World mastery by - not Hitler - but Churchill; exactly what he, Churchill, was after!

Quotes from Radio 4, 'Britain at Sea' presented by Admiral Lord West.  Transcript of a small part of the programme:

Churchill's decision to go for oil had huge implications internationally.  Britain needed a secure supply and unlike coal, we did not have oil on our mainland.  Churchill's eyes turned towards the Middle East.

Daniel Yergin has written a definitive history of oil, called 'The Prize: the epic quest for oil, money and power', commented Lord West. In the programme, 'Britain at Sea', Jurgen said,

"The momentous decision meant that oil entered into strategic decisions.  ... Oil became the fuel of national power. ... In converting the Royal Navy from coal to oil and proceeding to ensure an oil supply Churchill said, 'The prize of the venture was world mastery itself' ... That captured what it was all about.  Once the decision was made it meant that Britain was no longer dependent on Welsh coal for its Royal Navy but rather upon oil supplies and they happened to come from this distant country, Persia (Iran) raising all sorts of questions about security and reliability of supply.  It did mean a pivot towards the Middle East and, coming out of the First World War, it really confirmed Churchill's understanding of the strategic importance of oil.  That was when countries started to focus on the Middle East and its resources and that was the beginning of the Middle East role that it has today as such a central source of oil on which the world depends."

Without the relentless application of naval power, we could never have won (1st WW). From the RN's perspective, arguably the most important meeting of the 1WW came not in 1914 but three years earlier on the 23 August 1911 ... That was when Britain moved away from a maritime to a continental strategy

Believe the Bible, act militarily and get most of the ME for yourself. Simple!

The Bible says in Joshua ch1 v4 that Yahweh gave the land from the Mediterranean to the Tigris and Euphrates; from the cedars of Lebanon to the deserts of Sinai - ALL to Israel.

Should there not be another smart, quick, 6 Day War to claim this territory, as well?  After all, Israel/USA/UK is the biggest military alliance and power bloc in the world. WE rule the world.  And, we have three lots of magical nuclear weapons to use, too.  Just nuke the nations that get in our way.  How could we possibly lose?

Truly believe the Bible, claim its promises and get blessed with more land and oil fields and untold riches!

• Thomas

  June 24, 2014 
  9:36 am

  Unfortunate proof that this one, like fanatics of any persuasion, has left his sanity and humanity behind.

  REPLY
• Ron

  June 24, 2014 
  10:20 am

  There are some problems with your suggestion, Tim.

  Firstly, a country should only go to war as last resort, when diplomacy has failed and all other options are closed and the country’s freedom and survival is at stake. It is easy to bang the war drum, especially for politicians who don’t have to do the fighting. Short war or long war, people die and get hurt in war, as any soldier knows. Before the UK went into Afghan, a Scottish MP reckoned we might go in and out of Afghan “without a shot being fired”. At the time I said to myself, Is this idiot for real? Has he not studied the history of that country? Would he be so eager if he had to be the first onto the battlefield? Has he got a clear objective and does he understand the nature of the people we would be dealing with?

  Secondly, it is still the Wests’s policy that they will never be the first to instigate a nuclear attack. Our “nukes” are a deterrent, only to be deployed in self defence. Fortunately we control our nuclear arsenal responsibly. The principle of mutually assured destruction kept us from the brink during the Cold War. Even the Communist leaders were not that crazy. However if Iran gets nuclear weapons is there any doubt that the fanatically religious ayatollahs would use them – definately against Israel, and very probably against the USA, for starters?

  Thirdly, the likelihood of a joint tripartite military operation between the USA/UK/Israel is pretty low, if not non-existant. Despite his public assertions Obama does not “have Israel’s back”. He has lied consistently to US citizens over many scandals, he has purged the US military of senior officers who do not toe his political line, and he has supported the Muslim Brotherhood & other jihadist groups since day one of taking office. In fact, if you go back to the Suez Crisis in 1956, the Israeli/UK /France operation was scuppered by the US, who forced them to withdraw.

  When the Yom Kippur War broke out in 1973 the UK immediately froze all ammunition and spare parts deliveries for Israel’s tanks, which then were mostly British second hand Centurion tanks, at precisely the moment when they would be needed. That vulnerability was the catalyst for General Tal to be given the project to develop Israel’s own MBT, the Merkava. In the long Israel can only count on itself.

  Israel would get lip service for a military operation from the US & UK politicians but probably not much else. Robert Spencer & Pamela Geller, who are human rights champions, were banned from the UK not because their presence “would not be conducive to the public good” as Theresa May claimed in her banning letter, but as it turns out from Foreign & Commonwealth Office documents released to them for their legal appeal against the ban, because they were too supportive of Israel.

  War is sometimes a necessary evil, but there is always a price to be paid and we should never glibly propose it if we are not the ones who would have to fight it.

  REPLY
• Mareli

  June 24, 2014 
  5:22 pm

  Tim Weller, dare I hope you are being sarcastic?

  REPLY
• Jonah

  June 25, 2014 
  9:56 pm

  You’re absolutely right about Joshua. Your enemy reads the Torah, too. That’s one of the reasons they want to kill all of you, so their will not be a second party to that covenant.

  REPLY

Was Hitler, uniquely, the epitomy of evil?

Was Hitler the most evil, demagogic, psychopathic leader of any nation that there has ever been?

Was he after world domination of every single country in the world?

Or, did he want Germany to be the new superpower of the 1940s to take over from the British Empire and to rival the USA?

Or, like Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1914 who, it seems, wanted German hegemony in Europe, is that what Hitler also wanted?

Was he wanting revenge for the surprise defeat of Germany in 1918?  A Germany that had come close to victory in the World War 1914-18, more than once and, that had defeated Russia in 1917.

Was he wanting Germany to become a Great Military Power, like France, UK and like USA, as AJP Taylor argued in 'The Origins of the Second World War'?

We now use Hitler as the benchmark to measure if any other of our present day enemies measure up to his pure evil.  For example, the Prince of Wales in May 2014 after Putin had taken back Crimea that had been given by Khrushchev to Ukraine, in 1954.  Saddam Hussein was also likened to Hitler to justify his removal from power by the West in 2003.

Yet, it was the British who were the first to use concentration camps and not Hitler.  Over 20,000 Boer women and children were killed by neglect and/or deliberate policy by the British in concentration camps.  And this was well before even the 1914-18 war in Europe.

It was the British who killed many more Germans than they did us, it seems, between 1939 and 1945.  Although, as we know, they killed millions of Jews, gypsies and other minorities in Germany.  Yet we, the Christian, democratic West after our success in 1945, carried on with the killing of unknown numbers but perhaps millions in far off countries of which we knew little.  Justified as fighting Communism, then militant, extremist Muslims to this day.

It was Churchill who knew about the concentration camps of the Germany of the 1930s and 40s. Yet, even when he was Prime Minister, he failed to order the precision targeting of the rail lines to the camps. Precision targeting of dams; yes. Revenge, saturation, fire bombing of people's homes in the closing months of the war; yes. Saving the millions in the minority groups of Germans; no.

According to the 'Guardian' spread in February 2014, it was us Brits who waged war for every single year over the last one hundred years in many countries around the world.  Finally, in 2015, we may be content to lay down our weapons for the first time since 1914.  Nearly 17,000 of our men and women in the armed forces were killed since 1945 but, that number must be multiplied by an unknown figure to get the numbers they killed around the world.

If Hitler was the most evil leader of any nation in the history of the world, then we have to say that all individual Germans were just as evil in carrying out his orders from 1933 to 1945.  Perhaps, that was how we justified the indiscriminate mass slaughter of German civilians and children in the closing months of the war, even when our victory was assured.  Revenge is sweet for Christians, Muslims and Jews - and, for us all.  We called our enemies evil then and, in recent years and today, we call them Communists, terrorists and Muslim radicals and extremists.

Since then, peace followed by co-operation and union between the countries of Europe has seen less desire to participate in the wars of the UK and the USA.  Only, perhaps, have those European countries membership of NATO compelled them to send troops in this century's Middle Eastern wars that had been started by the United States of Aggression, seconded by the UK ( UK = united killers with the USA?).

"Remember, all tips are included"

Booking Reference: 0813/23065

"Remember, all tips are included"

At first, I thought how great.  But then, when I saw the age and apparent wealth of the 99% white passengers and compared them with the largely non British born crew, I wondered how fair this was.  On my return from the excellent cruise, I went on the website and saw that you can get a seven night cruise for under £300, if you can go at a moment's notice.  This is far too cheap for the clientele that the crew are serving in kitchen's, cabins and restaurants.  Modern day serving/servitude/slavery?  I do wonder!

I had breakfast last Saturday morning in Compass Rose and saw the large wooden box for us wealthy passengers to give a service charge for ten days of exemplary service.  I put in a ten pound note that, since then, I now feel was too little.  I should have given ten pounds for each of our excellent stewards, Ann and Ida and waiters, Sely and Sheldon.  I would still be delighted to do so if you can guarantee them receiving my tip and give me sort code and account number.

I came back to BBC Radio 4 on Saturday and heard about cheap immigrant labour.  Therefore, were  our delightful Compass Rose waiters and our two cabin stewards, on the UK's minimum wage?  Who qualifies for the minimum wage on Thomson Cruises?

With the ship based in Turkey from next year, does this mean you can keep wages lower for the lower paid crew?

Do all cruise companies operate a no tipping policy to entice the public on board?

Another quick point for feedback for you!

I did feel that your Daily Mail digest each day is not independent or responsible reporting.  Nor does it follow the BBC guidance over impartiality.  I am particularly thinking of the UK biased and sensational reporting of the Prince of Wales comment in likening Putin to Hitler.  Later, Putin's response was restrained and statesmanlike.  In sharp contrast to the misguided, extremist comment from Charles.

Please consider using 'The Independent' for your cruise daily digest.

Trying to understand the origins of the 20th century world war

I would have thought that you don't attack another nation until they attack you or, when it's obvious, they are about to attack you.  Was the latter  the case with Israel when they launched their war in 1967?

We broke that principle when we declared war on Germany in 1914 and 1939 but, on both occasions, an obedient German people, unthinkingly, followed two leaders who were out of control and somewhat deranged.  Therefore, both the Kaiser and Hitler had to be stopped.

In the case of 1914, however, our army was small with only seven divisions; we had not let Germany know that we had been in secret talks with France since 1906 that we would come to her aid if she was attacked by Germany; and, on the 4 August 1914, island Britain was not on the German list to be attacked when we attacked her on that date.  (sources: BBC History magazine Feb 2014, BBC documentaries)

Who has done the most subjugating?

Mr/s B Parsons believes that the EU is subjugating the UK.  We entered into it voluntarily after a referendum and send representatives to its Parliament every five years.
Over hundreds of years, the UK acquired domination and control over fifty countries by force of arms and kept them subjugated by military power.  We also controlled all the major sea lanes of the world.
All this set a very bad example to Germany that was very late in the game of conquering or claiming nations to build an empire.  Yet, remarkably, those fifty countries still fought for us to stop Germany taking our world control off us in 1914 and 1939 (better the devil you know than the devil you don't know).  To this day, the US/UK, with NATO, remain as the world's dominant power bloc.  Germany is the dominant partner in the EU and Angela Merkel of Germany is the highly respected senior partner in the EU - but, by constraint and not coercion.

Such a pity but worth it when we didn't have to die!

We rushed to war on 4 August 1914.
Our intervention was premature, our army too small and, certainly, war was unnecessary when Germany had no intention of attacking Britain - until we attacked them.
The Cabinet knew it would fall, then lose power at the General Election, if it did not declare war on Germany - according to historian, Niall Ferguson.
Our war, much of its prosecution and the way it was resolved in 1919 was utterly stupid, especially the reparations and all the blame laid on Germany alone.
Germany nearly won in 1914, 1916 and, once more in 1918.  The beat Russia in 1917.
Violence, domination and control breeds more of all three, as we have seen off and on in Ireland for 800 years, in Israel/Palestine for 70 years - and, with the UK with our mighty victory minus magnanimity in 1919 that led to the second half of the European/Christian World War - in 1939, according to a former Conservative leader, Ian Duncan Smith.
UK has been engaged in warfare, somewhere in the world, for every single year for the last 100 years. Finally, in 2015 it seems, we may, finally live in peace and non-violence with all our neighbours in the world.
Even with the knowledge that 10 to 20 million people died horrific deaths in 4 years, nearly all Brits today still maintain this was such a pity but very necessary to stop Germany taking over some of our world control in 1914.  In 1914, a Germany far more democratic than the UK, too.
This is not a good example to set to the Muslim extremists/radicals of this day.
Ours is not a fine record.