Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

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.


Er, Churchill had nothing to do with running of the UK from 1933 - 1939. Chamberlain was PM for most of that time.

Chamberlain was pro Germany, tried to make peace with Hitler, and the countries still ended up at war.

Don't blame Churchill for the most ineffective British Prime Minister of the 20th century.

Czechoslovakia was never occupied by Poles, and was seized by Hitler in 1938, and Chamberlain turned a blind eye to the whole thing.

The Holocaust was happening long before Churchill took his measures against Germany, Jews were being rounded up in the mid 1930's long before Churchill took power.

To blame Churchill for Hitler's treatment of the Jews is assinine.




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

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.


Most lunatics don't see their side as doing something wrong. Poland at the time was its own soverign state...and Germany invaded them...regardless if they seen it as a invasion, or a happy troop movement of enlightenment through firearms.

England didn't start anything..and the Nazi's had a view of a united Europe under their rule..france, north Africa, etc...this was not a defence measure, this was Hitler fancying himself as Alexander the Great.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
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.



Agenda? I just personally believe Churchill was a bit of a warmonger, much more than Roosevelt was. I see all the countries as carrying the blame, the majority of course is Germany's fault, but Churchill and Roosevelt are BY FAR not innocent of warmongery and agitation of the European crisis.
edit on 14-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

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.


Wrong again, Hitler was bombing civilian targets in Rotterdam and of course Poland, before Churchill ordered any bombing of german civilian targets.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Hopeforeveryone because: typo



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


Yes I say agenda because you ignore outright facts. If anything England and the us adopted a policy of appeasement towards Germany in the 30s



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


Germany declared war on the United States of America on 11th December 1941. As for the rest of your disgusting ill informed comments and opinions I can't bring myself to reply. You will be suggesting the Jews and other victims of the German regime 1933 to 1945 asked for it.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
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


In the 30s, the royals and the germans had a cozy relationship..big deal. Germany suspected they were on the same page..not Germany, but rather the national socialist party of Germany rather (the average german had no great love for Hitler at the time and his shenanigans..and was only through false terror that they accepted the partys rule, and thereby allowing hitlers rise).

But big deal...they wanted unity..they wanted another puppet to consolidate their conquest..and they were denied...with fire.
What would history show if indeed the UK did unite with Germany...no foothold, axis global domination..

Thank goodness we chased the Nazis off to the moon!


Anyhow, its good to question history overall..but I think this specific subject is a bit of a dead end overall in regards to painting Churchill as some bad guy..he was a tough sob, but a strong war hero during a dark time..

he was crap post war though..meh, war heros make poor politicians when there is no war.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

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.


Most lunatics don't see their side as doing something wrong. Poland at the time was its own soverign state...and Germany invaded them...regardless if they seen it as a invasion, or a happy troop movement of enlightenment through firearms.

England didn't start anything..and the Nazi's had a view of a united Europe under their rule..france, north Africa, etc...this was not a defence measure, this was Hitler fancying himself as Alexander the Great.


you're completely correct, but here's the thing, Poland was given land after 1918 that belonged 100% to Germany, for centuries, 99% of the people living in western Poland were Germans. They were treated badly, and by the way, the government of Poland back then should have been seen as a quasi fascist government, Jews were segregated, Poland had "all Aryan" universities. And the Nazis did not have this popular idea of them today that they were to conquer Europe, in fact they had their eye on Eastern Europe. Hitler dreamed like a madman about a Anglo-Germanic led Europe. with Germany and the UK at the front.
edit on 14-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone

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.


Wrong again, Hitler was bombing civilian targets in Rotterdam and of course Poland, before Churchill ordered any bombing of german civilian targets.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Hopeforeveryone because: typo


I meant with England, of course Hitler was bombing civilians, but not with England's case, Churchill was the one that started to bomb the German cities, then Hitler did the same to England



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

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.


Where are you getting your historical facts from? A Comic? Germany declared war on the US on 11th December 1941. So much for Germany not declaring war on another country.

www.history.com...



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rob37n
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


Germany declared war on the United States of America on 11th December 1941. As for the rest of your disgusting ill informed comments and opinions I can't bring myself to reply. You will be suggesting the Jews and other victims of the German regime 1933 to 1945 asked for it.


you're selecting facts. of course Germany declared war against the states, but they did not declare war against the European countries, France and England did it first.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Incidently...as a side thought.
You can say that anyone whom opposes a nation is a warmonger...join or die is a typical understanding between nations when war is brewing...to join means to be a tool. So, your suggesting that should a nation demand you surrender and kowtow to them, you should...else your a warmonger?

I don't even think the French think that way.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
if was france and england that radically forced Europe into a confrontation that could have ended without war, .


"Ended without war".... you mean if all of Europe had just surrendered to Germany....


and without European Jewry eliminated


What about Kristallnacht in 1938? The attack on the jews had already started under Hitler well before WW2 started.


England was the first to pursue radically aggressive measures towards Germany, like the bombing of civilian areas


Funny how you totally ignore Germany bombing Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, France, the Rotterdam Blitz. But you like to blame the UK...

Nothing to see here but just another WW2 revisionist, nothing was Germany's fault, poor little Germany was the victim.
edit on 14-1-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Incidently...as a side thought.
You can say that anyone whom opposes a nation is a warmonger...join or die is a typical understanding between nations when war is brewing...to join means to be a tool. So, your suggesting that should a nation demand you surrender and kowtow to them, you should...else your a warmonger?

I don't even think the French think that way.


No no, but what you have to understand is that the Nazis WERE NOT keen on destroying the great old countries of Europe, the war with France, England, was seen as a devastation to the geo political plans of the Nazi Regime.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening[/i
you're completely correct, but here's the thing, Poland was given land after 1918 that belonged 100% to Germany, for centuries, 99% of the people living in western Poland were Germans. They were treated badly, and by the way, the government of Poland back then should have been seen as a quasi fascist government, Jews were segregated, Poland had "all Aryan" universities. And the Nazis did not have this popular idea of them today that they were to conquer Europe, in fact they had their eye on Eastern Europe. Hitler dreamed like a madman about a Anglo-Germanic led Europe. with Germany and the UK at the front.
edit on 14-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)

Mhmm, as was taught to me in school.
There are right and wrong ways to do things.
Right way would be for proper legal procedures with the (what was it back then..league of nations?)...the wrong way of course is rolling in the tanks after 20 years.

They took a gamble, they lost. the UK understands the issues with trying to reclaim nations that used to be part of your empire...history tends to show quite clearly that soverign nations either are reigned in before they split, or that's it...once the world accepts the new nation, then you attack the world...

the US had a civil war over this...right when the south mentioned such breaking off, the guns were firing...had they waited 20 or so years after they formed their own union..the story would possibly be very different.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Perhaps your stance is based on writings such as this

Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary war


Buchanan accuses Churchill, at that time First Lord of the Admiralty, of having a "lust for war" in 1914[2]. Buchanan follows the conclusions of the American diplomat George F. Kennan that the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894 was an act of Franco-Russian "encirclement" of Germany, and that German foreign policy after 1894 was defensive rather than aggressive[3]. Buchanan described Germany during the Second Reich as a "satiated power" seeking only peace and prosperity threatened by a revanchist France obsessed with regaining the lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, and calls Imperial Russia a highly "imperialist" power carrying out an aggressive policy in Eastern Europe that menaced Germany[3].




Buchanan argues that Britain had no quarrel with Germany before 1914, however the great build-up of the German Navy was a "threat to Britain"[4], which forced the British to bring back to European waters the bulk of her navy and to make alliances with Russia and France. He asserts that this was a disastrous policy of the Germans which "tied England to Europe" and which therefore created the conditions which led the British to involvement in World War I[5]. On the other hand, Buchanan asserts that the greatest responsibility for the breakdown in Anglo-German relations was the "Germanophobia" and zeal for the Entente with France of the British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey[6]. In assessing responsibility for the course of events, Buchanan asserts that the British could have easily ended the Anglo-German naval race in 1912 by promising to remain neutral in the event of war between Germany and France[7]. Buchanan writes that "Prussian militarism" was an anti-German Black Legend invented by British statesmen, and that the record of Imperial Germany supports the judgement that it was least militaristic of the European Powers. He writes that in the century between Waterloo (1815) and World War I (1914) Britain had fought ten wars and Germany three[8]. Buchanan writes in defense of Kaiser Wilhelm II that he had not fought a war in his 25 year reign, and compares that unfavorably with Churchill's service in three wars prior to 1914[9] "Churchill had himself seen more war than almost any soldier in the German army."[9] Buchanan claims that the Kaiser Wilhem was desperate to avoid a war in 1914, and accepts the German claim that it was Russian mobilization of July 31, 1914 that forced war on Germany [10]. Buchanan accuses Churchill and Grey of illegally committing Britain to war in 1914 by making promises that Britain would defend France without the knowledge of either Cabinet or Parliament[11]. Buchanan argues that United States should never had fought in World War I, and that the American people were "deceived and dragged" into war in 1917. Buchanan calls the British "hunger blockade" of Germany in World War I "criminal", and states the reparations imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles were "impossible" to pay[12].



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Incidently...as a side thought.
You can say that anyone whom opposes a nation is a warmonger...join or die is a typical understanding between nations when war is brewing...to join means to be a tool. So, your suggesting that should a nation demand you surrender and kowtow to them, you should...else your a warmonger?

I don't even think the French think that way.


No no, but what you have to understand is that the Nazis WERE NOT keen on destroying the great old countries of Europe, the war with France, England, was seen as a devastation to the geo political plans of the Nazi Regime.


Tell that to the poor civilians of Holland



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by Rob37n
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


Germany declared war on the United States of America on 11th December 1941. As for the rest of your disgusting ill informed comments and opinions I can't bring myself to reply. You will be suggesting the Jews and other victims of the German regime 1933 to 1945 asked for it.


you're selecting facts. of course Germany declared war against the states, but they did not declare war against the European countries, France and England did it first.


Germany invaded Holland Belgium Norway amongst others. In my book i would call that "Declaring War" What would you call it?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
if was france and england that radically forced Europe into a confrontation that could have ended without war, .


"Ended without war".... you mean if all of Europe had just surrendered to Germany....


and without European Jewry eliminated


What about Kristallnacht in 1938? The attack on the jews had already started under Hitler well before WW2 started.


England was the first to pursue radically aggressive measures towards Germany, like the bombing of civilian areas



Funny how you totally ignore Germany bombing Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, France, the Rotterdam Blitz. But you like to blame the UK...


No, I mean the eventual war could have been averted if it weren't for the iron stance of France and England towards Germany. Germany was practically isolated, and England saw itself threatened in it's hegemony over European rule. Germany really only wanted to partner up with the UK at first. Of course, nobody denies that the attacks on German jews did start already then, but I'm saying the actual inter-war holocaust could have been averted if the war had not started.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone

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.


Wrong again, Hitler was bombing civilian targets in Rotterdam and of course Poland, before Churchill ordered any bombing of german civilian targets.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Hopeforeveryone because: typo



I meant with England, of course Hitler was bombing civilians, but not with England's case, Churchill was the one that started to bomb the German cities, then Hitler did the same to England


England began by bombing targets in the Ruhr area of Germany, specifically industrial targets, not civilian targets. German actually started the trend of targeting residential areas when a bomber wing accidentally targeted residential areas of london. It was only then that german cities were targeted. Sorry to say but Germany started the trend of bombing civilians in cities.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Hopeforeveryone because: typo





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join