http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/04/boris-johnson-book-winston-churchill
London Mayor Boris Johnson, who said that the Woolwich atrocity is nothing to do with either Islam or UK foreign policy and who is apparently believed by the gullible, those in denial and the cowardly, is now writing a book in praise of Churchill.
Here are some questions for Boris and his fellow Churchill-lovers.
London Mayor Boris Johnson, who said that the Woolwich atrocity is nothing to do with either Islam or UK foreign policy and who is apparently believed by the gullible, those in denial and the cowardly, is now writing a book in praise of Churchill.
Here are some questions for Boris and his fellow Churchill-lovers.
- Why did Britain enter WW1?
- Was Belgian neutrality worth the sacrifice of so many British lives?
- What document provided for Belgian neutrality?
- Are you aware of the contents of the Treaty of London 1839? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)
- Can you discern from its contents what it was that was so important about Belgian neutrality to Britain that made its leaders sacrifice so much over it to so little effect?
- Were you aware that the German Ambassador in London was aghast at the British for going to war over what they called "a scrap of paper"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)#.22Scrap_of_paper.22
- Are you aware that the British went to war in 1914 over a document signed 78 years before that?
- Was Britain the most militaristic nation in Europe? (A militaristic nation goes to war at the drop of a hat and over scraps of paper. It is understandable that Germany would go to the aid of Austria if it was being threatened by Russia, if it had recently agreed to do so. It is understandable that the Russians who are Slavs would go to the aid of the Serbs who are also Slavs if they were being threatened by their Austrian overlords, but what the fuck had Belgian neutrality to do with the British??)
- Could it be said that British foreign policy at the time before WW1 and WW2 consisted of being nasty to the Germans for the sake of being nasty to the Germans?
- Could it be said that the British policy of being nasty to the Germans for the sake of being nasty to the Germans ended up in the disintegration of the British empire?
- Why couldn't Germany have Poland when Britain had its world empire since Germany had completely missed out in the scramble for Africa?
- Did you know that Poland had a Saxon ie German king as recently as the 1600s?
- Did you know that Germany regarded Poland as its backyard in the same way that Britain regards Ireland as its backyard?
- Could it be said that WW2 was a continuation of WW1?
- But for WW2, would Britain have lost its world empire?
- If WW2 was a continuation of WW1, and Britain lost its world empire as a result of WW2, could it be said that Britain lost its empire over "a scrap of paper"?
- Was Hitler's greatest mistake his belief that the British would be reasonable about Poland (which was outside their sphere of influence anyway) when they had already gone to war over the scrap of paper that was Belgian neutrality?
- How rational do you think British foreign policy is?
- How rational do you think British foreign policy has been in the last hundred years or so?
- Did you know that Hitler liked children, was an animal-lover, a vegetarian and was kind to his servants, while Churchill was a drunkard, a depressive and was rude to his servants?
- While Hitler was an infamous antisemite, did you know that Churchill thought "Keep England White" was a good slogan? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later_life_of_Winston_Churchill#Return_to_power
- If you have gone to the trouble of acquiring an empire, shouldn't you at least try to hang on to it for as long as you can?
- Could it be said that Churchill gambled away the empire the British, acquired with so much blood, sweat and tears, in a roll of dice? (What is war but a speculative gamble?)
- Are the British fools or knaves for overlooking the enormity of Churchill's folly?
- Could British foreign policy be better conducted by Claire Khaw who takes a Palmerstonian view of British interests? (Palmerston would have taken a dim view of the Special Relationship. "Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.")
- Is it time for the British to stop being the poodle of America and instead become the Pekingese of the Chinese, which would mean shutting up about Tibet?
- Do you think British MPs ever discuss foreign policy in an honest or reasoned way?
- Are you are of any serious and detailed discussion taking place as regards UK foreign policy?
- If you were a Muslim terrorist committing terrorist atrocities to make the British re-examine their foreign policy, do you think you have done enough?
- Do you think the Germans are on the whole quite decent forbearing people considering what they have had to put up with from Hitler and the British?
- While Churchill was not the one who in fact declared war on Germany, do you think he more or less bounced Chamberlain into declaring war on Germany?
- Do you think Churchill fancied himself as war leader?
- Are you aware that tinpot dictators like starting wars so that they can strut around being war leaders?
