Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:24 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.


Right..keep the structures...exterminate the people..especially the jews. Bad move.
I don't hammer the reich completely..some aspects are understandable, some are almost commendable..but their dealing with destruction of human life is what completely taints any shred of sanity or decency from them and anything they claim their own...
This is what Joe warrior picked up his rifle for..not because they had some greater belief in border negotiations or anything else...it was simply because the Nazis were extermining an entire people for...erm..the lulz I guess (banking and finance issues in reality).




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

Originally posted by SaturnFX

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.


Do you know that Hitler actually complained to the League of Nations prior to their invasion of Poland? They had asked the international community to look at the border violations and aggravation of Poland against the Germans living in Polish controlled country and directly at the border.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
How dare people stop a regime beginning the process of genocide and marching armies into sovereign nations.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Churchill you say,

Well what about Henry Ford who received the Nazi Grand Cross of the German Eagle, or what about Joseph Kennedy, he was very cosy with the Nazi’s, Hoover was actually quite an admirer of the Nazi’s at first. How about we also talk about the German American Bund as well OP…..

The man responsible for all those deaths was Hitler, I don’t recall Churchill gassing the Jews.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

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.


Right..keep the structures...exterminate the people..especially the jews. Bad move.
I don't hammer the reich completely..some aspects are understandable, some are almost commendable..but their dealing with destruction of human life is what completely taints any shred of sanity or decency from them and anything they claim their own...
This is what Joe warrior picked up his rifle for..not because they had some greater belief in border negotiations or anything else...it was simply because the Nazis were extermining an entire people for...erm..the lulz I guess (banking and finance issues in reality).


the sad thing is that most likely the Holocaust would not have been able to manifest if the war had not escalated in late 1940. People seem to forget that the actual goal of the Nazi Regime was not to destroy and plunge and exterminate, but to build up a new social order in Germany and work with the UK on European domination.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:28 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 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, like the bombing of civilian areas. No wonder the Germans retaliated with the Blitz, the Brits did it first anyway. So what do you think? Did Churchill make the European situation worse? I believe so.


No, sorry. Churchill wasn't in power in the 1930's and then even when he rejoined the British Government in 1939 he became First Lord of the Admiralty, not PM. As for Britain's "radical position", I don't think that you know what you're talking about. Britain spent the period from 1936 to March 1939 engaging in a policy of appeasing Germany - giving it what it wanted. This made the war inevitable as Hitler made the mistake of thinking that they'd continue to do so. Once Neville Chamberlain realised, after the occupation of Prague and the dismantling of Czechoslovakia, that Hitler couldn't be trusted, appeasement then stopped - rightly so in my opinion.
As for Britain being the first to bomb civilian areas in World War Two, I think that you'll find that the dead of Wielun, Warsaw, Rotterdam, Dunkirk and far, far troo many other places in Belgium and France would disagree with you. Germany did it first.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
How dare people stop a regime beginning the process of genocide and marching armies into sovereign nations.


Genocide was not the end goal. Genocide was permitted to happen because the war was going great for Germany.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Churchill you say,

Well what about Henry Ford who received the Nazi Grand Cross of the German Eagle, or what about Joseph Kennedy, he was very cosy with the Nazi’s, Hoover was actually quite an admirer of the Nazi’s at first. How about we also talk about the German American Bund as well OP…..

The man responsible for all those deaths was Hitler, I don’t recall Churchill gassing the Jews.


yes of course, the DEATHS in total, but the 1939/40 stage could have been the gist of it. It escalated, and I personally believe Churchill and later Roosevelt did influence this escalation.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by SaturnFX

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.


Do you know that Hitler actually complained to the League of Nations prior to their invasion of Poland? They had asked the international community to look at the border violations and aggravation of Poland against the Germans living in Polish controlled country and directly at the border.


Which is a more sane way of doing things
but world war 1 basically resolved that issue with the defeat of Germany...aka, you lost, you also lost some bits...just deal with it.
so years of moaning about your loss..from a war...and you then decide to go in again...
it was doomed to begin with. It reminds me a bit about Palestine moaning about their land they lost in 76, when they attacked and were promptly slapped.

A lot can be learned about WW1 and 2 and the consequences of a lost war..and more importantly, the insanity of trying to hit the undo button on the consequences of the first action with the same action

Germany is lucky they weren't completely dismantled after the second round.

Anyhow. we did Germany a favor. the average german citizen was about as happy of the situation as france was...occupied and forced to adopt or very bad things happen. Many people look back at WW2 and see the allies liberated many areas..from north Africa, france, Poland, etc...but the german people also give credit to the allies for liberating them from the Nazi's also...its what is taught in their schools.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


I wasn't referring to overall civilian targeting, I was only talking about the conflict between the UK and Germany. In that conflict, it was England who provoked Hitler into unleashing the Blitz.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
This thread has gotten way off track already.

Could the OP please confirm the following, as this is how it reads to me

a) he agrees WW2 and it's atrocities were mostly committed by Hitler's Germany
b) he agrees the Holocaust was an evil atrocity and is under no way excusable
c)the point being made in the OP is that of the POLITICAL situation PRIOR WW2 regarding Germany trying to live under unlivable circumstances (Versaille) (possibly avoidable with good politics), Germany trying to RECLAIM parts of Poland, the generally deluded and misguided political situation and lack of understanding and compromise of the political leaders of the day, including Churchill that FAILED in stopping WW2 before it started, which could have been done with the correct politics

Please let this thread keep to the facts it is not excusing the Holocaust if it was I would not be writing in it.

The thread is about the politics of the worlds leaders of the day and how WW2 could have and should have been prevented.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
If you're trying to defend Germany during world war two just give up now. Whatever way you want to spin it, Germany was a society based on insane ideas, eugenics, social control, death to political opponents. It was more of a gangster run society rather than a political system run society.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Hopeforeveryone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
yes of course, the DEATHS in total, but the 1939/40 stage could have been the gist of it. It escalated, and I personally believe Churchill and later Roosevelt did influence this escalation.


You have yet to explain his Churchill could have done anything when he wasn't in Government until September 1939. And even then he was in charge of the Royal Navy after war had been declared because the Germans had invaded Poland with several million heavily armed men, which seems a bit much for what you have so misguidedly called a border skirmish. By the way, Western Poland had more than a few plebiscites in many places. Seems that a lot of Poles didn't want to be German any more. I wonder why.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by SaturnFX

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.


Do you know that Hitler actually complained to the League of Nations prior to their invasion of Poland? They had asked the international community to look at the border violations and aggravation of Poland against the Germans living in Polish controlled country and directly at the border.


Which is a more sane way of doing things
but world war 1 basically resolved that issue with the defeat of Germany...aka, you lost, you also lost some bits...just deal with it.
so years of moaning about your loss..from a war...and you then decide to go in again...
it was doomed to begin with. It reminds me a bit about Palestine moaning about their land they lost in 76, when they attacked and were promptly slapped.

A lot can be learned about WW1 and 2 and the consequences of a lost war..and more importantly, the insanity of trying to hit the undo button on the consequences of the first action with the same action

Germany is lucky they weren't completely dismantled after the second round.

Anyhow. we did Germany a favor. the average german citizen was about as happy of the situation as france was...occupied and forced to adopt or very bad things happen. Many people look back at WW2 and see the allies liberated many areas..from north Africa, france, Poland, etc...but the german people also give credit to the allies for liberating them from the Nazi's also...its what is taught in their schools.


yeah that's something I wonder about sometimes, the Germans were treated quite nicely after the war lol. it surely had to do with the imperial soviets at Germany's doorstep, so the allies played safe and just occupied Germany as their base. I can't remember the actual quote, but Hoover has said after the war that about 10 MILLION Germans or more should be exterminated. I repeat, exterminated.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
If you're trying to defend Germany during world war two just give up now. Whatever way you want to spin it, Germany was a society based on insane ideas, eugenics, social control, death to political opponents. It was more of a gangster run society rather than a political system run society.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Hopeforeveryone because: (no reason given)


totally agree, I'm not trying to defend Germany lol. It's just interesting to me to look at it from a different angle



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


I wasn't referring to overall civilian targeting, I was only talking about the conflict between the UK and Germany. In that conflict, it was England who provoked Hitler into unleashing the Blitz.


Erm, what, sorry? The Blitz was the deliberate targeting of civilians. Which the Germans started in Poland. If you want to be really picky they started it in Guernica in 1937.
edit on 14-1-2013 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
and I personally believe Churchill and later Roosevelt did influence this escalation.


Very true, nasty Churchill tried to stop peace loving Germany from invading most of Europe, the naughty man. He should have just let Germany take over all of Europe.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
the sad thing is that most likely the Holocaust would not have been able to manifest if the war had not escalated in late 1940. People seem to forget that the actual goal of the Nazi Regime was not to destroy and plunge and exterminate, but to build up a new social order in Germany and work with the UK on European domination.


Part of the building process however was to assume complete financial control over the banking industry..that was heavily run by the jews at the time. So they had to go (given they were actually doing some dodgy financing and creating super inflation and debt)...but finance reform would have been better than their method of either ship em off to the middle east, or murder em...

the pen > the sword...especially in regards to global reputation.

Today in the west..same thing is happening. Not by any group (jews or otherwise) but of corporate banking cabals again funneling our resources out.
But we aren't demanding the execution of these organizations...we are wanting finance reform...aka, a civil way of doing things that causes no death, and is acknowledged by most of the globe as a good thing to do.

But we are splitting hairs.
Action : genocide
solution : attack those whom are committing genocide.
That's the entire mindset for the allies..maybe not the tippy top, but you cannot have a war without soldiers...and that's why solders fought...for the Nazi's extreme measures in dealing with their financial issues with blood.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening
 


Fine, but you're trying to blame Churchill for starting WW2. When he wasn't in Government. That dog ain't going to hunt.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
This thread has gotten way off track already.

Could the OP please confirm the following, as this is how it reads to me

a) he agrees WW2 and it's atrocities were mostly committed by Hitler's Germany
b) he agrees the Holocaust was an evil atrocity and is under no way excusable
c)the point being made in the OP is that of the POLITICAL situation PRIOR WW2 regarding Germany trying to live under unlivable circumstances (Versaille) (possibly avoidable with good politics), Germany trying to RECLAIM parts of Poland, the generally deluded and misguided political situation and lack of understanding and compromise of the political leaders of the day, including Churchill that FAILED in stopping WW2 before it started, which could have been done with the correct politics

Please let this thread keep to the facts it is not excusing the Holocaust if it was I would not be writing in it.

The thread is about the politics of the worlds leaders of the day and how WW2 could have and should have been prevented.


a) of course, no sane person would deny that
b) same as above, no sane person would deny that
c) YES


damn, lol, my first thread and people get itchy already...





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join