So WW1 was about Belgian neutrality.
How many British lives were lost over Belgian neutrality?
WW2 was a continuation of WW1.
WW2 led to the loss of the British Empire which Churchill's ancestors acquired with their blood, sweat and tears. He gambled it all away in the throw of a dice because he fancied being war leader.
How much did the British pay for Belgian Neutrality?
You work it out.
Interestingly, Churchill was horrid to his servants, while Hitler was nice to them.
Major Desmond Morton, Churchill's chief advisor on Intelligence, compared his tyrannical style to the bloodiest of Roman emperors, saying: 'Winston would have been a Caligula or worse.'
While one Whitehall mandarin, Lord Hankey, called Churchill 'a rogue elephant'.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1253039/A-N-WILSON-Sorry-bullies-make-best-leaders.html#ixzz20OXjzBOt
Do not forget that Churchill lost the British their empire. Why, then, is he now considered a good leader, or even a good man?
Hitler at least thought he was serving Germany when he did what he did. There is no doubt about the sincerity of his desire to advance the interests of the German people, even though it ended in disaster.
Poland has been the back yard for Germany since, oh, the last time they had a German King in the 1600s.
Churchill only wanted a war because he thought it would be grand to be a successful war leader.
How interesting then that he is even now revered after he gambled away the colonies that his ancestors acquired with so much blood, sweat and tears, in one throw of a dice?
The real truth must be very hard to take and even now the British must be averting their eyes to the true cost of what they paid for Belgian neutrality in blood and land.
On both occasions the Germans banked on the British being reasonable. On both occasions they were horribly tragically wrong.
Who are the good guys, really?