Churchill, British politician, Louis C. Kilzer
As history is not static, their understanding changes constantly varying according to the historian vision, which, unfortunately, can not be completely impartial. This happens in history, when the same fact is considered differently. And the importance of Winston Spencer Churchill - British politician who took over as Prime Minister on 10.05.1940, during the Second World War - is no different.
But while the official histories of the war itself and Adolf Hitler are constantly challenged the view of Churchill has not been "judged" constantly. But that does not mean that no author has done a work with the intention of presenting the "other" history of "Old Bulldog" English. This has already occurred and one of these was Louis C. Kilzer in his book "The Farce of Churchill." However, the "honor" of Churchill and its influence on the construction of a world without the "Nazi evil" is strongly advocated - what happens most of the time - by many historians. One of these is the famous John Lukacs.
[...] The German attack on the USSR begins, like all others, devastating. But when Hitler listens to his generals and instead of moving towards the oil wells decides to invade Moscow, Hitler, for Kilzer, determines the German defeat in the war. As Moscow was protected by the main Soviet troops and the country could suffer heavy casualties and still replenish their armies, Germany was in an endless war, which soon would extend to three fronts (when after many excuses Churchill, USA and England finally begin attack - although very slow - in Western Europe and in North Africa against the Third Reich). [...]
[...] Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Transformation and Conflict Military 1500 - 2000 Rio de Janeiro: Editora Campus, 1989. [...]
[...] ( . ) His insistence [Churchill] to fight Hitler said to the British Empire? No. The empire disintegrated after the war, and England emerged as a weakened country, almost irrelevant. The Operation Barbarossa held the imperial Marxism? Not again. She did the opposite. The war turned the Soviet Union into a superpower with the intention of doing something that Hitler had failed: to conquer the world hegemony. ( . [...]
[...] And this is therefore the main farce Churchill. For knowing the Barbarosa plan did not warn the USSR of how, when, where, would be the German attack on his newest ally. Moreover, it is worth noting that after Hess arrived in England and no news about his capture by the British government, Hitler goes to prepare his invasion of Russia, taking advantage of the agreement with the Party of Peace (that is, with Churchill) of there would be no British attacks on German and German to English. [...]
[...] Hated and feared by Western democracies and the European fascists, saw himself without powerful friends on the world stage and, worsening the situation, was between Nazi Germany and Japan that, like Hitler, needed natural resources present in the great extension Russian territorial. Therefore, no such pact between ideological enemies seemed impossible, the survival of both was at stake. With this pact, Hitler, according to Lukacs, "tried to dig a wedge between Britain and Poland. ( . ) There was a stir of confused negotiations, messages, intermediate and intrigue. ( . ) On August 27, ( . [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
