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

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
I don't believe that. Only if the war would have gone the way it eventually did. But the vicious fire bombing of German cities was a trait distinctive of the allies.


????? Sorry but what??? In the Bombing of Warsaw the Germans dropped tonnes of high explosive and incendiaries. In the bombing of Rotterdam they dropped high explosives. During the Blitz on London they dropped high explosives and incendiaries. Isn't that also vicious fire bombing???


I wish I could find the source, let me see if I find it, but if you overall compare the bombings the Germans did n civilian areas and the bombings the allies did, the allies did in fact use more vicious methods, in the bombing od Dresden more people were killed than will ever be admitted, the real number is suspected to be somewhere aound 90,000




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logos23
I think Hitlers "Mein Kampf" which he wrote in 1925 pretty much set out what he was about and what he hoped and desired Germany could achieve...he even talked about gassing the Jewish people in "Mein Kampf" and If I remember correctly even said that if sacrificing millions of soldiers only brought about the gassing of 15000 Jews their sacrifice would not be in vain!.

That doesn't sound like a man who was only pre- occupied with border issues.........


He doesn't talk about gassing anyone in Mein Kampf...he talks about the 'removal' of the Jews from Europe, but no mention of gassing is made...

Plus he wrote very little of Mein Kampf himself, the majority of it was written my Rudolf Hess and Professor Karl Haushofer.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
The revisionist history of this thread is absolutely astounding. So many incorrect facts and assumptions.

Hitler never offered to disarm if the whole of Europe did the same, Hitler was massively building up his forces since about 1933 and firmly believed that a strong military was needed for a strong Germany.

Hitler broke quite a few peace pacts in WW2, including the infamous "peace in our time" document that Neville Chamberlain waved in front of the press, and non agression pacts with Stalin.

Hitler also invaded Czechoslovakia and Austria-Hungary without provocation of ANY kind, no border incursions. Hitler simply said at the time that he was using these invasions to bring the German populations of those countries under German control. It would be the equivalent of USA saying today "oh, well, there are plenty of Americans in Canada, we'll just invade and all will be okay".

Hitler had far more to do with extending WW2 than Churchill ever could have.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by Logos23
I think Hitlers "Mein Kampf" which he wrote in 1925 pretty much set out what he was about and what he hoped and desired Germany could achieve...he even talked about gassing the Jewish people in "Mein Kampf" and If I remember correctly even said that if sacrificing millions of soldiers only brought about the gassing of 15000 Jews their sacrifice would not be in vain!.

That doesn't sound like a man who was only pre- occupied with border issues.........


He doesn't talk about gassing anyone in Mein Kampf...he talks about the 'removal' of the Jews from Europe, but no mention of gassing is made...

Plus he wrote very little of Mein Kampf himself, the majority of it was written my Rudolf Hess and Professor Karl Haushofer.


you're actually wrong there, Hitler does in fact mention gas in Mein Kampf, I believe he was referring to the Jews in Germany during the first world war, which he saw as saboteurs, partisans and really whatever else.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
I wish I could find the source, let me see if I find it, but if you overall compare the bombings the Germans did n civilian areas and the bombings the allies did, the allies did in fact use more vicious methods, in the bombing od Dresden more people were killed than will ever be admitted, the real number is suspected to be somewhere aound 90,000


(Facepalm) No. Dresden was bad enough, with around 22,000 dead. The higher numbers tend to be peddled around by idiots like David Irving, who has an agenda.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
but if you overall compare the bombings the Germans did n civilian areas and the bombings the allies did, the allies did in fact use more vicious methods,


Oh the poor Germans, they started the war then they and their supporters whine about the consequences. Of course if Germany did not want to be attacked, possibly they should have considered that before they started attacking other countries....



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
The revisionist history of this thread is absolutely astounding. So many incorrect facts and assumptions.

Hitler never offered to disarm if the whole of Europe did the same, Hitler was massively building up his forces since about 1933 and firmly believed that a strong military was needed for a strong Germany.

Hitler broke quite a few peace pacts in WW2, including the infamous "peace in our time" document that Neville Chamberlain waved in front of the press, and non agression pacts with Stalin.

Hitler also invaded Czechoslovakia and Austria-Hungary without provocation of ANY kind, no border incursions. Hitler simply said at the time that he was using these invasions to bring the German populations of those countries under German control. It would be the equivalent of USA saying today "oh, well, there are plenty of Americans in Canada, we'll just invade and all will be okay".

Hitler had far more to do with extending WW2 than Churchill ever could have.


you're totally right, but you're leaving out things, Hitler did offer to disarm, but only together with France and England, which never happened. Hitler's overall strong military was in his eyes a measure against the Soviet hordes on the east. What you're leaving out about Czechoslovakia is that Poland and Hungary participated in the dismantling of that (new) country.
edit on 14-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
you're actually wrong there, Hitler does in fact mention gas in Mein Kampf, I believe he was referring to the Jews in Germany during the first world war, which he saw as saboteurs, partisans and really whatever else.


I apologise, and stand corrected...but as you state, he was talking retrospectively, not in the context of a future plan.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
I wish I could find the source, let me see if I find it, but if you overall compare the bombings the Germans did n civilian areas and the bombings the allies did, the allies did in fact use more vicious methods, in the bombing od Dresden more people were killed than will ever be admitted, the real number is suspected to be somewhere aound 90,000


(Facepalm) No. Dresden was bad enough, with around 22,000 dead. The higher numbers tend to be peddled around by idiots like David Irving, who has an agenda.


not true, the actual number of deaths in Dresden will never be known because the victims literally disappeared, they turned to ash. David Irving used higher numbers, I think 120.000, but even the revisionists are lowering that anyway. There is still a fierce debate going on about Dresden, you'll never have the actual number. What is sure is that 22,000 is NOT anywhere near the actual amount of bodies turned to ash.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce
Oh the poor Germans, they started the war then they and their supporters whine about the consequences. Of course if Germany did not want to be attacked, possibly they should have considered that before they started attacking other countries....


Yes, but you have to consider that aspects of the Treaty of Versailles can be construed as pre-emptive of a future war. Primarily the creation of the Danzig corridor, which cut Prussia off from the rest of Germany, and, of equal importance Article 231, which insisted on Germany's sole culpability for the first world war, especially financially.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
There is another reason German attacked westwards, it was just about bankrupt with all the spending on armaments, it needed the gold and foreign currency in the 'wests' banks to continue, there was a big enough scandle after the war about all the gold Swiss banks had on deposit from Germany, also production plants, like the Ford truck plant outside Paris ( that was never bombed by the allies) that produced 5,000 trucks a year for the German war effort, the Steel plant at Collembelles, just outside Cain, french Coal, etc. Industrial diamonds in the Amsterdam diamond district. The armaments plants run by Skoda produced thousands of tons on tanks, guns, and ammunition for Germany. the list is endless.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
There is another reason German attacked westwards, it was just about bankrupt with all the spending on armaments, it needed the gold and foreign currency in the 'wests' banks to continue, there was a big enough scandle after the war about all the gold Swiss banks had on deposit from Germany, also production plants, like the Ford truck plant outside Paris ( that was never bombed by the allies) that produced 5,000 trucks a year for the German war effort, the Steel plant at Collembelles, just outside Cain, french Coal, etc. Industrial diamonds in the Amsterdam diamond district. The armaments plants run by Skoda produced thousands of tons on tanks, guns, and ammunition for Germany. the list is endless.


True...and by attacking Russia prematurely, it completely lost it's supply of raw materials...so those plants could not produce anything.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
not true, the actual number of deaths in Dresden will never be known because the victims literally disappeared, they turned to ash. David Irving used higher numbers, I think 120.000, but even the revisionists are lowering that anyway. There is still a fierce debate going on about Dresden, you'll never have the actual number. What is sure is that 22,000 is NOT anywhere near the actual amount of bodies turned to ash.


No, not true again. The last study was in 2010 by the city authorities of Dresden and they said that the death toll was not more than 25,000 people. (www.dresden.de...)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by hellobruce
Oh the poor Germans, they started the war then they and their supporters whine about the consequences. Of course if Germany did not want to be attacked, possibly they should have considered that before they started attacking other countries....


Yes, but you have to consider that aspects of the Treaty of Versailles can be construed as pre-emptive of a future war. Primarily the creation of the Danzig corridor, which cut Prussia off from the rest of Germany, and, of equal importance Article 231, which insisted on Germany's sole culpability for the first world war, especially financially.


Ya, I mentioned this a few pages earlier. This above all is the true context for creating a paradigm in which war was inevitable once Germany fell under a dictatorship.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Oh cool a Hitler apologist, don''t see that often on ATS...



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
There is another reason German attacked westwards, it was just about bankrupt with all the spending on armaments, it needed the gold and foreign currency in the 'wests' banks to continue, there was a big enough scandle after the war about all the gold Swiss banks had on deposit from Germany, also production plants, like the Ford truck plant outside Paris ( that was never bombed by the allies) that produced 5,000 trucks a year for the German war effort, the Steel plant at Collembelles, just outside Cain, french Coal, etc. Industrial diamonds in the Amsterdam diamond district. The armaments plants run by Skoda produced thousands of tons on tanks, guns, and ammunition for Germany. the list is endless.


but these financial reason are not what eventually led Hitler to attack France and England, countries which he highly respected believe it or not. If I remember correctly, Hitler was devastated by the news of the declaration of war against him by France and England. I think his translator at the time later said that after the full transmission, Hitler just sunk into a chair and looked beaten.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
Ya, I mentioned this a few pages earlier. This above all is the true context for creating a paradigm in which war was inevitable once Germany fell under a dictatorship.


Absolutely...and who drafted article 231...Allen Dulles...and who was the legal representative of IG Farben...John Foster Dulles...



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
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.

You believe wrong.




there are a lot of things that aren't taught in school about the beginnings of the war,

Like what? (that is of importance in this matter, that is)



England was the first to pursue radically aggressive measures towards Germany

Germany starting wars against neighboring countries and then declaring war on England is not radically aggressive?



, 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.

Maybe you are right. England should just have been invaded as Hitler wanted. Had the English agreed on that, clearly it would have saved plenty of lives. Good thinking.


as other posters have said it was sanctions imposed after WW1 that caused WW2 also it was primary the British along with other European countries that started WW1 not Germany. After the war a large amount of wealthy Jewish moved into Germany taking advantage of a highly sanctioned and poor country buying up large amounts of property and businesses. They paid the Germans very low wages and could get around the sanctions claiming not to be of German ancestry. We all know what came next, They forced the Jewish to wear the star of David on their clothing which was ironic, they then took back the land and property they had acquired during the sanctions. As kid after learning about WW2 i wanted to know why the Germans hated the Jewish so much and looked into it. Our history books make it sound like they just decided one day they didnt like them and the people had been EVIL ect which is nonsense. Now in no way does that mean it was right of the Germans to do what they did but it paints a clearer picture as to why they did it.
edit on 14-1-2013 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DPrice
Oh cool a Hitler apologist, don''t see that often on ATS...


not trying to reduce the crimes of Hitler, I'm just interested in looking at the second world war from a non-biased perspective. There's really a lot of wartime propaganda that carried on after the war and eventually became written history. but the blame eternally resides with the Nazi aggression and Hitler



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by digital01anarchy
as other posters have said it was sanctions imposed after WW1 that caused WW2 also it was primary the British along with other European countries that started WW1 not Germany. After the war a large amount of wealthy Jewish moved into Germany taking advantage of a highly sanctioned and poor country buying up large amounts of property and businesses. They paid the Germans very low wages and could get around the sanctions claiming not to be of German ancestry. We all know what came next, They forced the Jewish to wear the star of David on their clothing which was ironic, they then took back the land and property they had acquired during the sanctions. As kid after learning about WW2 i wanted to know why the Germans hated the Jewish so much and looked into it. Our history books make it sound like they just decided one day they didnt like them and the people had been EVIL ect which is nonsense. Now in no way does that mean it was right of the Germans to do what they did but it paints a clearer picture as to why they did it.
edit on 14-1-2013 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)


......Total honk.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join