John Chuckman
COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
Churchill Had Stalin Killed, US Bombed Russian Far East in 50s - Top Russian Official (Video - Mikhail Poltoranin)
"We hid this from the rest of the world? - We hid a lot of things. Actually, we live in a fog of historical myth..."
Astounding stuff, if true.
There have always been questions about the death of Stalin, of course.
But this set of assertions is something I've never heard of. They are to be taken seriously coming from such an expert on the archives.
If true, all the major Stalin biographers of recent years are in error.
Would it be possible to do a follow-up article on this?
A few more details would be appreciated.
As for Churchill, his reputation in the West has never reflected the true man.
He is the one who started the bombing of civilians in cities in Germany before Germany bombed England.
He was a true imperialist, a war monger, and a considerable racist.
He was quite ruthless in enforcing order in the Empire where he had anything to do with it. Nothing wrong in his mind with machine-gunning down restless natives.
In private, he laughed about meeting the average British voter on the hustings. Never mind all that sentimental clap-trap about democracy.
I believe from his memoirs he actually had rather a grudging admiration for Stalin in private.
__________________
Response to a comment:
Yes, I know Churchill fairly well, having read several of the major biographies as well as his own set of books on the war.
I've never heard anything like that about Roosevelt. He really was a very sick man when he died, supposedly of a stroke, although, I note there was a book saying he actually had cancer which he kept hidden.
But anything is possible with the powerful, as I've well learned.
In general, it is not sheer ability or heroism or principles which guide major leaders, it is greed for money and/or power or some blinding driving ideology, and they faithfully serve those who can offer them what they want.
All the modern European history since the Enlightenment, with rise of voting and rights, etc., has a good deal of falsehood to it. Money still rules in society, with the very odd exception here or there. And of course, some wealthy people are a little more generous in their attitudes than others.
Political structures are arranged so that, despite elections, nothing can go too far from where those with money want to see it go. Some societies, as in the US, are just more blatant about it.
