Letter Of Intent Or Memorandum Of - Greece - Bulgaria: Fill & Download for Free

To answer this question one needs to answer another first: cui bono? Who could benefit most from the coming Great War?The German Empire. 541,858 sq. km, 67 million population, GDP (ppp) of 49.76 billion USD. The strongest industrial power in Europe. Their GNP was second only to Russia having exceeded the UK a decade ago. The German economy didn’t depend much on overseas colonies unlike the British one. It had a potential of becoming a dominating economic power in Europe in the near future like it is today. There wasn’t much they could gain from the war. Territorial expansion to the west could be very limited because annexation of Francophone areas was generally undesired. Expansion to the east to Russian Poland was a better alternative, but hardly worth an effort of a long war with Russia. The Imperial German Navy, though a formidable force, was no match for the British Royal Navy. Wilhelm II and his ministers were aware that a war of attrition against the alliance of the UK, France and Russia was unlikely to lead to a positive outcome. They attempted to keep the UK neutral, but failed for the reasons below.The Austro-Hungarian Empire. 676,615 sq. km, 53 million population, GDP (ppp) of 26.05 billion USD. Although much weaker economically than Germany, it was comparable to France. Austria-Hungary was a multinational state ruled by Austrian and Hungarian nobility, therefore often referred to as “the prison of nations.” There were certain political and economical difficulties which some politicians and military commanders such as Count Conrad von Hötzendorf expected to solve by war. They also didn’t mind to gain more territories and influence in the Balkans. France and the UK were far away, so their largest concern was the Russian Empire which also intended to increase their presence in the Balkans. So, Austria-Hungary was prepared for another local war, but not for a world war.The Russian Empire. 23.7 million sq. km, 170 million population, GDP (ppp) of 52.42 billion USD. Russia was huge and powerful. That was what most Europeans knew about it. They feared its military potential, though suspicions started to grow when Russia lost a war to Japan in 1905. However Russia was an agricultural state. Peasants and agricultural workers with their families constituted over 80% of population while industrial workers and their families counted for about 9%. It had the largest peace time standing army in Europe, though quality and quantity of armaments left something to be desired of. Nicholas II, the last Russian Emperor, was conservative, ambitious, superstitious and not very bright in general. He ruled with a iron fist and was feared by most of his subjects. There was a failed revolution in 1905–1906, but he didn’t seem to have learnt much from it. His expansionist geopolitics called for another war, though it would be appropriate to take a better care of the existing possessions. There were intentions to seize German, Austrian-Hungarian and Ottoman territories. The special prize was the Straits of Bosphorus and Dardanelles which were demilitarised for any nation except the Ottomans in war time since 1856. It meant the Russian Black Sea Fleet was of a little practical use. The protection of Serbia against an Austrian-Hungarian invasion was just a casus belli as Russia hadn’t paid much attention to Serbian interests previously.The Republic of France. 629,305 sq. km, 41.6 million population, GDP (ppp) of 27.4 billion USD. The Third Republic was a strong colonial power second only to the British. However the economic growth was rather moderate. There were tensions between France and the UK which almost led to a war in 1898 (Fashoda Incident), but the growing might of Germany consolidated former enemies. France had been allied to Russia since 1894. The UK joined their alliance signing appropriate agreements with France in 1904 and Russia in 1907. Raymond Poincaré, known for his anti-German attitude, was elected as the prime minister in 1912 and the president in 1913. France extended compulsory military service from 2 to 3 years in 1913. There was a general sentiment in favour of taking back Alsace Lorraine by force (lost in 1871 to Germany).The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 312,768 sq. km, 46 million population, GDP (ppp) of 44.07 billion USD. The largest colonial power which gathered much of its wealth from overseas possessions during the 19th century, most notably from British India. The Royal Navy was unmatched in strength by any world power (24 new battleships, 38 old battleships, 10 battlecruisers, 47 heavy cruisers, 61 light cruisers, 225 destroyers and 75 submarines), though the land army was found rather contemptible. The UK aligned with France and Russia because they were reluctant to wage a war against Germany without any powerful allies. Even though a German invasion might never happen, the enemy had enough means to harm the British maritime trade to an intolerable extent. The British foreign politics in the previous centuries earned almost no friends in continental Europe, so getting the French and Russian infantry to do most of the dirty work seemed like a great idea. The British government wanted this war because the alternative could be worse.The Ottoman Empire was no longer a superpower. It lost most of its territories conquered in the 15th to 16th century. Defeated by Russia a few times. Two more defeats in the Italo-Turkish War (1911) and the First Balkan War (1912–1913) were especially humiliating. Many Muslim refugees from those lost territories migrated to other parts of the empire, mostly to Eastern Anatolia. There was a strong political instability, a few failed coups (1909, 1912, 1913). The Entente didn’t take the Ottomans seriously for the upcoming war. On the other hand, the Ottoman government wanted to return the lost territories, some of them at least.The Kingdom of Bulgaria. An autonomous principality after 1878, though the Ottoman supreme rule was rather nominal. Declared independence in 1908 and became a kingdom. In order to gain control over foreign territories with a significant share of Bulgarian population, the kingdom entered the First Balkan War in 1912 together with Serbia, Montenegro and Greece against the Ottoman Empire, and started the Second Balkan War in 1913 against every surrounding state. Although lost quickly, Bulgaria was a highly militarised state. It could raise a 1 million army out of the population of 5 million. The unsettled issues with neighbours, cold attitude of the Entente which referred to Bulgaria as to “Balkan Prussia” and other factors made Bulgaria leaning towards Germany and Austria-Hungary.The Kingdom of Italy. A participant in the war which could remain neutral or choose either side. Italy had issues with France over colonies which led them to an alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1882. Although relationships with Germany were good in general, Austria-Hungary was an old enemy which still controlled some territories with a significant share of Italian population near Trentino and Trieste. On the other hand, French colonies in North Africa were also attractive. Italy had to choose the sweetest deal and they did.So, before the Great War started, there was one alliance of the UK, France and Russia, called the Entente, and another alliance of Germany and Austria-Hungary, called the Central Powers. Most of the other participants had a choice to remain neutral or choose either side. The facts suggest the Entente was more in favour of the war than the Central Powers. Their economic and military potential was also superior. The standing armies of Central Powers were 1.35 million. Russia alone had a 1.4 million standing army. France and the UK contributed 0.99 million. After the initial mobilisation, Russia could have a 5 million army, the Central Powers could field 7.85 million, the UK and France could deploy 4.51 million.There was a chain reaction of events which led to the Great War. Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Duchess Sophie in Sarajevo on the 28th of June 1914 using Serbian produced weapons. Although Gavrilo was a member of the Young Bosnians, the investigation connected him to another terrorist organisation, the Black Hand of Serbia. The irony was that Franz Ferdinand opposed expansionist ambitions of Conrad von Hötzendorf yet his death served as a casus belli. The Austrian-Hungarian government knew that a declaration of war on Serbia could get Russia involved. They were in no position to fight both of them with a possibility of Montenegro and Romania to enter the war against them. The Austrian-Hungarian government dispatched Count Alexander von Hoyos to Berlin with a memorandum of Leopold Berchtold, the Foreign Secretary, and a letter of Emperor Franz Josef. Both were handed over to Wilhelm II during the lunch in Potsdam on the 5th of July by the Austrian-Hungarian ambassador, Ladislaus Szogyeni-Marich. The documents described an increased aggression of Serbia and Russia, the need to eliminate Serbia as a political power and an opportunity to invite Bulgaria instead of Romania which showed pro-Serbian and pro-Russian support recently. The Kaiser was outraged by the death of Franz Ferdinand with whom he maintained a very good relationship and promised support even if Russia intervened. He called for the Crown Council in the afternoon to approve his decision. There were present Chansellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann, War Minister Erich von Falkenhayn and the others. The consensus was to support the Kaiser’s decision. Once the Austrians received this carte blanche, the Great War was inevitable. They sent an ultimatum to Serbia on the 23rd of July. The Serbian response didn’t matter and the war was declared on the 28th of July. Russia started a mobilisation immediately. Germany warned Russia to stop it on the 31st of July, received a response that it was against Austria-Hungary and declared a war on Russia on the 1st of August. France started a mobilisation immediately. Germany invaded Luxembourg on the 2nd of August and asked Belgium for a permission to pass troops through to the French border, but received a negative response on the 3rd of August. They invaded Belgium and declared a war on France at the same time. According to the Treaty of London (1839), Belgium had to remain forever neutral; the UK, France, Russia, Prussia, Austria and the Netherlands were supposed to defend it. Bethmann-Hollweg called this treaty a scrap of paper. The UK declared war on Germany on the 4th of August. Montenegro declared a war on Austria-Hungary on the 5th of August. Serbia declared a war on Germany and Austria-Hungary declared a war on Russia on the 6th of August. The British Expeditionary Force arrived to France on the 7th of August and the Battle of the Frontiers was started.So, it was Germany that triggered the Great War. Of course, if Russia hadn’t mobilised against Austria-Hungary, the war could be another local conflict in the Balkans, but the Entente also wanted this war and it happened.P.S. The GDP (ppp) figures above provided for 1913 according to Paul Bairoch in 1960 U.S. dollars.

The issue of the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is not just a dispute over historical facts or symbols. It concerns the conduct of a UN member state, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which contravenes the fundamental principles of international law and order; specifically, respect for good neighbourly relations, sovereignty and territorial integrity.The name issue is thus a problem with regional and international dimensions, consisting in the promotion of irredentist and territorial ambitions on the part of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, mainly through the counterfeiting of history and usurpation of Greece’s national, historical and cultural heritage.The name issue arose in 1991, when the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia seceded from Yugoslavia and declared its independence under the name “Republic of Macedonia”.Historically, the term “Macedonia”, which is a Greek word, refers to the Kingdom and culture of the ancient Macedonians, who belong to the Hellenic nation and are unquestionably part of Greek historical and cultural heritage.Geographically, the term “Macedonia” refers to a wider region extending into the current territory of various Balkan countries, with the largest part of the region being in Greece and smaller sections in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria and Albania. The core of what was ancient Macedonia lies within contemporary Greek borders, comprises the northern portion of the Greek state, and is called Macedonia. Some 2.5 million Greeks reside in this region today and they and their forebears have considered and called themselves Macedonians through the centuries.The roots of the name issue go back to the mid-1940s, when, in the aftermath of the Second World War, Commander in Chief Tito separated from Serbia the region that had been known until that time as Vardar Banovina (today’s Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), giving it the status of a federal unit of the new Socialist Federal Republic of Macedonia, renaming it, initially, the “People’s Republic of Macedonia”, and, later, the “Socialist Republic of Macedonia”. At the same time, he started to cultivate the idea of a separate and discrete “Macedonian nation”.Tito of course had many reasons for making these moves, the main one being to lay the foundations for future Yugoslavian territorial claims in the wider region of Macedonia and secure an opening on the Aegean. Tito’s intentions in the wider Macedonian region had been confirmed as early as 1944, when he declared publicly that his goal was to reunify “all the sections of Macedonia that were broken up in 1912 and 1913 by the Balkan imperialists.”A December 1944 State Department dispatch to the U.S. authorities, signed by the US Secretary of State at the time, Stettinius, noted, among other things, that “This [US] Government considers talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonian "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic, nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece.”Against this historical background, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia declared its independence in 1991, basing its existence as an independent state on the artificial and spurious notion of the “Macedonian nation”, which was cultivated systematically through the falsification of history and the exploitation of ancient Macedonia purely for reasons of political expediency.Greece reacted strongly to the theft of its historical and cultural heritage and the treacherous territorial and irredentist intentions of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the issue came before the UN Security Council, which, in two resolutions [817(1993) and 845(1993)] recommended that a settlement be found quickly, for the sake of peaceful relations and good neighbourliness in the region.In 1993, following a recommendation from the Security Council, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was accepted, by decision of the General Assembly, into the United Nations under this provisional name, until such time as an agreed solution is reached.In 1995, Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia concluded an Interim Accord, which imposed a binding “code of conduct”.Based on the Interim Accord, the two sides began negotiations under the auspices of the UN. These negotiations have continued to this day.In the time that has elapsed since the signing of the Interim Accord, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has systematically violated the letter and spirit of the Accord, as well as the obligations deriving from it:by promoting territorial designs against Greece through the portrayal on maps, in school books, in history books, etc., of Greek territory as being within the territory of a “greater” Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in violation of articles 2, 3, 4 and 7.1;by supporting irredentist claims and inciting nationalistic feeling within Greece, in violation of article 6.2;by using the name “Republic of Macedonia” in international organizations – including the United Nations – that it has joined under the condition that it use the provisional name “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, in violation of the relevant commitments provided for in article 11.1 (even from the podium of the 62nd UN General Assembly, the then-president of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Branko Crvenkovski, stated that “the name of my country is and shall remain the Republic of Macedonia”);by using symbols – including the Vergina Sun and other symbols that are part of Greece’s historical and cultural heritage – the use of which is prohibited under article 7.2 of the Interim Accord. Other instances of this violation include the renaming Skopje’s airport “Alexander the Great”, the raising of statues of Alexander the Great and Philip II, and naming the section of Corridor X that passes through the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia “Alexander the Macedonian”, construction of the “Porta Macedonia” arch, the surface of which bears carved reliefs depicting scenes from ancient Greek history and the Vergina Sun, as well as express reference to “Aegean Macedonia”, raising of monuments in Katlanovo and Tetovo adorned with the Vergina Sun, raising of monuments in Gevgelija, in the municipality of Gazi Baba, Skopje, with depictions of the Vergina Sun and maps of “Great Macedonia”.by taking or tolerating provocative actions that incite hostility and fanaticism, including desecration of the Greek flag and substitution of the Nazi swastika for the Christian cross, harassment of Greek businesses, businesspersons and tourists, etc., in violation of article 7.1, irredentist slogans shouted by Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia supporters at international sporting events, actions both provocative and insulting to Greece at the Carnival of Vevčani, which is funded by the Culture Ministry of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.A fundamental principle of every negotiation between states is that the involved parties must negotiate in good faith and a constructive spirit, and exhaust every possibility of reaching a compromise solution.Greece is firm in its sincere will to achieve a viable solution of the issue of the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The Greek government has proposed a realistic and viable settlement framework that is aimed at the finding of a definitive solution to the issue of the name. Our position is clear: a compound name with a geographical qualifier before the word “Macedonia”, which will be used in relation to everyone (erga omnes), for all uses domestic and international.In October 2012, the Greek government took a major initiative aimed at imparting momentum to the negotiation process for the resolution of the name issue. The Greek Foreign Minister sent a letter to his Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia counterpart, proposing that the two countries sign a Memorandum of Understanding that would set out the framework and basic parameters for the definitive resolution of the name issue. Specifically, this letter proposed that in order to provide a fresh impetus to the substance of the negotiations under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General, it is necessary to proceed on the basis of an agreed framework on the basic parameters of a solution which should include an agreement on the fact that any proposal should contain a clear and definitive qualifier regarding the name, which will leave no ambiguities as to the distinction between the territory of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and regions in neighbouring countries, in particular, the region of Macedonia in northern Greece, and that the name agreed upon will be used by all erga omnes and for all purposes. The international response to this proposal was positive.In its response, the side of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, while thanking the Greek side for its proposal, reiterated its longstanding positions, essentially dismissing the Greek proposal.The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has so far not responded to Greece’s moves and insists intransigently on its initial position, which it is attempting to impose de facto internationally, with the result that substantial progress has not been made in the 19 years of negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations.It is clear that through this stance the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is failing to respect the principle of good neighbourly relations.Within this framework, at the Bucharest NATO Summit in April 2008, the members of the Alliance decided in a collective and unanimous decision that an accession invitation will be extended to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia only if the name issue has been resolved in a mutually acceptable manner. This decision has been reaffirmed and reiterated at all subsequent NATO Summits, including those in Strasbourg (2009), Lisbon (2010), and Chicago (2012). The Wales Summit Meeting (2014) did not have an enlargement tone.On 17 November 2008, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia applied to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague against Greece, alleging that Greece raised objection to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s accession to NATO at the Bucharest Summit in 2008.In this case, the International Court of Justice in The Hague did not go into the substance of the name dispute, noting that it does not have the relevant jurisdiction, and that the dispute must be resolved within the framework determined by the resolutions of the UN Security Council: through negotiations under the auspices of the UN. The ICJ also called on the two sides to engage in substantial negotiations under the auspices of the UN.The Ruling does not concern and could not concern the NATO decision-making process or the criteria and requirements the Alliance sets for countries aspiring to NATO membership.At the June 2008 European Council the EU decided, in a collective and unanimous decision, that the resolution of the name issue in a mutually acceptable manner is a fundamental necessity if further steps are to be taken on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s EU accession course.In December 2012, the European Council decided, in a collective and unanimous decision, that the opening of EU accession negotiations with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia hinges on implementation of the necessary reforms, promotion of and respect for good neighbourly relations, and the resolution of the name issue within the framework of the negotiations under the UN. The resolution of the name issue is thus set as a prerequisite for the opening of accession’s negotiations between the EU and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and as a criterion for the maintaining of good neighbourly relations with Greece. In December 2013, the European Council, in a collective and unanimous decision, did not accept the European Commission’s recommendation to grant a date for the opening of accession negotiations. The Council decided that it would re-examine this prospect within 2014, based on a new briefing from the Commission on the progress of reforms and the taking of tangible steps by Skopje to promote good neighbourly relations and the finding of a mutually acceptable solution to the issue of the name, within the framework of the negotiations under the auspices of the UN.Greece supports rather than opposes the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s European and Euroatlantic perspective. It was also with Greece’s consent that the visa requirement for citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was abolished. But the basic objective prerequisite for the continuation and completion of the European and Euroatlantic courses of every candidate country is adoption of and respect in practice for the fundamental principles of the organization they want to join, and particularly the principle of good neighbourly relations, which is the basis for a partnership or alliance between states.Instead of acknowledging and appreciating Greece’s support for its European and Euroatlantic course, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia usually answers Greece’s gestures of support with fresh provocations and a hardened stance.A compound name with a geographical qualifier for use in relations to everyone (erga omnes) is the best possible basis for finding an honest, mutually beneficial compromise that will not create winners and losers, but will lay the foundations for the development of a healthy and stable bilateral relationship based on the principle of respect for good neighbourly relations, and will strengthen peace and stability in the wider region.Greece desires and is pursuing the mutually acceptable, clear and definitive resolution of the name issue – through a solution that will not create tensions in the future – at the soonest possible timeThe Greek government is making every effort towards this direction. Greece remains steadfastly dedicated to the negotiation process under UN special envoy Matthew Nimetz.Despite the existence of this serious issue, which impacts the relations between the two countries, Greece continues to have a prominent economic presence in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, contributing substantially and significantly to development, job creation, infrastructure construction, etc., in our neighbouring country.The resolution of the name issue will remove a major point of friction from the relations between the two countries and will allow for full realization of the great potential for cooperation between the two countries.source: FYROM Name Issue

No, the man was a racist mass murderer — for example, his use of chemical weapons in 1919:=================Secrecy was paramount. Britain's imperial general staff knew there would be outrage if it became known that the government was intending to use its secret stockpile of chemical weapons. But Winston Churchill, then secretary of state for war, brushed aside their concerns. As a long-term advocate of chemical warfare, he was determined to use them against the Russian Bolsheviks. In the summer of 1919, 94 years before the devastating strike in Syria, Churchill planned and executed a sustained chemical attack on northern Russia.The British were no strangers to the use of chemical weapons. During the third battle of Gaza in 1917, General Edmund Allenby had fired 10,000 cans of asphyxiating gas at enemy positions, to limited effect. But in the final months of the first world war, scientists at the governmental laboratories at Porton in Wiltshire developed a far more devastating weapon: the top secret "M Device", an exploding shell containing a highly toxic gas called diphenylaminechloroarsine. The man in charge of developing it, Major General Charles Foulkes, called it "the most effective chemical weapon ever devised".Trials at Porton suggested that it was indeed a terrible new weapon. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and instant, crippling fatigue were the most common reactions. The overall head of chemical warfare production, Sir Keith Price, was convinced its use would lead to the rapid collapse of the Bolshevik regime. "If you got home only once with the gas you would find no more Bolshies this side of Vologda."The cabinet was hostile to the use of such weapons, much to Churchill's irritation. He also wanted to use M Devices against the rebellious tribes of northern India. "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he declared in one secret memorandum. He criticised his colleagues for their "squeamishness", declaring that "the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a more merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war."He ended his memo on a note of ill-placed black humour: "Why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze?" he asked. "It is really too silly."A staggering 50,000 M Devices were shipped to Russia: British aerial attacks using them began on 27 August 1919, targeting the village of Emtsa, 120 miles south of Archangel. Bolshevik soldiers were seen fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the cloud vomited blood, then collapsed unconscious.The attacks continued throughout September on many Bolshevik-held villages: Chunova, Vikhtova, Pocha, Chorga, Tavoigor and Zapolki. But the weapons proved less effective than Churchill had hoped, partly because of the damp autumn weather. By September, the attacks were halted then stopped. Two weeks later the remaining weapons were dumped in the White Sea. They remain on the seabed to this day in 40 fathoms of water.========================From here:Winston Churchill's shocking use of chemical weaponsAnd he was also a big fan of Mussolini; here he is in a letter to the fascist dictator:====================What a man! I have lost my heart!... Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world.... If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passion of Leninism.====================Benito MussoliniHis admiration for fascism didn’t stop there, either:===================Churchill is most well-known for leading Britain to victory against Hitler and Nazism and is thus regarded as a ‘defender of democracy’. Not only does this view cast history as the making of one man’s actions, it also overlooks the millions who fought and died to prevent the triumph of fascism. Moreover, the myth that Churchill was an ardent critic of totalitarianism doesn’t add up with his professed admiration for fascist leaders…. As late as 1938, with the onset of fascism in parts of Europe and it’s quite apparent totalitarian traits, he wrote with glowing esteem of Mussolini’s “amazing qualities of courage, comprehension, self-control and perseverance which he exemplifies.” (Burns, 2010)His leadership in the fight against fascism wasn’t due to any deep loathing of autocracy. Rather, when it looked increasingly likely that fascist powers may begin to dominate Europe and therefore challenge British imperial interests, Churchill was ready to defend his class and Britain’s influence across the globe. “I have not become the King’s first minister,” he wrote in 1942, “to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.” (Wheatcroft, 2014) Anything that confronted British capitalism as directly as Nazism would be contested – Churchill’s aim was not to defeat fascism as such, but to represent the British ruling class in its fight against German imperialism. Although a section within the British ruling class favoured conciliation with Germany – championed by the likes of Chamberlain and Halifax – Churchill was aware of Hitler’s past record and that any potential agreement could just as quickly be broken if Hitler saw it in his best interests – a potential humiliation to the empire he so deeply cherished. Churchill was sympathetic towards Mussolini’s fascism insofar that it repelled the Italian workers’ movement and remained non-threatening towards Britain. This was not replicated with Hitler, whose military capacity was rapidly becoming a threat to British post-WWI dominance. As Chris Bambery put it: “Churchill was opposed to Germany from the mid-1930s onwards because he recognized it threatened Britain’s position in Europe and the world.” (Bambery, 1995)Churchill had no qualms in arming troops who had collaborated with the Nazis as long as it was advantageous to Britain’s imperial leverage, as the Greek resistance and those who played a significant role in the struggle against German occupation would discover in 1944. The Greek resistance, a key force in the region and ally of the British, were betrayed when the British Army switched allegiances after the Germans withdrew from the country. Churchill had no intention of enforcing democracy in Greece. Instead, the plan was to crush any communist resistance and reinstall the Greek King – a monarch previously aligned with the proto-fascist dictator Metaxas. This was a premeditated strategy to keep Greece as a “British sphere of influence”. Prior, Churchill had proposed to Stalin a “percentages agreement” which would divide Eastern Europe into two power bases: the plan allowed Greece to be accorded to Britain and in return Russia would take Romania and Bulgaria. Aware of its implications, Churchill called the paper on which the agreement rested, a “naughty document” (Rasor, 2000). When fighting broke out the soldiers fighting on behalf of the British were former Nazi collaborationists from the ‘Security Battalion’, a military group set up to support German soldiers during occupation.=====================His ‘admirable’ qualities didn’t end there:=====================Churchill was a fierce and unrelenting imperialist; he envisioned the British Empire as the embodiment of progress, which informed his belief, Lawrence James writes, that it was “uniquely qualified to further progress and enlightenment throughout the world” (James, 2013). This “progress” and “enlightenment”, however, came at the expense of millions of lives globally and was justified based on white supremacist attitudes. Churchill’s grotesque racism is well documented. “I hate Indians,” he wrote. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” (Hari, 2010) He wrote callously of most races which he deemed inferior. Palestinians were “barbaric hordes who ate little but rabbit dung” (Hari, 2010) and in a recently uncovered article from 1937 – written by his ghost writer but read and approved by Churchill himself – Jews were “partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer.” (Butcher, 2007)Churchill espoused these views candidly throughout his life and they remained mostly unchanged until his death. He saw Britain as being the “winners in a social Darwinian hierarchy” (Heyden, 2015), as his biographer John Charmley describes. This is exemplified in comments he made to the Palestine Royal Commission in 1937. “I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people,” he said of native Americans and Australians, “by the fact that, a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”Most significantly, Churchill’s racism was not restricted to just words: he occupied positions of power and made decisions that deeply affected millions of people subject to British rule. His opinions of India and the actions (or lack thereof) he undertook played a large role in the horrific 1943 Bengal famine. Three million Indians were starved to death “directly and inevitably” (Mukerjee, 2010) as a result of decisions he made between 1940 and 1944. In Madhusree Mukherjee’s Churchill’s Secret War, a chilling account of British policy in India, she details how Churchill and his advisors were primarily responsible for the deprivation that ensued. Wheat exported from India was used to feed the allied armies of Europe for the war effort, continuing although Churchill was repeatedly informed of the mass starvation taking place in India’s cities. Churchill routinely restricted food aid reaching the country. The Secretary of State for India at the time questioned whether Churchill’s views on the country were “really quite sane” noting that he didn’t “see much different between [Churchill’s] outlook and Hitler’s.” (Tharoor, 2015) He merely brushed aside the mass starvation of millions of people. It was “their own fault”, he said in a war-cabinet meeting when the famine was discussed, “for breeding like rabbits.” (Osbourne, 2016)…‘Arial policing’ – in other terms chemical warfare – was a war strategy Churchill favoured and encouraged his colleagues to support. He persistently pushed for the use of gas bombs, which, during the Arab uprising of 1920, he instructed the RAF to deploy on the “uncivilized tribes” – anyone who condemned such barbaric warfare he accused of “squeamishness”…. Similar tactics were used some years later in the fire-bombing of Dresden.=====================The last two passages were taken from here (where details concerning the references used can be found):Winston Churchill: the man, the myth, the murdererChurchill also had more to say about the Jews:===================“According to Churchill, it was impossible to ‘exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews.’“Like Goebbels in his speech fifteen years later, Churchill listed a succession of dangerous Jewish Marxists, drawing a line from Marx via Rosa Luxemburg to the American anarchist Emma Goldman and the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky. Churchill outlines a ‘sinister confederacy’ of disgruntled Jews, a ‘world-wide conspiracy’ in which these international Jews’ work for the ‘overthrow of civilization.’“’This movement among the Jews is not new,’ Churchill states. On the contrary, he sees them playing a ‘definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.’ Indeed, they are the ‘mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads.’“Make no mistake’, according to Churchill these ‘international Jews’ are not ordinary political adversaries. Rather, they are ‘evil,’ ‘diabolical,’ and ‘sinister.’”==================From here:The Return of “Judeo-Bolshevism”