Should Churchill be seen as a warmonger and partial escalator of WW2?

Greetings, first thread for me. I'll just say that I was always interested in alternative ww2 history, so I'm sure a lot of you will know the darker side to Churchill. Was he a warmonger? Did he inevitably escalate the situation in Europe to the point of actually somewhat contributing to causing ww2? I always viewed Churchill in an ambiguous light, he seems to me to be rather glorified. I personally believe the war could have been averted if it weren't for England's radical position towards Germany in the 30s and 1939,40. The war could have been stopped by 1940 in my opinion, there are a lot of things that aren't taught in school about the beginnings of the war, England was the first to pursue radically aggressive measures towards Germany in the UK-German conflict, like the bombing of civilian areas. The Blitz in fact was retaliation against the multiple times Churchill had ordered the bombing of Berlin and other cities. So what do you think? Did Churchill make the European situation worse? I believe so.

reply to post by ConservativeAwakening


Um I'm pretty sure Hitler inscinerating millions of Jews had something to do with it. Me thinks Churchill had no choice but to take out a man trying to conquer Europe.

They entered the war under Chamberlain and not Churchill methinks.

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening

 

Um I'm pretty sure Hitler inscinerating millions of Jews had something to do with it. Me thinks Churchill had no choice but to take out a man trying to conquer Europe.

Bull#, we're talking about 1933-1939 and the initial stages after the invasion of Poland. If Churchill never had done the insane measures against Germany, the Holocaust would have never happened. And sorry to burst your bubble, but it was never the intention of Hitler to "conquer" Europe. Hitler wanted to rightfully insert the German land that was stolen from them after Versaille back into Germany Proper. But that land was occupied by Poles who were unwilling to hand it over. 99% of that land housed Germans btw.

reply to post by primus2012


Ya I didn't even bother with that. Whoops lol.

You do know he wasn't the Prime Minister when Germany invaded Poland, right ? As he was lacking any executive power before the start of the second world war, I would suggest that your initial premise is based on false assumptions. I'd blame Hitlers national socialist movement and the aggressive foreign policy adopted by HItler and his followers. Stanly Baldwin and Nevile Chamberlain could be held slightly responsible as they failed to act on the developing problem of German military expansion in the pre-war years.

reply to post by ConservativeAwakening


I recall learning about this from books whilst studying higher (A level) History at school, it was from various library books and was contrary to the 'edited' version we were taught in school, that basically was more British propaganda and teaching of selective information with a definite perspective rather than a general truthful overview.

I said to the teacher during class who was horrified that I dared question his curriculum viewpoint. I said it was facts from various sources that I read about whilst researching, it was validated by newspaper reports etc and seemed like a more true version. I was basically told to not question and was told off for having the audacity to dare.

Furthermore there were some comments such as ''nazi'' from others.


I will clarify this now, as I did then, that my moral compass is set to correct and that preferring the truth doesn't mean validation of any acts of atrocity.

From then I have held a mistrust of unquestioning belief in the teachings of government set curriculum subjects as standard and always look further than that taught, same for that reported by MSM.

There was so much going on in Europe after WW1 that sanctions against Germany and other factors, basically left it ripe for nationalist agendas and Hitler.

There are conspiracies as to agendas forcing America into war and other motives, it is such a medley for determining, but essentially it was the ruin of Europe and the British Empire.

WW2 could probably have been prevented with clever politics instead of warmongering, shame it wasn't.

reply to post by ConservativeAwakening


The Holocaust would never have happened if it weren't for Churchill? Reread history. If anything it was the results of world war one that caused ww2 if anything.

Originally posted by primus2012
They entered the war under Chamberlain and not Churchill methinks.

true, but Churchill nevertheless was pivotal in the English position towards Germany and Hitler. Churchill was a radical, much like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. But he isn't remembered as such, because he won the war. It was Churchill that started the fire bombing of civilian areas without any reason.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
I personally believe the war could have been averted if it weren't for England's radical position towards Germany in the 30s and 1939,40.

You believe wrong.

there are a lot of things that aren't taught in school about the beginnings of the war,

Like what? (that is of importance in this matter, that is)

England was the first to pursue radically aggressive measures towards Germany

Germany starting wars against neighboring countries and then declaring war on England is not radically aggressive?

, like the bombing of civilian areas. No wonder the Germans retaliated with the Blitz, the Brits did it first anyway. So what do you think? Did Churchill make the European situation worse? I believe so.

Maybe you are right. England should just have been invaded as Hitler wanted. Had the English agreed on that, clearly it would have saved plenty of lives. Good thinking.

Churchill took the reigns of WW2
Was he a warmonger? hell yes..and exactly what you want in charge when your country is under attack.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Winston Churchill

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by primus2012
They entered the war under Chamberlain and not Churchill methinks.

true, but Churchill nevertheless was pivotal in the English position towards Germany and Hitler. Churchill was a radical, much like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. But he isn't remembered as such, because he won the war. It was Churchill that started the fire bombing of civilian areas without any reason.

Without reason? Link please or you're just making it up. As it stands now, Hitler, and stalin :50, 000, 000 dead. Churchill? Do I even have to. ..

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening

 

The Holocaust would never have happened if it weren't for Churchill? Reread history. If anything it was the results of world war one that caused ww2 if anything.

edit on 14-1-2013 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)

The Nazis never could have had the means to operate the Holocaust of France and Britain hadn't declared war against Germany. Remember, Germany didn't declare war against anybody, if was france and england that radically forced Europe into a confrontation that could have ended without war, and without European Jewry eliminated.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
Did he inevitably escalate the situation in Europe to the point of actually somewhat causing ww2?

I suggest you do some research, Germany started invading Poland 1/9/1939, on the 3/9/1939 Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty and a member of the War Cabinet. It was not until 10/5/1940 that Churchill was appointed PM.

So he did not "escalate the situation in Europe", Germany did that by invading Poland.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening

 

The Holocaust would never have happened if it weren't for Churchill? Reread history. If anything it was the results of world war one that caused ww2 if anything.

edit on 14-1-2013 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)

The Nazis never could have had the means to operate the Holocaust of France and Britain hadn't declared war against Germany. Remember, Germany didn't declare war against anybody, if was france and england that radically forced Europe into a confrontation that could have ended without war, and without European Jewry eliminated.

Do you even know when things took place? I think you have your timelines far out of place. Hitler invaded Poland and was murdering Jews before England declared war.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by primus2012
They entered the war under Chamberlain and not Churchill methinks.

true, but Churchill nevertheless was pivotal in the English position towards Germany and Hitler. Churchill was a radical, much like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. But he isn't remembered as such, because he won the war. It was Churchill that started the fire bombing of civilian areas without any reason.

Without any reason..with the exception of the whole war thing at their doorsteps.
German people fueled the Nazi war machine. Either willingly or not, the civilians were fair game in that war given every aspect of the country was a machine of war. Brutal, but wars are.

Hitler didn't even get elected mind you..he took control of Germany after false flag ops on the german people...there isn't really much wiggle room for who was in the right for WW2. WW1, you can split hairs, but WW2 was pretty black and white. Was there more to it than history books teach us? of course..but that does not therefore invalidate what history does discuss.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
Did he inevitably escalate the situation in Europe to the point of actually somewhat causing ww2?

I suggest you do some research, Germany started invading Poland 1/9/1939, on the 3/9/1939 Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty and a member of the War Cabinet. It was not until 10/5/1940 that Churchill was appointed PM.

So he did not "escalate the situation in Europe", Germany did that by invading Poland.

you're absolutely right. BUT remember this, Germany did not declare war against anybody. People seem to forget that. Germany didn't even declare war against Poland because they didn't see their invasion of Poland as a war, they saw it as a justification against the border cruelties happening every day between Germany and Poland. And I wasn't referring to an escalation early on, I meant after the invasion, Churchill pretty much WANTED war against Germany, whereas the Nazis weren't even thinking about war funny enough.

The only thing I'd concede, and I hesitate because I'm smelling an agenda with the op... But I'd concede Germany would never have let Hitler assume power had the country not have gotten so much of a shaft from ww1. The treaty left Germany in near poverty and ripe for a charismatic leader to assume power.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by primus2012
They entered the war under Chamberlain and not Churchill methinks.

true, but Churchill nevertheless was pivotal in the English position towards Germany and Hitler. Churchill was a radical, much like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. But he isn't remembered as such, because he won the war. It was Churchill that started the fire bombing of civilian areas without any reason.

Without any reason..with the exception of the whole war thing at their doorsteps.
German people fueled the Nazi war machine. Either willingly or not, the civilians were fair game in that war given every aspect of the country was a machine of war. Brutal, but wars are.

Hitler didn't even get elected mind you..he took control of Germany after false flag ops on the german people...there isn't really much wiggle room for who was in the right for WW2. WW1, you can split hairs, but WW2 was pretty black and white. Was there more to it than history books teach us? of course..but that does not therefore invalidate what history does discuss.

Sure, you're absolutely right, but you have forgotten who actually started the aggression between the UK and Germany. Do you know that Hitler actually wanted a union between their two countries? It was only after Churchill had directly ordered to fire bomb German cities (a tactic the Germans DID NOT do against the British) that Hitler went berserk and pulled out the Blitz

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
Did he inevitably escalate the situation in Europe to the point of actually somewhat causing ww2?

I suggest you do some research, Germany started invading Poland 1/9/1939, on the 3/9/1939 Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty and a member of the War Cabinet. It was not until 10/5/1940 that Churchill was appointed PM.

So he did not "escalate the situation in Europe", Germany did that by invading Poland.

you're absolutely right. BUT remember this, Germany did not declare war against anybody. People seem to forget that. Germany didn't even declare war against Poland because they didn't see their invasion of Poland as a war, they saw it as a justification against the border cruelties happening every day between Germany and Poland. And I wasn't referring to an escalation early on, I meant after the invasion, Churchill pretty much WANTED war against Germany, whereas the Nazis weren't even thinking about war funny enough.

They weren't? You're new here so I'll help. You need to cite sources to back up claims like this. Otherwise no one will take you seriously.