Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 20
11
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by OpenSky
 


Well, i'd suggest you dig up Herbert Henry Asquith, David lloyd George and Winston Churchill and have it out with them.




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OpenSky
 


Who the hell were they going to send? We were at war on several fronts at the time, forces spread across Europe, Africa, India, the Far East and so on. The upper class idiots running the show managed to get huge numbers of British troops captured by the Japanese by having the guns pointing the wrong way, or just giving in too early and capitulating without putting up a decent fight. Although you never see a General being done for lack of moral fibre do you. British forces at the time were spread to breaking point, there wasn't the capacity to divert troops to another theatre of war.

Consequently the Pacific war was an American affair in the main. US Forces worked closely with Australia, I honestly don't think there was the ability for British troops to be committed to help Australia at the time.

I thought the main grievance in Australia was that the Australian government would fight to the last Queenslander? That if the Imperial Japanese Army invaded Australia then the Australian forces would withdraw to the New South Wales border to make a stand? Doesn't that still play a part in the bitterness at events like State of Origin?

It's shameful that a great country like Australia wasn't aided more by the British government at the time, and it's downright shameful that the country isn't a proper republic as a result of those events. But there isn't much to be done about it now I am afraid.

Thankfully those types of shooting wars have been over for a long time, and long may they continue to be, and it's best we now fight on the cricket pitch, footy (Rubgy League not Onion), and if the Aussies ever master it the Football (soccer) pitch. I would say AFL but sadly the game never seems to spread outside of Australia, it's an exciting sport, weird, but exciting.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rob37n
reply to post by OpenSky
 


Who the hell were they going to send? We were at war on several fronts at the time, forces spread across Europe, Africa, India, the Far East and so on. The upper class idiots running the show managed to get huge numbers of British troops captured by the Japanese by having the guns pointing the wrong way, or just giving in too early and capitulating without putting up a decent fight. Although you never see a General being done for lack of moral fibre do you. British forces at the time were spread to breaking point, there wasn't the capacity to divert troops to another theatre of war.

Consequently the Pacific war was an American affair in the main. US Forces worked closely with Australia, I honestly don't think there was the ability for British troops to be committed to help Australia at the time.

I thought the main grievance in Australia was that the Australian government would fight to the last Queenslander? That if the Imperial Japanese Army invaded Australia then the Australian forces would withdraw to the New South Wales border to make a stand? Doesn't that still play a part in the bitterness at events like State of Origin?

It's shameful that a great country like Australia wasn't aided more by the British government at the time, and it's downright shameful that the country isn't a proper republic as a result of those events. But there isn't much to be done about it now I am afraid.

Thankfully those types of shooting wars have been over for a long time, and long may they continue to be, and it's best we now fight on the cricket pitch, footy (Rubgy League not Onion), and if the Aussies ever master it the Football (soccer) pitch. I would say AFL but sadly the game never seems to spread outside of Australia, it's an exciting sport, weird, but exciting.


When the battle for Australia began the Battle for Britain had already ended, you were not under siege at this point in time like we were. As well, the Americans hadn't even joined the conflict yet, so it was Australia who was having to take on the Imperial Empire.
The British basically said "f*ck you Australia, we don't give a sh*t about your sacrifices so good luck without our help", and ALLOWED Singapore to fall taking 15 thousand Australians prisoner (none of which will survive).
At this point in time, Australia had no armed forces left, our armies were fighting the Germans in North Africa. So instead, untrained militia were raised to fight off invasion.
By the time the Americans became involved the Battle for Australia was over, and the Aussies had BY THEMSELVES pushed the Japs from New Guinea.
Like I said previously, we sent our men to fight and die for Britain, we were with you during the Battle for Britain as the RAAF helped defend YOUR skies.
But when it came to return the favour, you just upped and left us naked...



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   

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


Many people tend to dismiss the facts even with the massive internet library at their disposal, instead they rather spat what they've been told and taught by the school books and history books.

was Churchill a warmonger?

YES

could world war 2 have been averted?

why certainly

In fact it was never considered a WORLD WAR, not until 1941 with US entrance into the war

So it is incorrect to claim that either Hitler or Churchill started a World War, the War gradually expanded until every continent was either directly or indirectly involved in that war. China and Japan were already at war since 1936, and if we go back to count this then we might as well include Italian Invasion of Ethiopia.

To understand World War 2 we must go back to World War 1, and the inter-war period, jumping to 1939 is just ignorant and this is what Churchill likes history to begin.

Some people cry and moan about Polish territorial integrity and independence, claiming that Britain was only protecting Poland, only to hand Poland and the rest of eastern Europe to the Soviet union at wars end.

Then they pull the next card, the Nazis were murdering jews and burning them, yet 98% of the Germans jews from 1933-1941 were transferred out of Europe, the main destination was Madagascar had the Allies allowed such move to occur. So then they say what about '1938 Kristallnacht'? well what about it? the jews were sent to concentration camps and then shipped out of the reich, the history and figures are there. there was no holocaust YET! The holocaust only occurred when the situation of the war changed and if you lived during that period you would understand why.

Jews are not bad,but the zionists and their teachings are, and they tend to be very controlling, hence the NSDAP outlook, and hence the Muslim outlook today, and as long as they continue with their ways of 'chosen people'' and 'promised land'' they will always be disliked and attacked by others. Not only that, but they tend to manipulate and control, deceive to gain; this is well known throughout history, at the end it is the average jew who gets the blame and prosecution.

1933 way before Germany boycott jewish shops:




WORLD WAR I broke out in the summer of 1914. Within two years Germany had won the war. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the British convoys from the Atlantic Ocean and leaving Britain without ammunition and food for her soldiers.

At that time the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme.

The Russian army was defecting. And the Italian army had collapsed. Not a shot had been fired on German soil yet Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis which means: “Let’s call the war off and let everything be as it was before the war started.”

England, in the summer of 1916, was considering Germany’s peace terms. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was offering them or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, led by the Jew, Chaim Weitzman, who later became the 1st President of Israel, went to the British War Cabinet and said: “Don’t capitulate to Germany. You can win this war if the United States comes in as your ally. We can arrange this. But in return, you must promise us Palestine once the tide turns in your favor.”


the stab in the back is not a myth. Maybe after World war 3 they will try to tell you that the israeli oppression of Palestanians is a myth too and Israel was merely defending itself against aggressive Arabs even though the Arabs have every right to defend themselves against the Israeli aggression?

[continued in part 2]



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OpenSky
 


As usual people blame "the English' for this sort of thing. Well the average English person at the time in my family was getting the crap knocked out of them either serving in the forces, or being bombed to hell and back on a regular basis at home. Where I live in Hull was, after London, the most heavily bombed place in England, we still have sodding bombsites in the City. The problem isn't the English per se, it's the effete upper class that own and rule the country that are to blame. The average English person, like the average Aussie wanted the war over, to come home safely, or for their loved ones to come home safely.

My nan was bombed out of her house, narrowly avoiding being killed thanks to sheltering under a sheet metal Anderson shelter in a neighbours garden, one of my Grandfathers and my Nans brother gave their lives, you can hardly blame them. A great Uncle who returned from a Japanese prisoner of war a shattered man for the rest of his life, a family friend who spent years in a prisoner of war camp, other people who served on the Russian convoys, there's a bunch of men with testes the size of basketballs for their bravery. They weren't the ones denying Australia help. An ex-girlfriend her Grandma's family was bombed out three times. so they moved her family out to the country as people were scared they were jinxed and bringing the bombs down on them and their neighbours, that's how weird and frightening it got.

Blame the pathetic shower of Royalty, the rich, and the powerful that cause all these problems, on all sides, and nothing has changed. The "English" you espouse to hate and despise are the same ones that screw over their own citizens on a regular and repeated basis, they treat us no differently than they do anyone else.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Germany declares war on the US (dec 1941)

the US stance was clearly pro-Allies, it was only a matter of time before the US drags herself into WW2 as they did in WW1, by keeping the US out of the war Germany was only allowing convoys to reach britain with weapons and munition under American flags, meaning that the U boats couldnt effectively block Britain; the country which escalated WW2, also meaning that Britian will never accept peace and more lives will be lost.

in the US, way before WW2 started



CLAIM: Germany wanted to conquer the world/Europe

This is false, it is the Zionists who want to conquer the world

It was the British who had largest empire

If germany wanted to conquer europe they would have invaded Switzerland and Sweden and Spain, all of Germanys invasions were justified and preemptive; being the right words. The rest of the expansion was through allies and puppets much like how the US and Britain do things. you dig?

Britain wanted to encircle Germany and starve it much like WW1, so they came up with PLAN R 4 to invade Norway, and you can read about that. Germany had to get involved in Norway and they beat the Allies there, Germany couldnt just sit back and get destroyed, they had to act, you cant blame them for the Allies decision to expand the war to Norway, and to get to Norway they had to go through Denmark and ensure safe passage and easing logistical issues.

The invasion of Netherlands, Luxemburg and Belgium was also justified, and you can read about that on Wikipedia, it has its sources. The french built the maginot line to make sure that any future war will be expanded, and hence they could push around germany and they DID THAT, until the NSDAP said enough is ENOUGH.

the reason fall gelb (invasion of france) was successful is due to surprise, and that surprise came because the germans had more than they needed as far as airfields, railways and roads thanks to belgium and netherlands, invading through maginot is a suicide, invading through belgium means another trench warfare with million dead, the invasion of netherlands was a most priority to support the operation and any general would agree on that.

The invasion of Czechoslovakia was uncalled for, and that was a dirty move by the German regime, they like to justify it by claiming that the Czech state was in chaos after the munich agreement, and that the germans brought order, while this is true, I think this move was a back stab and completely destroyed britains image, causing them to enter into alliance with poland, and then Churchill comes alonge and made things worse with his fighting spirit. either way, churhcill was a counter balance to hitler, you cant have 1 war monger, you need balance!!!

the invasion of Poland they had it coming, the Poles oppressed the minority Germans and if the holocaust didnt occur I think the Germans would have been observed much differently, but they justified violence with violence, 'if you do this to us then we'll do it to you' sort of thought.

The USSR was planning to invade germany in 42/43. they had already amassed millions of men and equipment, all of which were destroyed at the start of operation barbarossa,

the invasion of Yugoslavia had its own history, also unsuccessful british meddling caused the invasion of Yugoslavia

eventually the germans got what they gave. I am not justifying german aggression and Nazi death camps, but to blame them for everything is out of order. The Nazis rose to power thanks to the conditions imposed on the German nation by the Allies, both sides are equally bad/good, whatever you like to think. But here is the interesting part, Germany was supported for that period of time by millions upon millions throughout the world, from America to Africa and Asia, they had a legitimate cause; but the holocaust destroyed them, and then the western propaganda of world conquest and aryan stuff made them look like aliens, even though a black person in germany will tell you that he could sit on a bus in berlin but not in washington at that period of time. The indian and romanian and arab and african and asian waffen SS have other stories that we will never hear about.

overall, had britain stayed out of the war, it would have been the USSr and germany battling it out over living space and ideas (Nazi v Commie) while the rest oft he world watched on two systems destroy each other and that will be that



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RizeorDie
and then Churchill comes alonge and made things worse with his fighting spirit.


I think this says it all actually, Churchill, with his fighting spirit stopped Germany from invading Europe with noo consequences, and thus you think he should be blamed for WW2, instead of Germany....

Nothing to see here, just another german apologist who of course also blames the jews....



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Churchill was who he was.
A Jewish Mother and a saint of Christianity.
Stalin wanted the destruction of Christianity, and Hitler wanted the destruction of Judaism and Christianity.
Churchill loved England/Britain.
He knew he made huge mistakes in ww1.
He was a man who cared so much , about his own , and of decency.
Without him , Nazism and Stalinism would rule today...perhaps.
The beloved Americans , came to our aid, and will always be in our hearts.
Forever.
Churchill knew the American heart, as close to the British Heart.
That is why he saved us all.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by RizeorDie
 


Of course, you can source all your claims here, right?

So please, instead of blanket statements that read like one of Goebbels propaganda rants, lets see some facts.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
___________________

There would NOT have been ww2 if it were not for Stalin.
So what did england do,
rewarded Stalin by severing East-Germany to become a
socialist satellite state of the soviet union.

Why?, because of elite are of one feather.
Just ask yourself, why does the queen of england wine and
dine with the king butcher of Bahrain ?
Don't kid yourself about to what extent 'monarchists' will go . . .
www.guardian.co.uk...

www.presstv.ir...

Also ask yourselves why did churchill
support the communists invasion of Finland ?
en.wikipedia.org...
If any one is to be called an insane murderer,
that title should be given to Stalin and those who
supported him.

_____________________

edit on 17/1/13 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Rob37n
 


I still firmly disagree with what your saying, heres some videos if you are interested.












posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpenSky
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


I don't know about Churchill but you Britons ARE seen as traitors in the eyes of the Australians.

what are you on about open sky ?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by HelenConway

Originally posted by OpenSky
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


I don't know about Churchill but you Britons ARE seen as traitors in the eyes of the Australians.

what are you on about open sky ?


After our sacrifices made for Britain, when we needed your help you spat in our faces.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OpenSky
 


You mean this?



Peter Stanley—the former principal historian at the Australian War Memorial—argues that the concept of a 'Battle for Australia' is mistaken as these actions did not form a single campaign aimed against Australia. Stanley has also stated that no historian he knows believes that there was a 'Battle for Australia'.[4] In a 2006 speech, Stanley argued that the concept of a Battle for Australia is invalid as the events which are considered to form the battle were only loosely related. Stanley argued that "The Battle for Australia movement arises directly out of a desire to find meaning in the terrible losses of 1942"; and "there was no 'Battle for Australia', as such", as the Japanese did not launch a co-ordinated campaign directed against Australia. Furthermore, Stanley stated that the phrase 'Battle for Australia' was not used until the 1990s and this 'battle' of the Second World War is not recognised by countries other than Australia

en.wikipedia.org...

You need to explain if not, and given the above, you need to explain anyway.

.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Churchill was pompous, egocentric, cunning and clever...plus he was a complete fruitcake.
Should he be seen as a warmonger - probably. Hitler didn't want war with us. Partial escalator? Absobloodylutely.

Both he and the other Tops sometimes made shocking decisions that put both our own lads and lasses lives and our allies in ridiculous no win jeopardy for nothing more than Old fashioned toff British pomposity, and many times he either did it in nothing but his underpants or his thermals that made him look like an adult baby.

We still love him though. *Victory sign*



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpenSky

Originally posted by HelenConway

Originally posted by OpenSky
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


I don't know about Churchill but you Britons ARE seen as traitors in the eyes of the Australians.

what are you on about open sky ?


After our sacrifices made for Britain, when we needed your help you spat in our faces. [/quote
.]

edit on 17-1-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)


editby]edit on 17-1-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)




As I do not know what you are talking about specifically I can only surmise. Let me tell you the English did NOT and have NEVER spat in the faces of their very dear and close cousins the Australians.
If you mean Gallipalli well more British soldiers died there then Australian and yes I agree I hate warfare and blame the leaders.
The elite poncy leaders treat us all like dirt, English and Australian alike.
Grow up and stop insulting me and my relatives who were bombed, fought and endured WW1 / WW2 etc

How old are you ?[
edit on 17-1-2013 by HelenConway because: trying to get out of quote commas



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


The Battle for Australia was an event in which Australians believed their country would be invaded by the Imperial Empire between the years 1942-43.
The plan of the Japanese was to take Port Moresby and with that army to invade the northern coasts of Australia, from their it was their plan to push south and eventually exterminate all white people of Asia.

Yes you heard me correctly, the Japanese wanted white people driven out of South East Asia, and Australia had the largest population of them.

They did not want to simply conquer us and make us their slaves, they wanted to exterminate us which is why Hitler had a pact with the Japanese to not kill or harm any Germans living in Australia at the time, they were to be given safe transport back to the fatherland.

In reality, if Britain had been taken, it would still be British although a puppet state the very least, if Australia had been taken, well it would have been the end of it forever.

It doesn't surprise me that there are historians who still hold on to their British-centric biasness, they don't want Australians to know the truth, which is that Britain abandoned us...

EDIT: By the way, wikipedia is not a reliable source of information...
edit on 17-1-2013 by OpenSky because:




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by OpenSky
 


What sacrifices are these then?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by moonrunner
reply to post by OpenSky
 


What sacrifices are these then?


What a sad comment.

Go read some history.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpenSky

Originally posted by Rob37n
reply to post by OpenSky
 


When the battle for Australia began the Battle for Britain had already ended, you were not under siege at this point in time like we were. As well, the Americans hadn't even joined the conflict yet, so it was Australia who was having to take on the Imperial Empire.
The British basically said "f*ck you Australia, we don't give a sh*t about your sacrifices so good luck without our help", and ALLOWED Singapore to fall taking 15 thousand Australians prisoner (none of which will survive).
At this point in time, Australia had no armed forces left, our armies were fighting the Germans in North Africa. So instead, untrained militia were raised to fight off invasion.
By the time the Americans became involved the Battle for Australia was over, and the Aussies had BY THEMSELVES pushed the Japs from New Guinea.
Like I said previously, we sent our men to fight and die for Britain, we were with you during the Battle for Britain as the RAAF helped defend YOUR skies.
But when it came to return the favour, you just upped and left us naked...



The Battle for Australia ? That is made up = the Japanese did not invade Australia, they thought about it but they did, this term refers to battles clos eto Australia.

Britain could not have come to Australia's aid at this time even if they wanted to - they were fighting for their very survival. The battle of Britain refers to an aerial battle, only one part of the war that Britain was up to her neck in.

You clearly have no understanding of the situation Britain was in during those perilous years, her troops were in Europe, Africa and the middle East and in Asia, yes also Singapore. The cities were being bombed daily, London, Plymouth Hull, and many others were flattened, Australia was not flattened by German bombs at all !!!!

The British thought their island was going to be invaded and her citizens murdered and enslaved.

Singapore was lost due to the invasion of japan via lond not sea as expected, Lt Gen Percival surrendered prematurely .. he thought he was saving lives by doing this.

The 80,000 who were taken prisoners also included British personnel as well as Australian and Indians - who were a long way from home BTW.

The enslavement happened anyway and Britain lost in the long run circa 2013 but that is another story.

Your assertions are an insult to the Brave Australians who fought in WW2 and WW1 and to the British fighting men and their allies.





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
11
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join