"Nato has a lot to answer for."

I so agreed with you when you said, "Nato has a lot to answer for."  I fear, Nato/EU's totally unnecessary expansion eastwards to take over the USSR's former satellite states exploited Russia's generous glasnost and perestroika in the 80s and 90s that led to the USSR break up, was very foolish.  I think it was all about vanquish rather than magnanimity/restraint.  But it is easy for me to be wise after the event!  Is that right, do you think?

IAN AUSTIN'S ARTICLE ON CHURCHILL

Dear Ian - copied to Express and Star reporters who published your piece and to your assistant Cllr Keiran and to former Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo for comments/correction, please.

You are as enthusiastic for dear Winston as Andrew Roberts.  We all have our prejudices! But do take a look at Andrew Marr's book, 'A History of Modern Britain'.  My own thoughts on Britain's Greatest Briton are these that gives a different perspective and are influenced by Marr and the 99 year old interviewed on the 'Today' programme earlier this month.  I think we are all a mixture of good and evil and of hero and villain. We are all frail and flimsy. Please hear both sides of the argument.

1. Churchill loved action, militarism, imperialism, nationalism and the thrill of warfare.  He loved nothing better than a good scrap.
2. He would have loved the British empire to have lasted "for a thousand years" to rival Hitler's Third Reich.  But both were no more after the one World War in two halves. Winston's greater love for war did it for Empire - both Germany and ours.
3. He was a leading protagonist for war in the Cabinet discussions up to 4 August 1914 declaration of war, from what I have read.
4. Yet, this was a war that was nearly lost, by our side, in the first few weeks.
5. This was war, more than once, that could have gone either way.  Only the USA intervention in 1917 turned it in our favour.
6. There was a 'peace' treaty that seems to have failed to recognise the above facts. It was hardly a treaty that was magnanimous in victory - a wonderful phrase attributed to dear Winston.  Akin to "justice tempered with mercy."
7. Even IDS, the former Conservative leader, has spoken of how that disastrous war led to its sequel in 1939.
8. According to Marr, on the 28 May 1940 at the time of the Dunkirk evacuation, if it had been only Conservative politicians present who wanted to cut a deal with Hitler, Churchill would have been outvoted.  The Conservative Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax had found "Hitler most sincere and Goering frankly attractive." However, Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood, the two Labour men in the Government of National Unity, "were solid for fighting on and so, by a squeak, Churchill had his majority." (Marr)
9. Marr has most of the Establishment and many Conservatives, looking on Churchill as "a rather ridiculous, drunken, dodgy man with a penchant for wild speeches and silly hats.  Behind their gloved hands, they called him the rogue elephant, even the gangster." In Labour circles, he was seen as an enemy of the working class, a pink faced toff who called in the army against strikers.  Tonypandy, first time?
10. When he won his majority for war on the 28 May 1940, Churchill told the full War Cabinet, that they were all to fight on to the death.  There would be no parley or surrender. "Let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground."
11. Therefore, twice, Churchill wanted all out total war to the death.  The first half imperial war led to the second half in 1939. Surprisingly, two Labour MPs gave him his majority for our nation to fight on after Dunkirk.  One was the Labour leader, Attlee and the other was Arthur Greenwood.  The Conservatives, Halifax and Chamberlain wanted to parley and surrender.  It was the Labour Party that won the war (and lost the peace) and not the Conservatives!!
12. Much later, Attlee led us into the Korean War that had disastrous consequences for that peninsular to this day.
13. It was Attlee who gave us our own deadly WMD with their amassment and renewal by every government, including Labour, ever since.  So much for Labour politicians being wimps for glorious, heroic war! Only in 2015, did the latest new Labour Party leader pronounce that, for him, "war must be the last resort".  And the man still hangs on to this day. Extraordinary!
14. For Churchill and the War Cabinet, when victory was certain for our side in February 1945, it ended for 24,000 Dresden residents not in blood but in fire, flame and burning flesh.  Listen on BBC Sounds. My e-mail to Ian on 14 Feb, here: "Did you hear that 99 year old hero soldier, Victor Gregg, from the 2nd World War who was interviewed on Monday 11 Feb on the 'Today' programme?  He survived the war solely because Churchill and Harris ordered the fire bombing of Dresden in February 1945. His book is called 'Dresden: A Survivor's Story'. His interview starts at 0742:50 hrs."
15. Churchill might easily have lost the war in 1940/1 but the USA came to our rescue in 1941.
16. Radar was an important factor in us winning the Battle of Britain, together with the young pilots and not Winston's magnificent, morale boosting oratory.
17. As Margaret Thatcher was so lucky with her enemies (Galtieri and Scargill), Winston was lucky with his friends in North America and the Empire that won it for him.  Give credit where credit is due.
18. Was it Churchill who thought up the idea of convoys to protect our merchant shipping?  That was a real brainwave.
19. There was Hitler's massive mistakes, of course that helped the Brits and Americans and, the Empire to win.
20. The Soviet Union and Stalin diverted the Nazi war effort onto the Eastern Front.  Did Churchill ever formally thank the USSR for their invaluable help and sacrifice?
21. 20 to 30 million Russians died defending our shores from Hitler.
22. Have you ever bowed your head in silent remembrance of the death and sacrifice of those millions of evil Commies, Ian?
23. Correlli Barnett wrote something like, "In 1945, we were psychologically victorious but, materially defeated and economically bankrupt."

​Anyone is welcome to correct my history or to expand on these notes, here - please.

West is Best; Russia is really Rough and the Muslims very evil, Mad and Mistaken!

Do you agree that Russia feels uncomfortable with the EU and NATO, seeming to them, to be right up against their border?  Is this understandable to you?

The West attacks other countries and has done, off and on, for centuries, as part of our Western European nations' empire building exploits.  Right now, we are attacking Islamic State.  Are Russian planes and drones also joining in the fun of killing humans with no fear of casualties for them, too?

Ukraine, in the Cold War, was fully part of the USSR - like the three Baltic states.  Am I correct in understanding that more of a pro-Russian Ukrainian president, than a pro Western, was fairly elected?  That he was ousted from power in February 2014 after anti Russian, pro European protesters were shot dead by the security forces and by snipers?  This seems to have prompted Putin to take back Crimea that USSR had given to Ukraine in 1954.  Is that correct?  The takeover seems to have been a very popular move with the Crimeans.

What we do is turn eastern Europe, except Crimea and eastern Ukraine, into our domain by welcoming them into our European sphere of influence, then into the EU and, later, into NATO.  No wonder, Russia is apprehensive and, possibly, more patriotic and nationalist than it has ever been.  Nine (or ten)former eastern European satellite states of the USSR are now in the EU and three of them, the three Baltic states, are part of NATO.  The other seven are:
Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia.

1. The 28 EU countries are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.12 Nov 2014

There were six USSR aligned countries in the Cold War: 
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania.  The six created a wide buffer zone along Russia's eastern border.  All are now part of the West by virtue of being in the EU.  The three Baltic states that were part of the USSR, are in the EU and NATO.  No wonder, Russia and Putin were/are anxious to keep Crimea and eastern Ukraine under their sphere of influence.

Even our media use the term, 'Russian backed separatist rebels', rather than the Russian Army fighting in eastern Ukraine.  If it had been us, we would have been in there with a fully fledged army, navy and air force attacking the country we had picked on - as we have done for every single year for the last 101 years, at least, according to the 'Guardian' four page spread on 12 February 2014.

The West is Best and must always dominate, control and expand its sphere of influence.  The West, with our talk of a EU Army to face up to aggressive Russia, is convinced we are superb with our democratic voting system that the mistaken Muslim countries must also do - down the barrel of a gun: our gun.  It is not that the West is arrogant; it is just that we are always so right and Russia and the Arabs are always so wrong.  We cannot help but be always so right, for it is in our nature so to be!

According to Google search:

Formerly Communist countries (by current name):

• Formerly part of the Soviet Union: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
• Other Asian countries: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mongolia, and Yemen.

Six former Soviet republics that are part of the EU's Eastern Partnership Programme, according to Radio 4 News on 22 May 2015:
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine.
The programme is to help the six strengthen their links with the West.

Current Communist Countries: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam.

Not even Russia is a current Communist country, for it has embraced Western capitalism.  Yet, we have turned Russia into our no 2 enemy, after Islamic State as no 1 enemy.  Both terrorist states are now used to justify our threatening much of humanity with annihilation with Trident.  It must now, definitely, be replaced with four subs, say our militaristic, malevolent, immoral friends.

Muslim extremism but Jewish and Christian proportionality and utterly reasonable responses to their outrageous attacks on us. And they started it; so there!

Muslim extremism but Jewish and Christian proportionality and utterly reasonable responses to their outrageous attacks on us.  And they started it first, anyway - so there!

Do we accommodate ourselves to Muslim extremism and show restraint to extinguish extremism or, carry on regardless with our behaviours to offend and insult (to satisfy our free speech) and generally dominate the Muslim world to get what we want out of them and for our own ends?
Israel is seen by some as a Jewish/Christian and powerful Western state in the heart of the Arab Middle East.  That US backed State is enough to be a red rag to a bull for some extremist, fundamentalist Muslims who also view Israel as a cuckoo in the nest.  As is our 100 years of military intervention and drawing of boundaries for the Arab countries in the Middle East.  Like the chart of all the cuts of meat that is sometimes displayed in butchers' shops (simile is courtesy of Jewish born Jonathan Miller).
We have had 100 years of official Western Great Powers interfering and setting up, first their empires and then their spheres of influence to counter that of our number One enemy, evil Communist USSR then, slightly less evil capitalist Russia.  Great Powers was how we referred to ourselves before our European empires started to crumble, as one result of the Great Glorious War to end all wars.

Nuclear weapons stopped the Cuban missile crisis ending in nuclear holocaust

Such was the thought from a friend.  The problem is, however, that the very nations who have the most nuclear weapons to wipe humanity off the face of the earth the greatest number of times, are the very ones who cause the most wars, viz: USA/UK/Israel, Soviet Union/Russia.  Their possession of WMD is no brake on their extremist tendency for warfare and, in this century and last, for killing the greatest number of people ever seen in the history of humanity.  Nukes are no deterrent to aggression and violence.

The enormous stockpile of WMD was no disincentive for the USA to put Jupiter missiles in Turkey near to the border with USSR, nor was it a discouragement to the USSR in their bid to put missiles (ICBMs) near to the USA landmass.  It was this one-sided, aggressive policy of the West that caused the Cuban missile crisis in the first place.

The truth is, these nukes are so destructive, with the blowback of radiation on the attacker, too that they are just too impractical to be of any use in a crisis or no crisis; in time of war or in time of peace.  Therefore, they are not deterrent.  Why have them when they have to remain unused white elephants, stuck in their underground silos for ever or, having to be moved around the subterranean depths of the world's oceans in a cigar shaped metal tin?

Could these nukes simply bring the thought to these imperious states in the nuclear club that they can throw their weight around in the world?  That they can strut around like self-important, gilded peacocks to use coercion, force, aggression and violence to get their way whenever they want?