It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 




that only applied to 'white' Jews. Jews who possessed Slavic characteristics had already been summarily executed by the Eisatzgruppen in the course of the invasions.


Perhaps you mean Jews of Semitic appearance rather than Slavic?




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
Exactly, this is the point I was making a few pages back about history in schools being chosen information deliberately missing out relevant facts. This it appears, is the point OP is trying to make, that there are aspects PRIOR to WW2 that with the right politics it could and should have been prevented.


Of course the history in schools is abridged and edited...or should our children just study history all day everyday...the curriculum is based upon what your government thinks that you need to know, it cannot cover everything.

Yes, WW2 could have been avoided...but then so could have WW1. We, the allies, could have let them build the Berlin to Baghdad railway. But we didn't...for the very same reason that we didn't allow them to have control over the Eurasian landmass as Hitler intended. Politics is not the issue here...it never is when economics are involved.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
Perhaps you mean Jews of Semitic appearance rather than Slavic?


Why would I mean Arabic?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


Pre war jewish population of Poland = 3,300,000

Post war jewish population of Poland = 300,000

are you telling me that 3 million jews were partisans ? Seriously ?


of course not! don't put words in my mouth, all I was trying to say is that there was a high number of communist affiliation with some partisan Jews fighting against the Nazis! duh....

and please show me the source for your numbers, I'm interested


Numerous websites. The sources i used were similar accross all the sites i found to check the numbers. THere's too many to list so just fire up google and check away.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logos23

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by Logos23

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening


you're actually wrong there, Hitler does in fact mention gas in Mein Kampf, I believe he was referring to the Jews in Germany during the first world war, which he saw as saboteurs, partisans and really whatever else.


Even if the mass gassing of Jews in 1925 was a thought he had in retrospect only at that time.....it was a plan that worked out pretty well for him at a future time in WWII wouldn't you say?


he wasn't thinking about using gas to kill the jews in 1925, he was talking about the Jews during ww1. I think he meant in retrospect it would have fitted his plan to kill the jews during the first world war


Again.....even if one argues that in 1925 when Hitler mentions killing large numbers of Jews by gassing them in Mein Kampf and mentions at that time that the Jewish people were an inferior race BUT he was only talking in reference to WWI and it wasn't his intent or plan for the future......it was an "unintentional" plan that worked out quite well for him in WWII if that's the case!
I can't get away from the fact you are suggesting that even though he mentioned gassing the Jews he considered an inferior race in 1925 that it wasn't actually his desire or intent AFTER WWI....if it wasn't his intent or desire then coincidence much?


you misunderstood me, the actual Holocaust, the complete destruction of European Jews, was not the one and only answer to the Nazi's jewish question. Deportation into the east, resettlement, creation of Jewish lands in the east through defeat of the soviet union, the Madagascar plan.....the killings were the last and ultimate choice.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 




that only applied to 'white' Jews. Jews who possessed Slavic characteristics had already been summarily executed by the Eisatzgruppen in the course of the invasions.


If you do not mean Semitic appearance then please clarify your perception of ''Slavic characteristics''.
edit on 14-1-2013 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
Exactly, this is the point I was making a few pages back about history in schools being chosen information deliberately missing out relevant facts. This it appears, is the point OP is trying to make, that there are aspects PRIOR to WW2 that with the right politics it could and should have been prevented.


Of course the history in schools is abridged and edited...or should our children just study history all day everyday...the curriculum is based upon what your government thinks that you need to know, it cannot cover everything.

Yes, WW2 could have been avoided...but then so could have WW1. We, the allies, could have let them build the Berlin to Baghdad railway. But we didn't...for the very same reason that we didn't allow them to have control over the Eurasian landmass as Hitler intended. Politics is not the issue here...it never is when economics are involved.


I just firmly believe that ww2 a) was never planned by the nazis to become what it became, b) could have been avoided through negotiation, especially on the "stolen" lands of Germany which Poland occupied, c) could have ended in 1941, d) could have turned into Germany and the UK fighting side by side against the imperial Soviet Union which was targeting the entirety of Europe



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


Hitler was a Megalomaniac. Convinced of his infallibility and the righteousness of his cause (a flaw that was useful to the allies later as he came further unglued). They weren't going to stop until they were stopped.

The UK could have bought itself time by throwing the rest of Europe to the dogs. Fortunately we were better than that and it would only have been a postponement anyway.

Churchill, to his credit, understood Hitlers nature long before any of his contemporaries did. He was very unpopular for a while because of it.

The Nazi regime and ideology was an evil one. In the end it had to be submitted to or destroyed. The right path was chosen.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
If you do not mean Semitic appearance then please clarify your perception of ''Slavic appearance''.


My perception has nothing to do with it, as I have been perfectly clear about. If you want to know what the Nazis meant by Slavic then I suggest that you look into Nazi Racial Policy. Mein Kampf is a good place to start...but also Goebbel's speeches are also a good source of that kind of racist vitrol...as are some of the propaganda films produced by his department.

Besides, I never said 'appearance', I said 'characteristics'...they had teams of pseudo-professionals that did such evaluations and took the necessary measurements, based on equally pseudo-scientific studies.

People are people in my book...not my judgement, I am merely reporting on what the Nazis believed.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


Hitler was a Megalomaniac. Convinced of his infallibility and the righteousness of his cause (a flaw that was useful to the allies later as he came further unglued). They weren't going to stop until they were stopped.

The UK could have bought itself time by throwing the rest of Europe to the dogs. Fortunately we were better than that and it would only have been a postponement anyway.

Churchill, to his credit, understood Hitlers nature long before any of his contemporaries did. He was very unpopular for a while because of it.

The Nazi regime and ideology was an evil one. In the end it had to be submitted to or destroyed. The right path was chosen.


as much as I agree that the third reich needed to be overthrown especially for everything after 41 or 42, but to be honest, you make it very easy for yourself by calling any government "evil". As much as I dislike the Soviet Union and actually think it to be worse in its intentions than the 3rd reich, I still wouldn't call it "evil", I just think that's what you get when you have a largely atheist, socialist, stringent government



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
I just firmly believe that ww2 a) was never planned by the nazis to become what it became, b) could have been avoided through negotiation, especially on the "stolen" lands of Germany which Poland occupied, c) could have ended in 1941, d) could have turned into Germany and the UK fighting side by side against the imperial Soviet Union which was targeting the entirety of Europe


A) Of course it wasn't, because they lost.
B) The stolen lands you're talking about were in fact stolen by Prussia from Poland during the infamous Partitions of that latter country and, believe it or not, there were Poles on that land.
C) No, the war could not have ended in 1941. Not unless Hitler was willing to regurgitate his ill-gotten gains.
D) Stalin was not, as far as I know, planning anything of the sort.

You're currently 0/4.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
I just firmly believe that ww2 a) was never planned by the nazis to become what it became, b) could have been avoided through negotiation, especially on the "stolen" lands of Germany which Poland occupied, c) could have ended in 1941, d) could have turned into Germany and the UK fighting side by side against the imperial Soviet Union which was targeting the entirety of Europe


I would really like to agree with you, and technically you are right...but personalities and national dispositions were too important. Hitler was not the threat, the attitude of German imperialistic ambition was...Hitler merely was the facilitator of that, and therefore it was that attitude that had to be destroyed. Had we accepted peace in 1941, Germany still would have wanted to reclaim it's former territories up to the Urals. Eventually. And from Britain's point of view, it would still be a threat to Britain's trade position, because it would have wanted to improve and develop transport communications that would have destroyed sea trade. That is where Churchill and his people were coming from, and that is why they were fighting the war.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
I just firmly believe that ww2 a) was never planned by the nazis to become what it became, b) could have been avoided through negotiation, especially on the "stolen" lands of Germany which Poland occupied, c) could have ended in 1941, d) could have turned into Germany and the UK fighting side by side against the imperial Soviet Union which was targeting the entirety of Europe


A) Of course it wasn't, because they lost.
B) The stolen lands you're talking about were in fact stolen by Prussia from Poland during the infamous Partitions of that latter country and, believe it or not, there were Poles on that land.
C) No, the war could not have ended in 1941. Not unless Hitler was willing to regurgitate his ill-gotten gains.
D) Stalin was not, as far as I know, planning anything of the sort.

You're currently 0/4.


b) you're just picking history. every single land is somewhere sometime stolen from somebody. the fact remains that the German areas that were occupied by Poland after ww1 were for centuries part of the Holy Roman Empire (the pre-Germany so to say) and then of course they housed one of the core lands of Germany, Prussia. You are talking about the 19th century partitions, I'm talking waaay before that lol

d) yes he was, Stalin was secretly preparing for an attack against Europe, first Germany, then other countries. They were dismantling their borders with Germany to let large amounts of tanks roll through, they also built fresh new landing zones directly at the border AND the various Russian heads and sub-heads of the gigantic red army were supplied with military maps of German territories just weeks before Hitler took the initiative and attacked them first. By the end of 1941 Stalin would have attacked anyway



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
I just firmly believe that ww2 a) was never planned by the nazis to become what it became, b) could have been avoided through negotiation, especially on the "stolen" lands of Germany which Poland occupied, c) could have ended in 1941, d) could have turned into Germany and the UK fighting side by side against the imperial Soviet Union which was targeting the entirety of Europe


I would really like to agree with you, and technically you are right...but personalities and national dispositions were too important. Hitler was not the threat, the attitude of German imperialistic ambition was...Hitler merely was the facilitator of that, and therefore it was that attitude that had to be destroyed. Had we accepted peace in 1941, Germany still would have wanted to reclaim it's former territories up to the Urals. Eventually. And from Britain's point of view, it would still be a threat to Britain's trade position, because it would have wanted to improve and develop transport communications that would have destroyed sea trade. That is where Churchill and his people were coming from, and that is why they were fighting the war.


totally agree, just one thing, Germany never had former territories up to the ural mountains. what you are talking about was a temporary demarcation line for military advances against the Soviets.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


I have read these and I am aware of their policies but you said those of ''Slavic characteristics'' were exterminated first. It doesn't tie with general knowledge of Nazi race perception nor historically during WW2.

There are varying definitions of Slavic characteristics and even the Nazis recognised this and even accepted some Slavs into their army.

The first racial groups exterminated were Jews, naturally Semitic in appearance.

en.wikipedia.org...


The Nazis considered Slavs to be a severely contaminated race, including: Bosniaks, Croats, Czechs, Poles, Russians, Serbs, Ukrainians who were classified as "subhumans", although a certain percentage of these ethnic groups were seen fit to be Germanised and thus be considered Aryans.[8] However, Nazi policy towards Slavs changed during World War II when Nazi Germany accepted Slavs to serve in its armed forces within occupied territories, in spite of them being considered subhuman, as a pragmatic means to resolve military manpower shortages.[8] At the bottom of the racial scale of non-Aryans were Jews, Romani, and blacks.[9] The Nazis later made an exception to the policy of viewing Croats as Slavs upon the prompting of Croatian Ustase leader Ante Pavelic of the Axis puppet state in Croatia, who claimed that Croats were primarily the descendents of the Goths and thus had stronger Germanic roots than Slavic roots.[10] The Nazis originally sought to rid the German state of Jews and Romani by means of emigration, while blacks were to be segregated and eventually exterminated through compulsory sterilization.[9]




Between 1933 and 1934, Nazi policy was fairly moderate, not wishing to scare off voters or moderately minded politicians (although the eugenics program was established as early as July 1933).[12] On August 25, 1933, the Nazis even signed the Haavara Agreement with Zionists to allow German Jews to emigrate to Palestine—by 1939, 60,000 German Jews had emigrated there. The Nazi Party used populist anti-semitic views to gain votes. Using the "stab-in-the-back legend", they blamed poverty, the Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic, unemployment, and the loss of World War I by the "November Criminals" all on the Jews, Marxists and 'cultural Bolsheviks'. German woes were attributed to the effects of the Treaty of Versailles. In 1933, persecution of the Jews became active Nazi policy. This was at first hindered by the lack of agreement on who qualified as a Jew as opposed to an Aryan, which caused legislators to balk at an anti-Semitic law for its ill-defined terms.[12] Bernhard Lösener described it "total chaos", with local authorities regarding anything from full Jewish background to 1⁄8 Jewish blood defining a Jew; Achim Gercke urged 1⁄16 Jewish blood.[13] Mischlinge were especially problematic in their eyes.[14] The first anti-Semitic law was promologated with no clear definition of Jew.[15] Finally, the decision was made for three or four Jewish grandparents; two or one rendered a person a Mischlinge.[16] It only became worse with the years, culminating in the Holocaust, or so-called "Final Solution", which was made official at the January 1942 Wannsee Conference. On April 1, 1933, the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses was observed throughout Germany. Only six days later, the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service was passed, banning Jews from government jobs. It is notable that the proponents of this law, and the several thousand more that were to follow, most frequently explained them as necessary to prevent the infiltration of damaging, "alien-type" (Artfremd) hereditary traits into the German national or racial community (Volksgemeinschaft).[17] These laws meant that Jews were now indirectly and directly dissuaded or banned from privileged and superior positions reserved for "Aryan Germans". From then on, Jews were forced to work at more menial positions, becoming second-class citizens or to the point they were "illegally residing" in Nazi Germany.




Though the laws were primarily directed against Jews,[18] other "non-Aryan" people were subject to the laws, and to other legislation concerned with racial hygiene. The definition of "Aryan" was imprecise and ambiguous, but was clarified over time in a number of judicial and executive decisions. Jews were by definition non-Aryan, because of their Semitic origins. All white people (Europeans) were considered to be Aryan as long as they had no Jewish ancestry (Nuremberg Laws) under the definition as "Indo-European". The fact that Aryan is essentially a linguistic rather than a racial category led to some difficulty reconciling Nazi-supported racial typologies with the Aryan concept. Slavs (who are white and Indo-European) were seen as a contaminated race by the Nazis due to their ideology of Lebensraum (living space for the German people in Eastern Europe), although a large percentage of Slavs who were willing to be Germanised were accepted as Aryans, including ethnic Poles, Russians, Czechs and other Slavs by the Nazis. Outside of Europe in North Africa, according to Alfred Rosenberg's racial theories (The Myth of the Twentieth Century), some of the Berbers, particularly the Kabyles, were to be classified as Aryans.[19] The Nazis portrayed Swedes, the Afrikaaners who are white European descendants of Dutch-speaking Boers in South Africa and higher-degree Northern/Western Europeans of South America (mainly from Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina) as ideal "Aryans" along with the German-speaking peoples of Greater Germany and Switzerland (the country was neutral during the war). In Asia, only the Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian populations of present-day Pakistan, North India, Iran, and Afghanistan were considered Aryan.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
honestly, the only inevitable war in my opinion which couldn't have been stopped was most likely the confrontation between the 3rd reich and the Soviet Union, the later allies should have just stopped and watched at how those 2 might have just destroyed themselves, no ww2, problem solved



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
d) yes he was, Stalin was secretly preparing for an attack against Europe, first Germany, then other countries. They were dismantling their borders with Germany to let large amounts of tanks roll through, they also built fresh new landing zones directly at the border AND the various Russian heads and sub-heads of the gigantic red army were supplied with military maps of German territories just weeks before Hitler took the initiative and attacked them first. By the end of 1941 Stalin would have attacked anyway


Nah...Russia could not have attacked without British help...Stalin was looking entirely inward and had a lot of work to do before he was any where near capable of attacking Germany. You have to bear in mind that Stalin was given, by various means, exact details of Barbarossa, but practically laughed them off. He was taken unawares even though he had detailed information that Germany was amassing forces along it's borders.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   

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.


No, harassing, beating, imprisoning, firing, knifing and eventually incinerating Jews, quite unfortunately, motivated absolutely nobody to go to war.

It was the policy of the Third Reich to abrogate its signed treaties, re-arm into an offensive military machine, and then invade Czechoslovakia, Poland, Greece, Denmark, Belgium, France and terrorize the local population which had something to do with the warmongering, in addition to proclaiming an ideology of a "Thousand Year Reign" of Empire.
edit on 14-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
d) yes he was, Stalin was secretly preparing for an attack against Europe, first Germany, then other countries. They were dismantling their borders with Germany to let large amounts of tanks roll through, they also built fresh new landing zones directly at the border AND the various Russian heads and sub-heads of the gigantic red army were supplied with military maps of German territories just weeks before Hitler took the initiative and attacked them first. By the end of 1941 Stalin would have attacked anyway


Nah...Russia could not have attacked without British help...Stalin was looking entirely inward and had a lot of work to do before he was any where near capable of attacking Germany. You have to bear in mind that Stalin was given, by various means, exact details of Barbarossa, but practically laughed them off. He was taken unawares even though he had detailed information that Germany was amassing forces along it's borders.


I entirely disagree, it's one of ww2s long lost facts that Stalin was indeed prepared to take Europe by force, the German intelligence knew this anyway, this was one of the reason why Barbarossa was initiated anyway. ask yourself why this gigantic soviet union was so dismally unprepared when Hitler attacked? why was the red army so incapable during the initial months and into 42? Because their army was entirely based on ATTACK, not DEFEND!



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

A) Of course it wasn't, because they lost.
B) The stolen lands you're talking about were in fact stolen by Prussia from Poland during the infamous Partitions of that latter country and, believe it or not, there were Poles on that land.
C) No, the war could not have ended in 1941. Not unless Hitler was willing to regurgitate his ill-gotten gains.
D) Stalin was not, as far as I know, planning anything of the sort.

You're currently 0/4.


b) you're just picking history. every single land is somewhere sometime stolen from somebody. the fact remains that the German areas that were occupied by Poland after ww1 were for centuries part of the Holy Roman Empire (the pre-Germany so to say) and then of course they housed one of the core lands of Germany, Prussia. You are talking about the 19th century partitions, I'm talking waaay before that lol

d) yes he was, Stalin was secretly preparing for an attack against Europe, first Germany, then other countries. They were dismantling their borders with Germany to let large amounts of tanks roll through, they also built fresh new landing zones directly at the border AND the various Russian heads and sub-heads of the gigantic red army were supplied with military maps of German territories just weeks before Hitler took the initiative and attacked them first. By the end of 1941 Stalin would have attacked anyway


Right. Firstly, Poland was NEVER a part of the Holy Roman Empire, and the lands we are talking about were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And that is waaaaay before the Partitions. Please do some basic homework in other words.
Secondly, please provide a cite for your second claim, because I've never seen anything like it before - and I'm a historian.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join