I have no illwill towards Blunt or other members of the Cambridge Five but isn't treason a crime in UK law? Why didn't Blunt or Craincross ever served any sentence? Did they cut some sort of deal with goverment? If all they would loose was their good name and some titles, why did the others defected to USSR?
Blunt did nothing to help the USSR against Germany, whatever mc0558 might think. His function was to aid the USSR to infiltrate British and American intelligence agencies after WW2. He did this with some success and sent many US and British agents to their deaths, while quaffing fine wines in the best London clubs and at the high tables of Oxford colleges.
I havent seen the movie. This is very good. Is the Queen having a dig at Blunt, because he appears more and more ill at ease as the scene goes on? Or is she oblivious to the fact that Blunt is not all he might seem, and Blunt over reacting?
2/2 Secondly, the 22 months of peace Russia gained by the Pact meant that the new factories in Siberia were further along, providing Russia with the industrial revolution of the Winter of 1941-42 that gave the weapons that tore the heart out of nazi Germany. Thirdly, the Pact meant that, instead of the risk of isolation, when finally the War came, Russia had two excellent ready-made allies, the UK and British Empire and the USA.
The Pact was another of Stalin's risky by brillian successes!
LOL - none of your curious Stalin worship excuses Blunt's betrayal of his country. And I'd love to hear your take on Stalin's brilliant starving of 30 million of his countrymen. I'm sure it helped minimize food costs.
I wonder if the Russian officers Stalin murdered in the late 30s, gutting the army of leadership and costing millions of lives, would agree.
Stalin was everything you say he was, but he also held Russia together during the catastrophes of 1941 and 42 and led it to success from 43 to 45. The fact that the USSR defeated the Nazis saved the lives of many hundreds of thousands of Americans and allied troop after D-Day. I say the Non-Aggression Pact was a smart move. There's no need to speculate on Stalin's motives, because there is no proof. But, the USSR was in a better position to fight when war finally came and that was good for us.
Hey we can agree on something. The 'unknown war' split Hitler's forces and saved countless lives on the allied side. Too bad Stalin 'held Russia together' largely because Russians had learned well before 1941 that to defy his wishes was almost certain death.
Which allows me to return to Blunt, your hero.
He himself wrote in the 60s:
"How wrong we all were - but much of the essential evidence about Russia didn't really get through to us until too late"
First of all there was a lot of idealistic naivete about Stalin in the 30's. But I don't think Blunt's admission of this is saying that he wished Hitler had beaten the USSR. Britain was on Hitler's platter 2 years before Russia came in. My point was that Russia's victories over Hitler saved British and American lives; yet Br. was keeping its enigma secrets from Russia. Blunt's help enabled them to do better, which saved British lieves. Btw,I don't agree that fear alone kept Russians fighting.
You are seriously misinformed mc0558. Read the Mitrokhin Archives which contains vital information from the war time NKVD's First Chief Directorate's files. The Russian Army(God bless them!) defeated the Nazis from Stalingrad & Moscow onwards despite 'the great Koba'. The counter attack at Stalingrad happened only when this 'schizo' finally listened to his generals like Zhukov and allowed them to operate freely. It is a known fact that the generals had advised a pre-emptive strike before 1941.
First of all, for the life of me I can't see how what you write bears any relationship to what I wrote and to which you are apparently replying. Secondly, Stalin made mistakes; Zhukov made mistakes; Churchill made mistakes; so did Roosevelt. The only one who seems not to is de Gaulle. Stalin has been f---d over by historians and politicans. His discounting reports of Hitler's imminent assault was the most notorious of these. But under stress Fussia is a country that falls apart-not with Stalin!
Was referiing to your highly erroneous position that Stalin 'held' Russia together during 41-42 & "led it to success from 43-45!!" It was Zhukov & the other generals who finally managed to get the pshycopath to follow their plan for a cunterattack at Stalingrad. We all know how the genius Stalin's own counterattack at Kharkov worked out! What Stalin did during the '30s purges & his callous meddling with the war effort can never be called "mistakes"!
Erronious! Controversial in--certain quarters--but not erroneous! A pshycopath [sic] is a very dangerous man who does not operate in the real world. Stalin was a dangerous man who DID operate in the real world--and won! But you go on--call him whatever you want if it makes you feel better. It's doesn't effect who or what he was--the organiser of victory, who buried Hitler and made his battered country a world power. As the Russian people today about the regard in which they hold him.
I don't play around with historical facts just to feel better! Stalin was a psycopathic megalomaniac operating in an insane, murderous world of his own creation. He was an organiser of chaos/death, not victory! The greatRussian nation overcame Hitler despite Stalin & not due to Stalin. His denunciation by Kruschev after his death & his quiet removal from his display tomb beside Lenin & dumping in a simple grave show the real disdain the Russian people had for him. They were done with his legacy.
As a friend of mine,who has had a stunning career in politics,remarked to me recently,"anyone who has had power for 10 years is mad".
Again Stalin, you cannot see his role in the allied victory because of liquidations and labour camps, but you can heartily cheer Kruschev's [sic]denunciations of him even though his career parallels Stalin's in peace and war. Khrushchev purged and commanded armies. My point in this was, the more Germ's the Rus killed the fewer there were to kill Brits & Wanks.
Continuing to wipe out around 70% of your Army general staff & Intelligence Officer Corps even during the NoN-Aggression Pact can hardly be called brilliant war preparation! As for Enigma decrypts, Stalin said they were all British disinformation & didn't use most of it. So much for Blunt & Cairncross' betrayal of British secrets for the "greater good"! It is very important to remember who provided the raw materials for the reassembled factories in Siberia during the 41-42 winter. U.K & the U.S.
I think Stalin had a high regard for the intelligence he collected from the Cambridge 5, as well as from his agents in the Manhattan Project.
As for the transformation that took place in Soviet armaments production in the winder of 1941-42, if you are trying to suggest that this was not overwhelmingly a success of the Soviet people and of their leadership in the the Communist Party, but was primarily thanks to the US and UK, then you are stupid or your motives in this discussion are dishonest!
You may 'think' Stalin had a high regard for his collected intelligence but official declassified & stolen NKVD/FCD/INO documents prove beyond doubt that his suspicious mind saw everything as a gigantic British disinformation campaign. Yes even the Cambridge 5 were considered British doubles-contact between them & their illeagal control being broken during the later part of his purges. Massive reverses in the Ukraine could've been prevented if he trusted what Cairncross was feeding the NKVD.
LoL!Sure, what ever makes you feel better comrade! What I've stated has been known academically for years& is now common knowledge. Here's an inteesting anecdote:the sheer state sponsored anti semitism by the Soviet state made MacLean try so many times, but in vain, for a visa back to the U.K. And Philby wasn't even allowed into FCD headquarters until '64-'65,& that too only as a guest lecturer!!So much for being aKGB officer as he claimed in "My Secret War"!! Now who's being stupid & dishonest?
It is typical of you right-wing Americans to label anyone who sees the complexities of history and of the human predicament in hues other than black and white, "commies". This is part of the idiocy that makes your country what it has become, the most hated country in the world.
This discussion not about MacLean and Philby;it'ss about Blunt giving Enigma secrets to the SU during WWII. Stick to the subject! As for Stalin, to credit his wartime leadership makes no one a comrad. You're pathetic!
My My! "....you right-wing Americans.."!!Dude, you're the one who's pathetic to assume that I'm American in the first place! I'm not even from the West!And I presume you're aRussian 'commie'!?Talking of Blunt &Enigma without mentioning Cairncross in GCHQ & the supporting network, takes you out of context! Blunt was just a go-between! But crediting Stalin's 'wartime leadership'sure makes you a fantasist fool!A leadership that destroyed souls & truth-survivors of the gulags are testament to that.
The only thing that has deteriorated, which was obviously warped from the beginning, was your amazing lack of interprtive clarity when examining old & new, absolutely established historical facts & your gross idol worship of a genocidal, anti-semitic/racist dictator. Blunt & the other 4 weere directly complicit in maintaining this killer's reign of terror. Stalin once referrred to the Western intellectual Communist sympathisers as "useful idiots".I guess you're one of them.
what an unpleasant, unsubtle, misrepresenting bore you are. Stalin can be both a tyrannical monster, and the man most responsible for ending WW2. That's the complexity of the human condition. Take your blinkers off "dood" (what an ugly ugly moniker that is).
To call Stalin 'the man most responsible for ending WW2' makes you unpleasant & misrepresenting to the millions of Russians who finally persevered despite Stalin's paranoia.Another element to the humancondition is 'gullibility' which you seem to have.You've been fully blinkered by the Stalinist hero cult that has mostly been dismantled now.And 'dood', Stalin's exiling of Zhukov & the other generals after WW2 so that he could hijack all the glory of victory is well known.Who's the gullible bore?
i call the man a monster, and you say I'm calling him a "hero". straight misrepresentation. "fully blinkered"....a straight lie. and if not Stalin, who?????? you are so biased, it's ridiculous, even the most stalin-hating Russian commentators say the same thing. Yes he slaughtered, yes he shot rivals, yes he robbed Zhukov. History has amended these readings. The fact is, no matter how unfortunate, Stalin was at the helm.
Never said you called Stalin a hero. That Stalin was the main architect of the victory over the Germans in WW2 was the last remaining myth of the Stalin hero cult. This has been successfully debunked by the declassification of official NKVD/GRU files as well by eyewitness accounts from Koba's inner circle. The picture that is now emerging ishow the Soviets won despite Stain's meddling & not due to his wisdom!History has been clarified to show the successful war effort run separately from Stalin
Churchill was a snob, perpetually drunk, a hopeless tactician, catastrophic strategist (Gallipoli, Greece,Singapore...list is endless), had a general assigned to him so that he could be continuously diverted away from causing trouble. Viciously racist, and the point of his 3 wars (Boer, WW1,WW2) was to preserve the British empire. I personally loathe him. Yet without him in 1940, the last sliver of Europe would have fallen. HE remains celebrated, for 1940 and the speeches. That's life.
Err..O.K, you're quite free to loathe Churchill, Rosevelt or even Gandhi for that matter! I really couldn't care less. I don't need a lesson in life from you, I got me Mum for that! But what on earth did Churchill have to do with Stalin's war effort on the Eastern Front, his use of vital intelligence especially that from the Cambridge 5? Oh yes, Churchill was a strong supporter of the Atalntic convoys to Russia but less enthusiastic about sharing ENIGMA decrypts with the GRU. God bless Churchill
Put your brain in gear. The POINT IS that Churchill, despite ALL the details proving he was a dilletante, and a disastrous one at that, is STILL celebrated as the greatest Brit. Stalin was hateful, made several catastrophic decisions, but was still the head at the end of the war, and Russia had prevailed. Thus, much as I despise him, he was the leader of the country that vanquished the Nazis. i don't like Attila the Hun, but he still conquered Asia.
P.S. Interestingly, nobody hated Gandhi more than Churchill. Which tells you a great deal about Churchill, none of it good. As an Australian, a people Churchill loathed but who kept winning the battles he threw us into (when we planned them), I despise Churchill for his betrayal of us at Singapore, and the attempted diversion of our own troops away from the defence of our country when the Japanese had attacked us. Yet...Churchill was useful in 1940, the only important year of his life
LoL! Since your brain has gone for a walk in the park, I'll make clear the POINT here-the discourse here was about Stalin vis a vis the Cambridge 5. And your desperate attempt to divert the discussion &compare Churchill to the worst genocidal mass murderer is laughable at best! I don't loathe Stalin, I just see him for what he is-a psychopathic megalomaniac who nearly took down his nation. The man who wiped out millions of his soldiers & intelligence operatives on a mere whims is uncomparable!
The Soviet armament production success was definitely a success of the 'Russian' people which was crucially aided by the U.K & mainly the U.S without which it wouldn't have been possible. This vital war stastic is widely available but not so enthusiastiaclly admitted to by the 'Communists'. Read my comment carefully before you interpret it one dimensionally & react so strongly! No disrespect meant to your position.Stupid would be your idol worship of a sick genocidal maniac like Stalin
You overestimate the significance of Allied supplies to Russia prior to 1943. The Soviets pulled it off themselves with noteworthy assistance from the US, which is why when the war ended and moving into the Cold War, the USSR remained a great power after the war ended and into the so-called Cold War right up to the 1980s and Britain did not.
Yes, it was certainly the Soviets themselves who finally pulled it off, but it was those critical Atlantic convoys which kept the Russians from the brink of collapse. As for Britain, who fought WW2 on 2 fronts, especially facing the full force of the Nazi war machine since '39? Who had to exhaust it's colonial rescources for men &material, mainly from India, for the war effort? A million & a half men marched from the colonies. Going it alone for 3years changed UK's appetite for apost-war empire.
Better read Anthony Blunt - His Lives if you consider him a hero. He was giving the Soviets secrets even when they were splitting Poland with the Nazis. He also passed information after wars end. He also aided and abetted Burgess and Maclean's escape and covered up for Philby and others. All these traitorous acts kept the British from discovering spies and saving lives behind the iron curtain. Dood was in league with the greatest murder machine of the 20th century, Stalin's.
1/2 The Non-Aggression Pact played its part in Hitler's downfall. First of all, in the end the Pact did not "split" Poland between the Russia and the Nazis. In the end, with some very minor alternations, the Russians took BACK territories Poland's dictator, Marshal Pilsudski, had taken from them in the 1920-21 War, territories that lay East of the Curzon Line, which the League of Nations marked as properly belonging of Russian ethnicity and religion. The rest of Poland was taken by the Germans.
Blunt was a hero, and he should be honored by the UK for his contributions to the victory of the allies in the Second World War. What he did to help the USSR saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Brit, Commonwealth and US soldier. By they time we landed at Normandy, the Soviet Union had virtually brought German to her knees. Imagine the fight they could have put up had it not been for the bleedings of 1941-44 on the Eastern Front.
I have no illwill towards Blunt or other members of the Cambridge Five but isn't treason a crime in UK law? Why didn't Blunt or Craincross ever served any sentence? Did they cut some sort of deal with goverment? If all they would loose was their good name and some titles, why did the others defected to USSR?
rasnac 4 weeks ago
Blunt did nothing to help the USSR against Germany, whatever mc0558 might think. His function was to aid the USSR to infiltrate British and American intelligence agencies after WW2. He did this with some success and sent many US and British agents to their deaths, while quaffing fine wines in the best London clubs and at the high tables of Oxford colleges.
TheJamesBernie 5 months ago
Does anyone know where the entire film can be seen?
TheRonpollard 10 months ago
I havent seen the movie. This is very good. Is the Queen having a dig at Blunt, because he appears more and more ill at ease as the scene goes on? Or is she oblivious to the fact that Blunt is not all he might seem, and Blunt over reacting?
chanctonbury63 1 year ago
Avery good scene...one of the better ones in british film history
AttilatheMike 2 years ago
You now get this on the DVD 'Alan Bennett at the BBC' published by the BBC
sheppertoon 2 years ago
Like QE2 is so clever to imply treason metaphorically ..........
shaymultimedia 2 years ago
Could anyone tell me where I might find a DVD or copy of 'A Question of Attribution'? Please?
zimnaya 3 years ago 2
Fox is miscast - stick with Petherbridge on the radio version.
tomelty 3 years ago
@ mc0558 :
Spot on, man.
Leibo07 3 years ago
2/2 Secondly, the 22 months of peace Russia gained by the Pact meant that the new factories in Siberia were further along, providing Russia with the industrial revolution of the Winter of 1941-42 that gave the weapons that tore the heart out of nazi Germany. Thirdly, the Pact meant that, instead of the risk of isolation, when finally the War came, Russia had two excellent ready-made allies, the UK and British Empire and the USA.
The Pact was another of Stalin's risky by brillian successes!
mc0558 3 years ago 2
LOL - none of your curious Stalin worship excuses Blunt's betrayal of his country. And I'd love to hear your take on Stalin's brilliant starving of 30 million of his countrymen. I'm sure it helped minimize food costs.
I wonder if the Russian officers Stalin murdered in the late 30s, gutting the army of leadership and costing millions of lives, would agree.
Did you cry when the Berlin Wall fell?
spookyben 3 years ago 2
Stalin was everything you say he was, but he also held Russia together during the catastrophes of 1941 and 42 and led it to success from 43 to 45. The fact that the USSR defeated the Nazis saved the lives of many hundreds of thousands of Americans and allied troop after D-Day. I say the Non-Aggression Pact was a smart move. There's no need to speculate on Stalin's motives, because there is no proof. But, the USSR was in a better position to fight when war finally came and that was good for us.
mc0558 3 years ago
Hey we can agree on something. The 'unknown war' split Hitler's forces and saved countless lives on the allied side. Too bad Stalin 'held Russia together' largely because Russians had learned well before 1941 that to defy his wishes was almost certain death.
Which allows me to return to Blunt, your hero.
He himself wrote in the 60s:
"How wrong we all were - but much of the essential evidence about Russia didn't really get through to us until too late"
That's Blunt saying D'oh!
spookyben 3 years ago 2
First of all there was a lot of idealistic naivete about Stalin in the 30's. But I don't think Blunt's admission of this is saying that he wished Hitler had beaten the USSR. Britain was on Hitler's platter 2 years before Russia came in. My point was that Russia's victories over Hitler saved British and American lives; yet Br. was keeping its enigma secrets from Russia. Blunt's help enabled them to do better, which saved British lieves. Btw,I don't agree that fear alone kept Russians fighting.
mc0558 3 years ago
You are seriously misinformed mc0558. Read the Mitrokhin Archives which contains vital information from the war time NKVD's First Chief Directorate's files. The Russian Army(God bless them!) defeated the Nazis from Stalingrad & Moscow onwards despite 'the great Koba'. The counter attack at Stalingrad happened only when this 'schizo' finally listened to his generals like Zhukov and allowed them to operate freely. It is a known fact that the generals had advised a pre-emptive strike before 1941.
DirectorateS 3 years ago
First of all, for the life of me I can't see how what you write bears any relationship to what I wrote and to which you are apparently replying. Secondly, Stalin made mistakes; Zhukov made mistakes; Churchill made mistakes; so did Roosevelt. The only one who seems not to is de Gaulle. Stalin has been f---d over by historians and politicans. His discounting reports of Hitler's imminent assault was the most notorious of these. But under stress Fussia is a country that falls apart-not with Stalin!
mc0558 3 years ago
Was referiing to your highly erroneous position that Stalin 'held' Russia together during 41-42 & "led it to success from 43-45!!" It was Zhukov & the other generals who finally managed to get the pshycopath to follow their plan for a cunterattack at Stalingrad. We all know how the genius Stalin's own counterattack at Kharkov worked out! What Stalin did during the '30s purges & his callous meddling with the war effort can never be called "mistakes"!
DirectorateS 3 years ago
Erronious! Controversial in--certain quarters--but not erroneous! A pshycopath [sic] is a very dangerous man who does not operate in the real world. Stalin was a dangerous man who DID operate in the real world--and won! But you go on--call him whatever you want if it makes you feel better. It's doesn't effect who or what he was--the organiser of victory, who buried Hitler and made his battered country a world power. As the Russian people today about the regard in which they hold him.
mc0558 3 years ago
I don't play around with historical facts just to feel better! Stalin was a psycopathic megalomaniac operating in an insane, murderous world of his own creation. He was an organiser of chaos/death, not victory! The greatRussian nation overcame Hitler despite Stalin & not due to Stalin. His denunciation by Kruschev after his death & his quiet removal from his display tomb beside Lenin & dumping in a simple grave show the real disdain the Russian people had for him. They were done with his legacy.
DirectorateS 3 years ago
As a friend of mine,who has had a stunning career in politics,remarked to me recently,"anyone who has had power for 10 years is mad".
Again Stalin, you cannot see his role in the allied victory because of liquidations and labour camps, but you can heartily cheer Kruschev's [sic]denunciations of him even though his career parallels Stalin's in peace and war. Khrushchev purged and commanded armies. My point in this was, the more Germ's the Rus killed the fewer there were to kill Brits & Wanks.
mc0558 3 years ago
Continuing to wipe out around 70% of your Army general staff & Intelligence Officer Corps even during the NoN-Aggression Pact can hardly be called brilliant war preparation! As for Enigma decrypts, Stalin said they were all British disinformation & didn't use most of it. So much for Blunt & Cairncross' betrayal of British secrets for the "greater good"! It is very important to remember who provided the raw materials for the reassembled factories in Siberia during the 41-42 winter. U.K & the U.S.
DirectorateS 3 years ago
I think Stalin had a high regard for the intelligence he collected from the Cambridge 5, as well as from his agents in the Manhattan Project.
As for the transformation that took place in Soviet armaments production in the winder of 1941-42, if you are trying to suggest that this was not overwhelmingly a success of the Soviet people and of their leadership in the the Communist Party, but was primarily thanks to the US and UK, then you are stupid or your motives in this discussion are dishonest!
mc0558 3 years ago
You may 'think' Stalin had a high regard for his collected intelligence but official declassified & stolen NKVD/FCD/INO documents prove beyond doubt that his suspicious mind saw everything as a gigantic British disinformation campaign. Yes even the Cambridge 5 were considered British doubles-contact between them & their illeagal control being broken during the later part of his purges. Massive reverses in the Ukraine could've been prevented if he trusted what Cairncross was feeding the NKVD.
DirectorateS 3 years ago
This is just nonsense! Fiction!!
mc0558 3 years ago
LoL!Sure, what ever makes you feel better comrade! What I've stated has been known academically for years& is now common knowledge. Here's an inteesting anecdote:the sheer state sponsored anti semitism by the Soviet state made MacLean try so many times, but in vain, for a visa back to the U.K. And Philby wasn't even allowed into FCD headquarters until '64-'65,& that too only as a guest lecturer!!So much for being aKGB officer as he claimed in "My Secret War"!! Now who's being stupid & dishonest?
DirectorateS 3 years ago
It is typical of you right-wing Americans to label anyone who sees the complexities of history and of the human predicament in hues other than black and white, "commies". This is part of the idiocy that makes your country what it has become, the most hated country in the world.
This discussion not about MacLean and Philby;it'ss about Blunt giving Enigma secrets to the SU during WWII. Stick to the subject! As for Stalin, to credit his wartime leadership makes no one a comrad. You're pathetic!
mc0558 3 years ago
My My! "....you right-wing Americans.."!!Dude, you're the one who's pathetic to assume that I'm American in the first place! I'm not even from the West!And I presume you're aRussian 'commie'!?Talking of Blunt &Enigma without mentioning Cairncross in GCHQ & the supporting network, takes you out of context! Blunt was just a go-between! But crediting Stalin's 'wartime leadership'sure makes you a fantasist fool!A leadership that destroyed souls & truth-survivors of the gulags are testament to that.
DirectorateS 3 years ago
This discourse has deteriorated too far to continue.
Enough!
mc0558 3 years ago
The only thing that has deteriorated, which was obviously warped from the beginning, was your amazing lack of interprtive clarity when examining old & new, absolutely established historical facts & your gross idol worship of a genocidal, anti-semitic/racist dictator. Blunt & the other 4 weere directly complicit in maintaining this killer's reign of terror. Stalin once referrred to the Western intellectual Communist sympathisers as "useful idiots".I guess you're one of them.
DirectorateS 3 years ago 2
what an unpleasant, unsubtle, misrepresenting bore you are. Stalin can be both a tyrannical monster, and the man most responsible for ending WW2. That's the complexity of the human condition. Take your blinkers off "dood" (what an ugly ugly moniker that is).
vnurcombe 3 years ago
To call Stalin 'the man most responsible for ending WW2' makes you unpleasant & misrepresenting to the millions of Russians who finally persevered despite Stalin's paranoia.Another element to the humancondition is 'gullibility' which you seem to have.You've been fully blinkered by the Stalinist hero cult that has mostly been dismantled now.And 'dood', Stalin's exiling of Zhukov & the other generals after WW2 so that he could hijack all the glory of victory is well known.Who's the gullible bore?
DirectorateS 3 years ago
i call the man a monster, and you say I'm calling him a "hero". straight misrepresentation. "fully blinkered"....a straight lie. and if not Stalin, who?????? you are so biased, it's ridiculous, even the most stalin-hating Russian commentators say the same thing. Yes he slaughtered, yes he shot rivals, yes he robbed Zhukov. History has amended these readings. The fact is, no matter how unfortunate, Stalin was at the helm.
vnurcombe 3 years ago
Never said you called Stalin a hero. That Stalin was the main architect of the victory over the Germans in WW2 was the last remaining myth of the Stalin hero cult. This has been successfully debunked by the declassification of official NKVD/GRU files as well by eyewitness accounts from Koba's inner circle. The picture that is now emerging ishow the Soviets won despite Stain's meddling & not due to his wisdom!History has been clarified to show the successful war effort run separately from Stalin
DirectorateS 3 years ago
Churchill was a snob, perpetually drunk, a hopeless tactician, catastrophic strategist (Gallipoli, Greece,Singapore...list is endless), had a general assigned to him so that he could be continuously diverted away from causing trouble. Viciously racist, and the point of his 3 wars (Boer, WW1,WW2) was to preserve the British empire. I personally loathe him. Yet without him in 1940, the last sliver of Europe would have fallen. HE remains celebrated, for 1940 and the speeches. That's life.
vnurcombe 3 years ago
Err..O.K, you're quite free to loathe Churchill, Rosevelt or even Gandhi for that matter! I really couldn't care less. I don't need a lesson in life from you, I got me Mum for that! But what on earth did Churchill have to do with Stalin's war effort on the Eastern Front, his use of vital intelligence especially that from the Cambridge 5? Oh yes, Churchill was a strong supporter of the Atalntic convoys to Russia but less enthusiastic about sharing ENIGMA decrypts with the GRU. God bless Churchill
DirectorateS 3 years ago
Put your brain in gear. The POINT IS that Churchill, despite ALL the details proving he was a dilletante, and a disastrous one at that, is STILL celebrated as the greatest Brit. Stalin was hateful, made several catastrophic decisions, but was still the head at the end of the war, and Russia had prevailed. Thus, much as I despise him, he was the leader of the country that vanquished the Nazis. i don't like Attila the Hun, but he still conquered Asia.
vnurcombe 3 years ago
P.S. Interestingly, nobody hated Gandhi more than Churchill. Which tells you a great deal about Churchill, none of it good. As an Australian, a people Churchill loathed but who kept winning the battles he threw us into (when we planned them), I despise Churchill for his betrayal of us at Singapore, and the attempted diversion of our own troops away from the defence of our country when the Japanese had attacked us. Yet...Churchill was useful in 1940, the only important year of his life
vnurcombe 3 years ago
LoL! Since your brain has gone for a walk in the park, I'll make clear the POINT here-the discourse here was about Stalin vis a vis the Cambridge 5. And your desperate attempt to divert the discussion &compare Churchill to the worst genocidal mass murderer is laughable at best! I don't loathe Stalin, I just see him for what he is-a psychopathic megalomaniac who nearly took down his nation. The man who wiped out millions of his soldiers & intelligence operatives on a mere whims is uncomparable!
DirectorateS 3 years ago
The Soviet armament production success was definitely a success of the 'Russian' people which was crucially aided by the U.K & mainly the U.S without which it wouldn't have been possible. This vital war stastic is widely available but not so enthusiastiaclly admitted to by the 'Communists'. Read my comment carefully before you interpret it one dimensionally & react so strongly! No disrespect meant to your position.Stupid would be your idol worship of a sick genocidal maniac like Stalin
DirectorateS 3 years ago
You overestimate the significance of Allied supplies to Russia prior to 1943. The Soviets pulled it off themselves with noteworthy assistance from the US, which is why when the war ended and moving into the Cold War, the USSR remained a great power after the war ended and into the so-called Cold War right up to the 1980s and Britain did not.
mc0558 3 years ago
Yes, it was certainly the Soviets themselves who finally pulled it off, but it was those critical Atlantic convoys which kept the Russians from the brink of collapse. As for Britain, who fought WW2 on 2 fronts, especially facing the full force of the Nazi war machine since '39? Who had to exhaust it's colonial rescources for men &material, mainly from India, for the war effort? A million & a half men marched from the colonies. Going it alone for 3years changed UK's appetite for apost-war empire.
DirectorateS 3 years ago
Better read Anthony Blunt - His Lives if you consider him a hero. He was giving the Soviets secrets even when they were splitting Poland with the Nazis. He also passed information after wars end. He also aided and abetted Burgess and Maclean's escape and covered up for Philby and others. All these traitorous acts kept the British from discovering spies and saving lives behind the iron curtain. Dood was in league with the greatest murder machine of the 20th century, Stalin's.
spookyben 3 years ago
1/2 The Non-Aggression Pact played its part in Hitler's downfall. First of all, in the end the Pact did not "split" Poland between the Russia and the Nazis. In the end, with some very minor alternations, the Russians took BACK territories Poland's dictator, Marshal Pilsudski, had taken from them in the 1920-21 War, territories that lay East of the Curzon Line, which the League of Nations marked as properly belonging of Russian ethnicity and religion. The rest of Poland was taken by the Germans.
mc0558 3 years ago 2
Alan Bennett is god, nothing less!
BrickLaneBetty 3 years ago
Blunt was a hero, and he should be honored by the UK for his contributions to the victory of the allies in the Second World War. What he did to help the USSR saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Brit, Commonwealth and US soldier. By they time we landed at Normandy, the Soviet Union had virtually brought German to her knees. Imagine the fight they could have put up had it not been for the bleedings of 1941-44 on the Eastern Front.
mc0558 3 years ago 4
@ mc0558 :
Very, very true. And he was a hero.
Couldn't agree more. ;D
Leibo07 3 years ago
Odd, isn't it, how different Penelope Scales is to Helen Mirren, yet both are so like QEII. To channel Dame Edna -- spooky.
namatamago3000 3 years ago