Hitler kind to his servants, Churchill horrid to his

British foreign policy has been disastrous since before WW1.  It remains disastrous.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)

So WW1 was about Belgian neutrality.

How many British lives were lost over Belgian neutrality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

WW2 was a continuation of WW1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204388/I-Hitlers-valet-Memoirs-manservant-final-act-devotion-burn-masters-body.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1091768/Hitler-perfect-boss-Former-maid-breaks-silence-charming-dictator.html

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.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/german-king-of-poland-augustus-iii.html

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?

David Jones of Todmorden - Borough Councillor on 3 May 2012?

David Jones of the British People's Party and Joseph Stalin at the Tate Britain

David Jones at Parliament Square

David Jones endorsing the anti-war message of the late Brian Haw

Have you noticed how peaceable nationalists are compared to successive warmongering governments of our liberal establishment?

Nationalists and Muslims against liberal wars!

David Jones looking upon the Houses of Parliament from Parliament Square

David Jones without shades at Buckingham Palace

David Jones with shades at Buckingham Palace

Outside the pub

At The Victoria at Victoria

A typical tourist's photo

Ethno-Nationalist and Civic Nationalist shaking hands

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2072383/Eccentric-town-Todmorden-growing-ALL-veg.html

http://www.bpp.org.uk/fb25a.pdf

http://www.bpp.org.uk/fb25b.pdf

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/1684/the-odd-couple#.T3DqEWRbzOs.twitter has the rather sceptical reaction of Hate Not Hope to our proposal to improve race relations.   We shall prove them wrong.

Twelve questions for British historians

1. Was it wise for Britain to enter the WW1 just to guarantee Belgian neutrality?
2. If Germany had been allowed to keep Poland in 1939 would there have been a Second World War?
3. Did you know that Poland had a Saxon (ie a German) king as recently as the 1700s?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_III_of_Poland
4. Britain's empire spanned the world.  French had a smaller empire than the British.  Germany had no empire to speak of.  What would have been the problem with allowing Germany to keep Poland, especially as it had already had a Saxon king as recently as 1763?
5. Was Churchill a warmonger?
6. Compare and contrast the characters and personalities of Hitler and Churchill and how they were said to have treated their friends, servants, their relative sobriety and psychological health.  Whom would you regard as being more consistent, likable and trustworthy, as a friend and as an employer?
7. Did Britain's declaration of war against Germany result in the loss of its empire? 
8. If so, whom in the British government of the time would you regard as being most responsible for this loss?  (Although it was Chamberlain who declared war, it is certainly arguable that it was Churchill who bounced him into it.  The divisive party system made the swift and comradely resolution of differences impossible in their eagerness to score points over each other.  Churchill wanted war, Chamberlain didn't.  Chamberlain thought getting a piece of paper with Hitler's signature promising he would not invade Poland would allow him to claim "peace in our time".  When Hitler invaded Poland, Churchill crowed so insufferably that Chamberlain felt he had to declare war on Germany.) 
9. Is it time for the British to stop hero-worshiping a man who could be said to have gambled Britain's colonies away in a throw of a dice, and lost?
10. Can it ever be regarded as anything other than a sign of failure for an empire to lose its colonies?
11. Does Britain have a history of participating in ruinous wars?
12. Is Britain continuing to participate in ruinous wars?

Repudiating the Lisbon Treaty and all previous treaties leading to it

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/elmar-brok-bid-to-repatriate-powers-is-a-tory-pipe-dream-1814780.html

After the next British Revolution, we can always repudiate the Lisbon Treaty in its entirety, and all the others leading to it. Tear them up, throw the pieces in their faces, walk out the door and slam it, hard.

And if they fight us we will fight them, won't we?

"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo [EU] and all the odious apparatus of Nazi [Brussels] rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France [Folkestone?],
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender"

But perhaps not, because we are now but a weak and feeble-minded people, unprincipled and cravenly. We prefer security to liberty and therefore deserve neither.