Posted on 12/09/2002 9:33:34 PM PST by zapiks44
,,America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government - and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives."
Are you sure that was not Pat Buchanan dressed up in his Winston Churchill suit?
Yeah, well he counters his own argument then, hah.
Yep. The Germans tried to take out newspaper ads warning Americans not to travel on ships like the Lusitania, which may be illegally carrying munitions to help the Brits. The US gov't stopped most of these ads from running.
There was also supposed to be a British destroyer or two escorting the Lusitania when it reached a certain distance from Britian, but it was mysteriously "canceled".
William Jennings Byrant, the Sec. of State under Wilson, resigned in outrage due to the whole affair.
IMO, you've nailed it. This is no more Churchill
If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government - and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives.than I am Edward III.
Before I take this quotation at face value I will need to see something from a source which does not pass through a filter associated with Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne or some libertarian megaphone.
And I would need to know if the New York Enquirer had some ideological axe to grind.
For instance, was it a mouthpiece for the isolationist America Firsters or the German-American Bund or such like..
I don't know if this quote is attributed correctly, but a bunch of Google hits doesn't confirm anything.
Ask Barbara Streisand about Shakespeare.
The language sounds awfully pedestrian for Churchill, but I guess he couldn't have sounded grandiose ordering a cup of coffee either.
So we come to the principal crime ever afterwards associated with Richard's name. His interest is plain. His character was ruthless. It is certain that the helpless children in the Tower were not seen again after the month of July 1483. Yet we are invited by some to believe that they languished in captivity, unnoticed and unrecorded, for another two years, only to be done to death by Henry Tudor.******
The popular demand for the release of the princes was followed by a report of their death. When, how, and by whose hand the deed had been done was not known. But as the news spread like wildfire a kind of fury seized upon many people. Although accustomed to the brutalities of the long civil wars, the English people of those days still retained the faculty of horror; and once it was excited they did not soon forget. A modern dictator with the resources of science at his disposal can easily lead the public on from day to day, destroying all persistency of thought and aim, so that memory is blurred by the multiplicity of daily news and judgment baffled by its perversion. But in the fifteenth century the murder of the two young princes by the very man who had undertaken to protect them was regarded as an atrocious crime, never to be forgotten or forgiven. In September Richard in his progress reached York, and here he created his son Prince of Wales, thus in the eyes of his enemies giving confirmation to the darkest rumours.
-- Churchill, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples.
The tragedy was fatal to the King. The murder of one of the foremost of God's servants, like the breaking of a feudal oath, struck at the heart of the age. All England was filled with terror. They acclaimed the dead Archbishop as a martyr; and immediately it appeared that his relics healed incurable diseases, and robes that he had worn by their mere touch relieved minor ailments. Here indeed was a crime, vast and inexpiable. When Henry heard the appalling news he was prostrated with grief and fear. All the elaborate process of law which he had sought to set on foot against this rival power was brushed aside by a brutal, bloody act; and though he had never dreamed that such a deed would be done there were his own hot words, spoken before so many witnesses, to fasten on him, for that age at least, the guilt of murder, and, still worse, sacrilege.-- A History of the English-Speaking Peoples.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.