[bahblahbah]

Well I only read the thesis and conclusion but actually you'll see a lot of neocons that like FDR and just look at Teddy Roosevelt if you want to see an interventionist republican on par with Bush.

[Mr. Mojo]

George W. Bush, who has said ''I loved Churchill's stand on principle,''

I wonder if GWB agrees with Winston's take on Islam?:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

- Sir Winston Churchill

[BroncosFan]

Um, other than the thoroughly discredited David Irving, which respectable, mainstream conservative British historians argue that WC should've cut a deal with Hitler? Yes, that's right, none of them.

Now, if the topic is British intervention in World War ONE, that's a different story. Niall Ferguson makes a very good case that the UK blew it by jumping in. And while I come close to buying it (and do buy the fact that the UK's ambiguous pre-war policies tempted Kaiser Bill, just like ours will tempt the PRC to move on Taiwan), NF's argument fails to address what a victory-addled Wilhelm II would've done next after winning on the Continent. Does anyone really believe that Imperial Germany, under the Kaiser, would've been satiated with mere continental dominance? No. You'd get a Napoleon scenario. The Royal Navy probably would've been forced to pre-empt, a la Copenhagen, and attack the German fleet after which they would've been at war with Germany anyway -- only w/o allies and w/o a base in Europe. They would've been reduced to nibbling on the edges or buying the Kaiser off, for a while, with pieces of their Empire. Or maybe seeking an alliance with the US. The Tuchman thesis re: WWI is nonsense. It wasn't an accident. Each player chose a rational course, as the great new history Cataclysm points out.

Did ANYONE bother to read this? :)

[minus_273]

i said this before, but, i really think we ought to drop neo conservative and bring back radical republican as the word to describe us. neo and conservative is almost an oxy moron.

[wagglebee]

In England right-wing historians are portraying the last lion as a drunk, a dilettante, an incorrigible bungler who squandered the opportunity to cut a separate peace with Hitler that would have preserved the British Empire.

Huh?!