Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
If you're a history buff, love to talk about history and watch the History Channel, this is the board for that.
What the media and establishment never tell you about Winston Churchill is that he chose WAR over peace. If he had accepted one of Hitler's many peace offer agreements, then not a single British soldier would have been killed and not a single bomb would have been dropped on London. The war with Germany would have been completely avoided, which Hitler desperately wanted.
This means that the blood on all the British soldiers and civilians who died during WW2 is on Churchill's hands. This is a hard fact, yet the media and history books NEVER tell you about it. Because obviously, it means Churchill was a warmonger and preferred war over peace. It also means he could have prevented all British casualties of WW2, but he didn't. As such, it makes Churchill an evil war criminal that brought ruin and death to Britain, not a heroic leader, because when it came down to it, Churchill's aim to destroy Germany and be remembered as a wartime victor was more important to him than saving thousands of British lives. It was a very selfish decision, designed only to benefit him and the cabal of elite bankers who put him in power at the cost of many lives.
But instead of telling the truth, the media and establishment portray Winston Churchill as a heroic leader who inspired the British people to stand up against Germany against all odds, when in reality his decisions directly CAUSED the war with Germany, which he could have easily prevented, since Hitler was desperate to avoid it at all costs, yet he rejected all of Hitler's generous peace offers.
Furthermore, Churchill also made the decision to destroy a French naval fleet, against the wishes of the French navy, which killed over 1,000 French sailors. So their blood is on Churchill's hands too. The History Channel produced a documentary about this called "Churchill's Darkest Hour" which you can see here:
If the reports of Near Death Experiences are true, then when one dies, one experiences a life review in which one experiences the karmic effect that one's actions in life had caused other people. If this is true, then when Winston Churchill died, he would have experienced each of the deaths of all the British soldiers and civilians who died during WW2 -- deaths which he could have prevented but didn't, because his love of war and hatred of Germany was more important than thousands of British lives. God, the universe and karma would have showed him the consequences of his decisions, so that he would be in deep regret over it. What's more, he would have to pay the karmic consequences of it in his next life.
The same could be said for President Franklin Roosevelt too. FDR could have prevented US involvement in WW2 and prevented Pearl Harbor as well. If he didn't put an oil and resource embargo on Japan and try to choke it to death of raw materials, leaving the Japanese no choice but to strike the US first, then no Americans would have had to die during WW2. So again, the deaths at Pearl Harbor and all the battles of WW2 afterward that the US Navy and Army were involved in, were the result of Roosevelt's decisions. This means that the blood of Americans who died in WW2, are on Roosevelt's hands. He could have prevented them all, but he didn't. That makes him a warmonger and war criminal too, just like Churchill.
Yet you NEVER hear about this in history books or media. Instead, FDR is portrayed as a wartime heroic leader who inspired Americans to fight courageously in WW2, when in reality, he brought America into the war AGAINST the wishes of the American people, who overwhelmingly wanted to stay out of the war. Yet FDR did not care about the wishes of the people. Instead, he did everything he could to get America into the war. So like Churchill, FDR chose WAR over peace when he had the choice. That makes him an evil man in a way. Yet you are never told the truth about this.
To FDR, his desire to be remembered as a wartime victor President, to erase the failure of his New Deal economic policies, and his desire to serve the power elite cabal bankers that put him in power, were more important than the lives of millions of Americans. His reputation was more important than the lives of many people. If that's not the most selfish decision anyone could make, then I don't know what is. He deserves to be remembered as a selfish bastard who brought war and death to millions of Americans, not as a hero.
If Churchill and FDR had decided to stay out of the war, Germany and Japan eventually would probably have folded anyway, because they were overstretching their empire and fighting countries that were too large to occupy and control. Germany was unrealistically trying to control and occupy Russia, which was impossible as Russia's land was most vast than both the US and Europe put together. And Japan was trying to rule and control China, which was too large and populous to manage. No matter how many battles Germany and Japan had won, those countries would always stage a comeback, eventually to the point of victory.
So Britain and America were not needed in WW2 anyway. And the American people were right not to want to get involved. Germany and Japan would eventually have lost anyway. And even if Japan and Germany had won and established their empires -- one in Europe/Russia and one in Asia -- empires never last for long anyway. Most empires collapse after their founder, conqueror or emperor passes away, because people prefer local government, not centralized foreign government. So the conquered nations of WW2 would probably have rebelled and broken free eventually.
But even if Germany and Japan had won WW2 and controlled both Europe and Asia long term, so what? Both those nations are very civilized and efficient and developed the highest technology, so most likely they would have brought prosperity to their empire and run them very well. Hitler brought prosperity to Germany and ended poverty and unemployment, by having the German government print its own government rather than borrowing from the central bankers with usury and high interest. If he had applied that to all of Europe, and gotten rid of the central banks there, then all Europeans could have become prosperous and well off financially. He also would have brought strong moral values too, and not allowed degeneracy, liberalism and socialism to develop. He also would have saved Eastern Europe from falling to Communism, which brought ruin to Eastern Europe and which its people regret today. Instead, under Hitler, Eastern Europe could have been prosperous.
And even if Japan had captured China and controlled it, then all the massive tyranny and deaths that Mao ZeDong brought to China could have been prevented. Instead, China would probably have been more efficiently run and managed under Japanese rule, just as Taiwan had been for 50 years under Japanese rule, which vastly improved its infrastructure. As such, China's infrastructure may have been greatly improved as well, under Japanese rule. Moreover, since Japan has a knack for developing new technologies, they probably could have improved China in various ways as well, especially if they were able to utilize the huge labor force of China under their control.
Therefore, a German and Japanese victory during WW2 would not have been so bad as you were led to believe. As they say, "History is the propaganda of the victorious."
Check out my fun video clips in Russia and video series Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind and Full Russia Trip Videos!
See my HA Ebook and Join Our Dating Sites to support us!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World