Question for Commenters

I am not scheduled to blog for today, but I had a question that came to me in my reading that maybe some commentators could debate. The speeches by Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin are in direct correspondence with one another. In┬áChurchill’s speech, he hinted at the possibility of continuing friendships and maintaining good terms with the USSR, especially highlighting sympathy. Stalin on the other hand, completely rebuffed Churchill and attacked him, comparing him to the new Hitler.


Do you think that Churchill was sincere in his remarks? Or was he just playing the political system? Because he tried to give a little bit of respect to Stalin, do you think it made him look weak?

2 thoughts on “Question for Commenters

  1. Churchill did not look weak when addressing Soviet Strength. They had a massive population, and proved their world influence with their rapid industrialization and increasing world influence. Churchill was acknowledging the strengths of the Soviets to avoid the mistake of WWII, which was underestimating the power of Hitler. Recognizing the strength of the Soviets was necessary in finding a way to keep the peace in Europe.

  2. I agree with Lillian’s response. In the post-WWII period the Soviet Union was a powerful force, brought together by the war effort. So they did reserve a certain amount of respect and fear. Churchill was not being completely sincere in his remarks. WWII was a common case of “an enemy of my enemy is a friend,” where Russia was the enemy of Germany, making them our ally strictly out of circumstance. Churchill vehemently opposed Communism and leaned right politically. While he did not condone additional violence, he did not truly wish for both sides to coexist because he knew that the ever present threat of a communist power in eastern Europe made the continent very unstable.

Comments are closed.