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: 16
11
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


yeah although that's probably all true, you have to be careful, there's a lot of anti-jewish and anti-zionist propaganda out there about ww2...




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


What else do you deny about WW2 I wonder?



that Hitler was a threat to Europe



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


What else do you deny about WW2 I wonder?



that Hitler was a threat to Europe


OMG I think thats where il leave it, You are delusional. I bet youve got wagner playing in the background as you type.
edit on 15-1-2013 by Elvis Hendrix because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


What else do you deny about WW2 I wonder?



that Hitler was a threat to Europe


OMG I think thats where il leave it, You are delusional. I bet youve got wagner playing in the background as you type.
edit on 15-1-2013 by Elvis Hendrix because: (no reason given)


nope, I think you are delusional in thinking that Churchill made good decisions. HE was the sole reason the war became what it eventually became. Hitler had stated many many times before that his intention never was to wage war with the old, grand countries of Europe, his sole feud was the East, the Soviet Union.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Personally, i am starting to think that a very liberal dose of "chill pills" need to be consumed before participation on this thread. It is discussion and debate, it isn't fisticuffs at dawn!

I do not subscribe to the thread title but by examining various opinions and pieces of evidence we gain a greater insight into the topic overall. Surely that is what this site is all about?


Just try to be civil when doing it (not always easy and i can be as guilty as the next person, i admit).



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
Personally, i am starting to think that a very liberal dose of "chill pills" need to be consumed before participation on this thread. It is discussion and debate, it isn't fisticuffs at dawn!

I do not subscribe to the thread title but by examining various opinions and pieces of evidence we gain a greater insight into the topic overall. Surely that is what this site is all about?


Just try to be civil when doing it (not always easy and i can be as guilty as the next person, i admit).


100% agree. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


Your welcome.

Now admit you are wrong! (about this topic)

edit on 15-1-2013 by Flavian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I haven't read the thread, because I am just on my way out the door, but I wanted to throw something into the discussion because this sort of topic fascinates me. Kudos to the OP for starting the thread.

I think a war on the european continent was bound to happen, whether the Nazis started it or not. General von Seeckt, the head of the german armed forces during the post WW1 period, in a secret memo referred to by William L. Shirer in a couple of his books, gave voice to a widely held opinion, across the political spectrum in Germany, when he advocated for the destruction of Poland.

The Danzig corridor which cut East Prussia off from the rest of the country, created by the Treaty of Versailles, was considered to be intolerable by everyone in german politics.

The thinking of the time did not envision the sort of german power that exists today. At that time one had to be a colonial exploiter, a la Great Britain, or a large agrarian and industrial giant like America. Even Japan was following the road of the colonial exploiter.

That meant that Germany could only expand on the continent or steal colonies from others. The arrangements of the time, technological and political, didn't allow for the kind of country Germany is today.

The only way WW2 could have been avoided or truncated, in my opinion, was if Germany had handled Poland completely differently.

Putting on my Hitler hat, I would have invaded Russia before settling the Polish issue, completely. Yes that would have been tricky to do, but hey, tricky was Hitler's middle name. He would have found a way.

The next thing I would have done is put my racist policies in abeyance until Russia had been conquered. I would have enlisted the help of Ukranians and other Slavs who regarded the Nazis initially as liberators. (I would never have had the policies in the first place, personally, but that is a different thread.)

Having conquered Russia, I would turn back to Poland and, not obliterate it, but alter its borders to my advantage.

Then Speer and I would start planning the new Berlin with all of its glorious architectural homages to myself.

I think England, France and the rest of them would have sat back and watched the show. The war would have probably been over in 1941 or '42 and we would now be fighting the Nazi globalists in a much more even match, the threat emanating from Eurasia rather than North America.

That's the way I see it.

Given the geopolitical realities of the time, I don't think Churchill had that much wiggle room. Chamberlain was operating on wishful thinking, but Churchill was more realistic, I believe. Once Poland was attacked, WW2 was unavoidable.

The Nazis then, as now, don't seem to understand the utility of "buffer states." If you violate a buffer state, you are, to all intents and purposes, declaring war on the state just beyond it. Are you listening Mr. Obama?
edit on 15-1-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I haven't read the thread, because I am just on my way out the door, but I wanted to throw something into the discussion because this sort of topic fascinates me. Kudos to the OP for starting the thread.

I think a war on the european continent was bound to happen, whether the Nazis started it or not. General von Seeckt, the head of the german armed forces during the post WW1 period, in a secret memo referred to by William L. Shirer in a couple of his books, gave voice to a widely held opinion, across the political spectrum in Germany, when he advocated for the destruction of Poland.

The Danzig corridor which cut East Prussia off from the rest of the country, created by the Treaty of Versailles, was considered to be intolerable by everyone in german politics.

The thinking of the time did not envision the sort of german power that exists today. At that time one had to be a colonial exploiter, a la Great Britain, or a large agrarian and industrial giant like America. Even Japan was following the road of the colonial exploiter.

That meant that Germany could only expand on the continent or steal colonies from others. The arrangements of the time, technological and political, didn't allow for the kind of country Germany is today.

The only way WW2 could have been avoided or truncated, in my opinion, was if Germany had handled Poland completely differently.

Putting on my Hitler hat, I would have invaded Russia before settling the Polish issue, completely. Yes that would have been tricky to do, but hey, tricky was Hitler's middle name. He would have found a way.

The next thing I would have done is put my racist policies in abeyance until Russia had been conquered. I would have enlisted the help of Ukranians and other Slavs who regarded the Nazis initially as liberators. (I would never have had the policies in the first place, personally, but that is a different thread.)

Having conquered Russia, I would turn back to Poland and, not obliterate it, but alter its borders to my advantage.

Then Speer and I would start planning the new Berlin with all of its glorious architectural homages to myself.

I think England, France and the rest of them would have sat back and watched the show. The war would have probably been over in 1941 or '42 and we would now be fighting the Nazi globalists in a much more even match, the threat emanating from Eurasia rather than North America.

That's the way I see it.
edit on 15-1-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)


I agree to a lot of things you say, but quite obviously as you said it, there was no real possible way to attack the gigantic monster of the Soviet Union without dealing with Poland first. No way. While it's part of my own thinking that what could have and should have happened was that Germany should have negotiated with France and the UK and maybe even the states to attack the Soviet Union in one single go, and for their war effort they should have gotten the lands stolen from then back. Then Poland would have been moved a bit, the Germans would have gotten their necessary Lebensraum (albeit only like 40%, but still), they could have expanded as a people and Europe would thrive under the triangular leadership of the UK, France and Germany..


edit on 15-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
To a very large extent I agree. By the way I added an edit to my post that bears on this.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Bolshevik Revolution, Zionist involvement, Britain, America and Palestine

desip.igc.org...


So the German intelligence services read W.J.M. Childs’s statement that "the services expected of Jewry [in the war] were not expected in vain, and were, from the point of view of British interests alone, well worth the price which had to be paid."

They read Lloyd George’s statement that "the Jews, with all the influence that they possessed, responded nobly to the appeal that was made."

They read Childs’s statement that "it may well be that in time to come Jewish support [for Britain] will much exceed any thought possible in the past."

They probably read as well Landman’s admission that it had been the Jews who brought the U.S. into the war to crush Germany. Likewise, Landman’s remarkably infelicitous threat about pulling down the "pillars of civilisation"—which might have seemed to them a complete confirmation of Nazi ideology. Likewise again, Landman’s statement that "the New Zionist Organisation is pro-British to the core."

Nazi and Zionist propaganda were in close agreement that the Jews were unassimilable in Europe. See Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (1983), available online. It’s against that background that the Germans read W.J.M. Childs’s conclusion—actually no surprise to anyone—that:




''Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had been the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda; by 1917 they had done much in preparation for that general disintegration of Russian national life, later recognized as the revolution.''

The Nazis no doubt took that to mean that Germany, as well, had to protect itself against the secret activities of its Jewish citizens, and that Jews would give their real allegiance—or at least assistance—to whatever power could deliver Palestine. That power, of course, was Great Britain, although in Jan. 1941, at the height of Nazi success, the Stern Gang actually tried to enlist Germany as its patron. See Avishai Margalet, "The Violent Life of Yitzhak Shamir," New York Review of Books, May 14, 1992.

None of the material cited above, from 1936 or before, told the Nazis anything they hadn’t already believed, at least since the peace conference in 1919. But such material surely tended to confirm their view about a "stab in the back." While there’s no gainsaying that the Nazi leaders were psychopathic, their obsessions didn’t come altogether out of Wagnerian mythology about dark Hagen and blond Siegfried.

In 1936, Winston Churchill either did or did not tell the New York Enquirer (forerunner of the National Enquirer) that American entry into the war had been a disaster, without which there would have been no Nazi Germany and perhaps no Soviet Union either. Churchill denied the statement—so vehemently that the journalist who’d reported it sued Churchill for defamation. (Letting the statement stand would have been profoundly embarrassing to Churchill if, as proved to be the case, he had to solicit American involvement in a second war.) Before testimony was taken, though, the U.S. was already in World War II and the suit was dropped.

Landman’s account, Childs’s, and Lloyd George’s seem to confirm at least some parts of a fiery speech (available online) that Benjamin Freedman—the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Co.—gave to a far right-wing audience at the Willard Hotel in Washington D.C. in 1961. Freedman is not the most attractive witness; and his speech has become a favorite of some very unsavory types. But he gives a lot of factual detail that should be checkable, and that I’ve never seen refuted. He tells, for example, for whom he worked during the 1912 Wilson campaign (Henry Morgenthau, Sr. as his "confidential man" and liaison with Rolla Wells), some of the meetings he attended in the Wilson administration and at the peace conference, and what he personally saw and heard. He says that in Oct. 1916 Jewish leaders en masse switched their support from Germany to England "like a traffic light that changes from red to green."



edit on 15-1-2013 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Hmm.

So Hitler invades Poland, after a phony "peace" where the Reich made various land grabs under nefarious purposes.

And you think Churchill escalated the war... how exactly?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Hmm.

So Hitler invades Poland, after a phony "peace" where the Reich made various land grabs under nefarious purposes.

And you think Churchill escalated the war... how exactly?


are you referring to the land grabs of Hitler prior to September 1st? All of those were former German land, stolen from them after Versaille 1919. And Germany wasn't the only country to grab land, Hungary and Poland took bits of Czechoslovakia, just like Germany did.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


Land grabs nonetheless, taken through intimidation.

You never answered how Churchill escalated things?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
More Churchill alleged war crimes
www.countercurrents.org...


For your convenience, I have simply listed below an expanded list of immense crimes in which Churchill was complicit as a racist soldier, politician, mass murderer and holocaust-denying writer – indeed he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953 for his numerous published works, especially his six-edition set The Second World War in which he ignored his deliberate, remorseless murder of 6-7 million Indians in 1943-1945 [ I have provided estimates of violent and non-violent avoidable deaths in square brackets].
1. British Indian Holocaust (1.8 billion excess deaths, 1757-1947; 10 million killed in post-1857 Indian Mutiny reprisals; 1 million starved, 1895-1897 Indian Famine; 6-9 million starved, 1899-1900 Indian Famine; 6-7 million starved under Churchill, Bengali Holocaust 1943-1945].
2. Sudan atrocities [horrendous British atrocities after the Battle of Obdurman 1898].
3. Boer (Afrikaaner) Genocide [28,000 Afrikaaner women and children died in British concentration camps, 1899-1902].
4. World War 1 promotion [World War I Allied military and civilian dead 5.7 million and 3.7 million, respectively; German-allied (Central Powers) military and civilian deaths 4.0 million and 5.2 million; troop movement-exacerbated Spanish Flu Epidemic killed 20-100 million people world wide. 1918-1922].
5. WW1 Dardanelles Campaign in Turkey [0.2 million Allied and Turkish soldiers killed, 1915; precipitated 1915-1923 Turkish Armenian Genocide, 1.5 million Armenians killed].
6. UK and US invasion of Russia 1917-1919 [millions died in the Russian Civil War and the subsequent Russian Famine; 7 million died in the circa 1930 Ukrainian Famine; and perhaps up to 20 million died overall in Stalinist atrocities].
7. British suppression of the Arab revolt in Iraq (invaded by Britain in 1914) [bombing of Kurds, poison gas use (1920s); violent UK involvement on and off , 1914-2009; 1990-2008 Iraqi excess deaths 4 million; under-5 infant deaths 1.8 million; refugees currently 6 million].
8. Support for British Occupation and opposition to Indian self-determination [1757-1947 excess deaths, 1.8 billion; 1895-1897 famine deaths1 million; 1899-1900 Indian Famine, deaths6-9 million deaths; 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust deaths 6-7 million].
9. World War 2 promotion [World War 2 military deaths 25 million and civilian deaths about 67 million].
10. Promotion of Japan entry into World War 2 in order to involve the US and hence ensure victory [35 million Chinese avoidable deaths, 1937-1945; 6-7 million Indians starved, Bengal 1943-1945; millions more died in the WW2 Eastern Theatre].
11. Churchill knew Singapore was indefensible [8,000-15,000 killed, 130,000 captured in the 1941 Malaya campaign; 14,000 Australian, 16,000 British and 32,000 Indian troops surrendered in Singapore].
12. Churchill deliberately did not warn Americans about Pearl Harbor attack [Eastern Theatre WW2 deaths 45 million].
13. WW2 Bengal Holocaust, Bengal Famine [deliberate starving to death of of 6-7 million Indians; confessed by Churchill in a letter to Roosevelt].
14. Churchill rejected top scientific advice and supported bombing of German cities instead of protecting Atlantic convoys [0.16 million allied airmen killed; 0.6 million German civilians killed; Battle of the Atlantic almost lost; 7 million dead from famine in the Indian Ocean region related to halving of Allied shipping in 1943].
15. Churchill acknowledged the crucial importance of maintaining Hindu-Muslim antipathy to preserve British rule [1 million dead and 18 million Muslim and Hindu refugees associated with India-Pakistan Partition in 1947].
16. 1944 UK War Cabinet decision Partition of Palestine [in 1878, Jews were 5% of the Palestine population; in 1948 Jews were 1/3 of the population; there are now over 7 million Palestinian refugees; post-1967 Occupied Palestinian excess deaths 0.3 million, post-1967 under-5 infant deaths 0.2 million; excess deaths in countries partially or completely occupied by Apartheid Israel now total about 24 million; 4 million Occupied Palestinians are still illegally and abusively imprisoned by racist Zionists in their own country].
17. UK rejection of 1944 Brand plan to save Hungarian Jews [0.2-0.4 million killed by Nazis and Arrow Cross fascists out of 0.7 million; Zionists also opposed the Brand plan]
18. British, American, Zionist, Australian and European adoption of Churchill's holocaust commission and holocaust denying legacy, with post-war atrocities involving invasion, occupation, devastation and genocide [in relation to Occupiers (in parenthesis) 1950-2005 excess deaths in post-1945 occupied countries total 2 million (white Australia), 36 million (Belgium), 142 million (France), 24 million (Apartheid Israel), 0.7 million (Apartheid South Africa), 23 million (Portugal), 37 million (Russia), 9 million (Spain), 727 million (the UK) and 82 million (the US); 25 million Indigenous excess deaths in post-1950US Asian Wars; 9-



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


Land grabs nonetheless, taken through intimidation.

You never answered how Churchill escalated things?


I would disagree, the land grabs that Hitler eventually (barely legally, mind you, but still) got were brokered by Germany in the 20s before Hitler without intimidation, Hitler only eventually fulfilled it. And so did Poland, Hungary, Russia, they all had land grabs.....

I'm fairly certain I did say how Churchill escalated things, BY BEING THERE....by playing the aggressor against a state (Germany) that publicly and privately wanted a union with the UK
edit on 15-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


I am aware of that, I said ''alleged'' and the reports weren't written in an anti semitic way.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Whilst Churchill was possibly pro Zionist, he was praised by some of the Jewish communities though some others held him to account and were not so impressed and suspected his motives were flawed.

www.independent.co.uk...


Tom Segev, author of One Palestine Complete, claims that Churchill once told his close friend and an elder of the Zionist movement, Chaim Weizmann, that he would support the Zionists “even if they did horribly stupid things”.

Not everybody is so convinced. Some see his support for Zionism as a matter of expediency. He spoke often of a Jewish conspiracy behind the Bolshevik Revolution, and there are those who believe that his support for a Jewish state arose from a desire to keep the Jews from meddling in the affairs of others.

“His attitude towards the Jews was very complicated,” says Eli Shaltiel, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute. “The Jewish state was a way of solving the Jewish problem… Once they had a state of their own, it would serve their very uniqueness. They would be normal like any other nation.”

The question of Auschwitz concentration camp, where thousands were killed daily, also remains a bone of contention. Critics say he put Allied lives before Jewish ones by failing to bomb it in 1944. Although historians concede Churchill did give the order for an attack, he did not make it a priority.

Edward Luttwak, a Washington-based scholar writing a book about Churchill, is even more uncomplimentary. Even as the full horrors of the extermination camp became more widely known, , he claims, Churchill wilfully ignored the plight of Hungarian Jews.

He points to events in early 1944, when Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary all ceased to cooperate with Nazi Germany in deporting their Jewry, but Britain continued to enforce rigorously stiff immigration quotas to Palestine to appease the Arabs during a time of war. He claims they denied many European Jews safe passage by either declining or issuing out-of-date visa documents.

“The Romanians survived, the Bulgarians survived, the Hungarians did not. That’s on Churchill’s conscience,” says Mr Luttwak. “In 1944, Churchill, lifelong friend of the Jews, became Hitler’s remaining Holocaust ally.”

By then, Britain’s Palestine policy was increasingly under attack from the Jews. The Struma incident two years earlier – where a ship carrying Romanian refugees trying to reach Palestine via Turkey was turned away, only to be sunk by a Soviet submarine, killing 768 people on board – had rallied opposition to the British: Churchill himself was to become a target.

Newly declassified MI5 papers reveal that in 1944, the British feared that the Stern Gang, a Jewish terrorist group determined to oust the British from Palestine, was plotting to kill Churchill, as well as the unpopular politician Ernest Bevin.

In the end, it was not Churchill who died, but his close friend Lord Moyne, who was assassinated by the Stern Gang in Cairo in November 1944. Mr Segev writes that the bloody act “lost the Zionists one of their most important supporters, Winston Churchill”.

In an address to the House of Commons, Churchill made clear the depth of his dismay: “If our dreams for Zionism are to end in the smoke of assassins’ pistols and our labours for its future to produce only a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, many like myself will have to reconsider the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past.”

But by then the wheels had already been set in motion, and the Jewish state was only a few years from becoming a reality.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


I am posting not only in response to your OP but other posts of yours as well.

Indirectly, Great Britain & France helped cause WWII due to their inability to react appropriately towards German expansionism. Germany withdrew from the League of Nations in `33. This was the first step initiated by Germany that led to the war. The Saar Basin was the 1st successful bit of expansion under Hitler. This was not unreasonable. It was part of Germany prior to WWI. That area was granted a plebiscite after 15 years of League of Nations control. 90% voted to be annexed by Germany.

More threatening was when Germany denounced the disarmament clauses of the Versailles treaty, two weeks after the Saar Basin became part of Germany. Great Britain & France could have reacted at the time. In 1935 the German military was not nearly as strong as they were in `39. Instead they choose to do nothing. Hell, Great Britain made a naval treaty with Germany that same year. In 1936 Germany sent its army into the Rhineland, which had been disarmed under the Versailles Treaty. Once again Great Britain & France could have taken some action to put a roadblock on the expansionism of Hitler.

The annexation of Austria was another major offensive action by Germany. Yet Great Britain & France did nothing. Bear in mind that Austria had never been a part of Germany. It is hard to argue that the Germans were simply retaking land they lost after WWI.

The Munich Betrayal was the worst action that Great Britain & France participated in during that decade. Czechoslovakia wanted to fight. Unfortunately, Chamberlain & Daladier came to an agreement to surrender the Czech lands that bordered Germany. The Czech's were not even present at those negotiations. It was a despicable act. It is ironic that the reluctance of Great Britain & France to engage in war to prevent German expansionism led to the very war they were hoping to avoid.

With all this said I don't see how Churchill had anything to do with these actions. With the invasion of Poland, Great Britain & France were forced into declarations of war by treaty obligations and guarantees to support Poland in case of invasion by Germany. Again, I don't see how Churchill was the architect of these events.

Regarding the firebombing and the Battle of Britain. Hitler was a fool to conduct the blitz in the first place. Prior to the firebombings of Germany, The Luftwaffe had been targeting airfields, communication centers, and the odd port. After the firebombings Hitler stopped bombing those targets. He turned to the blitz raids on London and other cities that had no tactical advantage. Germany might have won the Battle of Britain if its air force had continued to attack strategic targets. In this sense it was a wise move from Churchill to commence the firebombings of Germany. It is possible that Churchill suspected Hitler would react in the manner that he did.

Are you saying that Churchill was wrong to order the firebombings? If so, why? Personally, I find it a very reasonable counter attack.

In closing, I can't agree with you on this. The history speaks for itself. Perhaps you could provide specific, detailed events that Churchill orchestrated against Germany?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


Really?

What was Operation Sealion then? a friendly overture?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join