrote a piece called: Liberalism an infantil disorder)

    But here is whats key and here is what you dont get happened to the US state…

    one of the main differences of law between the united states back then and now was MORAL LEADERSHIP… the US did not look to its leaders as moral examples… (so we got some really less than stellar appearing men who ended up being great in the long run… same with Winston).

    however, what really made things roll and is NEVER DISCUSSED is the fact that european law and leadership was also like islam. moral leaders

    the term is Rechtsstaat

    our government attitudes have been change since the 1960s to be a Rechtsstaat system not the system it was..

    this is the part westerners dont get about looking up to a stalin, or a hitler or dear leader. the Rechtsstaat has to preceed the thing..

    A Rechtsstaat is a “constitutional state” in which the exercise of governmental power is constrained by the law, and is often tied to the Anglo-American concept of the rule of law, but differs from it in that it also emphasizes what is just (i.e., a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity).

    this is why germany saw it easy to use islam. and change christianity and that hitler was a moral leader… who would not only just fix economy and such but would make the place moral..

    this is what the left is doing… but we dont ge it, as we barely undersand that period having been taught by leftists, communists, apologists for marxism. etc.

    Thus it is the opposite of Obrigkeitsstaat or Nichtrechtstaat (a state based on the arbitrary use of power), and of Unrechtsstaat (a non-Rechstaat with the capacity to become one after a period of historical development).

    In a Rechtsstaat, the power of the state is limited in order to protect citizens from the arbitrary exercise of authority. The citizens share legally based civil liberties and can use the courts. A country cannot be a liberal democracy without being a Rechtsstaat.

    waht? did you think there weren diferences like this?
    did you imagine they woud tell you?
    when would you find out?

    This is the point of fair laws… the move to the german idea of law that hitler followed.. law that also included a moral component And it was this moral component that gives dictators power over the people despite such a thing is supposed to secure them from such power As with islam, someone has to be the moral arbiter… in socialism of Germany, Austria, Poland and hungary (as in Magyar) it was the furer. Who not only had to be a political leader but a MORAL LEADER

    THis is what moves law and the state to where feminists delcard the personal is political and when entereing the politics of the west, wanted to add feminist morality to the law… and they did

    its MORAL for the law to allow abortions, and that is the argument, which is why it needs penumbras as our law isnt Rechtsstaat

    t has the shadow of western constitiutions, but explains why Russia constitution of 1935 and forwards is a shadow.

    The Russian legal system, borne out of transformations in the 19th century under the reforms of Emperor Alexander II, is based primarily on the German legal tradition. It was from here that Russia borrowed a doctrine of Rechtsstaat, which literally translates as “legal state”. The concept of “legal state” (Russian: Правовое государство, pravovoe gosudarstvo) is a fundamental (but undefined) principle that appears in the very first dispositive provision of Russia’s post-Communist constitution: “The Russian Federation – Russia – constitutes a democratic federative legal state with a republican form of governance.” Similarly, the first dispositive provision of Ukraine’s Constitution declares: “Ukraine is a sovereign and independent, democratic, social, legal state.” The effort to give meaning to the expression “legal state” is anything but theoretical.

    Valery Zorkin, President of the Constitutional Court of Russia, wrote in 2003:

    Becoming a legal state has long been our ultimate goal, and we have certainly made serious progress in this direction over the past several years. However, no one can say now that we have reached this destination. Such a legal state simply cannot exist without a lawful and just society. Here, as in no other sphere of our life, the state reflects the level of maturity reached by society.

    James Bucchanen got a nobel prize for his work in this area (bet you didnt know he knows and bet you didnt know he has a nobel… )

    Witte decided to see what the Rothschilds could do (now you know why the tin hatters live there)

    Witte send his envoy to the Rothschild bank; “they would willingly render full assistance to the loan, but that they would not be in a position to do so until the Russian Government had enacted legal measures tending to improve the conditions of the Jews in Russia.

    As I deemed it beneath our dignity to connect the solution of our Jewish question with the loan, I decided to give up my intention of securing the participation of the Rothschilds.”

    translation: cause i could not tell the largest jewish banking family in history about how we intend to fix the problem of jews (the observant and so on, who are throwback to the modern non observant liberal ones!!! the latter do not like the former and see them as an embarassement, and dislike their influence, and and and)

    It has also been argued that Deng Xiaoping’s post-Mao policies were inspired by List
    “China, under Deng, took on the clear features of a ‘developmental dictatorship under single-party auspices.’ The PRC would then belong to a class of regimes familiar to the 20th century that have their ideological sources in classical Marxism, but better reflect the developmental, nationalist views of Friedrich List.”

    so if your clever and neo hasnt deleted me, you might see why everyone to them is a nazi!!! they are lists

    Read this quote (embodies a whole lot in one thing!!!!):

    his intense personal ambition and egoism led him always to assume the chief place, and to use his parliamentary position to establish himself as leader of the nation; but before his eloquence and energy all apprehensions were useless.

    His eloquence was of that nature, in its impassioned appeals to the strongest emotions, that it required for its full effect the highest themes and the most dramatic situations.

    In a time of rest, though he could never have been obscure, he would never have attained the highest power. It was therefore a necessity of his nature, perhaps unconsciously, always to drive things to a crisis. The crisis came, and he used it to the full.”

    who are they talking about? hitler?
    no.. Kossuth..

    what happened to him? he came to the USA!!
    and its here you find out he is reffered to as “the magyar”..
    so when engels wrote about who woudl do this, he wrote about “the magyar” and his struggle
    when hitler wrote about this and took up the charge, as the magyar failed, he wrote about himself and used My struggle.

    and i bet none of you know that!!

    The US Congress approved having Kossuth come there, and on September 1, 1851, he boarded the ship USS Mississippi at Smyrna (Izmir), Turkey with his family and fifty exiled followers. At Marseille, Kossuth sought permission to travel through France to England, but Prince-President Louis Napoleon denied the request.

    Kossuth protested publicly, and officials saw that as a blatant disregard for the neutral position of the United States. The Magyar asked to leave the Mississippi at Gibraltar.

    There is no evidence that Kossuth ever met Abraham Lincoln, although Lincoln did organize a celebration in Kossuth’s honor in Springfield, IL

  23. bdh Says:

    David Foster: Just read your post about Mers-el-Kebir. Thanks for your write up at Chicago Boyz. An excellent recap of an event that was unavoidable once the die was cast.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge