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

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
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!

Prove it.

Originally posted by mbkennel

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)

Czechoslovakia was invaded by Germany, Poland and Hungary equally. Bet you didn't know that huh

Other countries did the same harassing, beating, imprisoning, firing, knifing of the Jews, Germany just made it a state policy.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

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

To insinuate that the UK would ever be side by side with the 3rd Reich is one of the more asinine things I have ever read on ats

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
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.

Then why do your own sources, as you have quoted, contradict you?

I don't think you have read the information as you claim to have

Or perhaps, you just didn't understand it...

I stated that Jews were not initially killed primarily for being Jewish...some Jews though were killed because they fell into the other targeted groups...intelligensia, ethnic Poles (which the Nazis considered to be of the 'degenerate' Slavic race) etc...but not purely because they were Jewish...not until after 1941.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
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

Nyet. That is not what you get when you have a "largely atheist, socialist, stringent government", because that doesn't distinguish USSR from modern Denmark or Norway.

The core of the USSR was a dangerous ideology (Bolshevism) run by depraved tyrants (Lenin & Stalin).

I stated that Jews were not initially killed primarily for being Jewish...some Jews though were killed because they fell into the other targeted groups...intelligensia, ethnic Poles (which the Nazis considered to be of the 'degenerate' Slavic race) etc...but not purely because they were Jewish...not until after 1941.

Right prior to then they were only stripped from their jobs, beaten, imprisoned, impoverished, humiliated and subjected to extreme bigotry and prejudice primarily for being Jewish.

Let's remember, _Mein Kampf_, back in the 1920's, didn't direct its hate primarily against Slavs. It did so against Jews.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

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.

you misread me, I never said Poland was part of the Holy Roman Empire duh, the PL commonwealth was established after the Poles had (for the 2 or 3rd time?) retaken the lands from Germany. Then Germany comes again, takes it again, and so on it continues. Just judging from historic time these lands were occupied, the Germans had it for longer than the poles.

Originally posted by bknapple32
To insinuate that the UK would ever be side by side with the 3rd Reich is one of the more asinine things I have ever read on ats

Really? What about Montagu Norman, then head of the Bank of England. Lloyd George was in favour of an alliance too. Lord Beaverbrook...Lord Rothmere...the Duke of Windsor...

Churchill, never. But there were plenty of very powerful people in the UK who not only sympathised with Hitler ideologically, but were also more than willing to put their money where their mouths were and invest in Germany.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
you misread me, I never said Poland was part of the Holy Roman Empire duh, the PL commonwealth was established after the Poles had (for the 2 or 3rd time?) retaken the lands from Germany. Then Germany comes again, takes it again, and so on it continues. Just judging from historic time these lands were occupied, the Germans had it for longer than the poles.

No. Just... no. Go away and do some basic research. Then come back and talk to us. This is embarrassing....

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

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

To insinuate that the UK would ever be side by side with the 3rd Reich is one of the more asinine things I have ever read on ats

i know, it's too much for you huh? the European powers were frightened by the Soviet Union, Germany offered to fight against the Soviets side by side with European powers. What you probably don't know is that Operation Barbarossa was not a German operation entirely, there was a small coalition of eastern European states fighting with them against the Soviets. And for post ww2 operations, check out Operation Unthinkable.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I read it perfectly well, it clearly stated that Jews were killed first and primarily because they were Jews and seen as racially inferior.

Slavs were not killed first and many were accepted as Aryans.

You insinuated Jews of ''Slavic characteristics'' were killed first, which doesn't tie with history.

So if you think this then please explain the meaning of Jews of ''Slavic characteristics'' because it doesn't tie into Nazi racial definitions nor to historical fact.

Are you saying you consider Nazis killed Slavs first or Jews first or is there some sort of other 'Slav Jew' that you are aware of that Nazis hated even more?

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
you misread me, I never said Poland was part of the Holy Roman Empire duh, the PL commonwealth was established after the Poles had (for the 2 or 3rd time?) retaken the lands from Germany. Then Germany comes again, takes it again, and so on it continues. Just judging from historic time these lands were occupied, the Germans had it for longer than the poles.

No. Just... no. Go away and do some basic research. Then come back and talk to us. This is embarrassing....

lo, what a great rebuttal, I'm astounded

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
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!

I don't even understand what you mean? That makes no sense whatsoever. Clarify please.

You do know about the Lend for Lease agreements I presume?

reply to post by ConservativeAwakening


Please provide proof coming anywhere close to showing that the UK even considered the notion of joining forces with the 3rd Reich

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


*sigh* Read more carefully next time. After 1941.

My word

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
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!

I don't even understand what you mean? That makes no sense whatsoever. Clarify please.

You do know about the Lend for Lease agreements I presume?

of course I do, I don't see what that has to do with this.

What don't you mean? The Soviet army wasn't trained or prepared for a scenario where they would have to defend themselves. The Soviet Army, the Red Army, was an army that was increasingly trained to ATTACK Europe, starting with Germany to get the goodwill of the allies. The Soviet Union was planning to attack Germany, but the documents haven't thoroughly survived to make this an actual case for the history books, and there's a lot of controversy. If you are interested, check:

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening

 

Please provide proof coming anywhere close to showing that the UK even considered the notion of joining forces with the 3rd Reich

just do some research, the fact that Operation Unthinkable even existed is a good start, I'm too lazy to do it for you sorry

alright, thanks everybody, was nice debating with you about this, signing off

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

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

Its simply my opinion. However the cult of racial superiority that was fundamental to the Nazi ethos was evil. Its been evil everywhere its raised its head. If you look into it the poisonous ideology was apparent in other places and had resulted in other horrors prior to that time but combined with the expansionism and militarism of the Nazis it was at its most dangerous.

The Soviet Union was really no better at the time being under the command of another absolute Psycho. Although the full depravations of the Soviet regime were not apparent in the west at the time.

Ultimately both Germany and the Soviet Union at that time were sick societies moulded in the image of the madmen in charge. One simply took 50 years longer to defeat than the other.

Any time you have a state where absolute power is allowed to accrue to one individual or one closed group of individuals it leads to disaster. It doesn't matter if the origins are in a democracy, communism, fascism or some form of theocracy. Once power is allowed to consolidate that far its going to end badly.

reply to post by ConservativeAwakening


While Churchill can be seen as a warmonger and a butcher (ask any ANZAC), he is not to blame here. Hitler was looking for a fight, and as pointed out Chamberlain was the Prime Minister at the start of the war. Churchill however got lots of ANZACs killed (Gallipoli) or caputed (Cyprus) in both world wars, and thus was persona non gratis in Australia and New Zealand.