Don't Mention the War. Or Churchill.
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Please - don't get personal. I like posting on PH - does that make me "sad"?
I have no interest in my "post count" although others seem weirdly fascinated by it and can't stop themselves raising it as some sort of "weapon" to use against me.
If you want me to cease posting on PH, maybe I will. It does seem that an enthusiastic PHers is also a despised one. Strange or what.
As regards the topic of this thread, Churchill is an interesting subject. I like discussing Churchill. He's a fascinating character.
Eric, when you’re going through hell, keep going.I have no interest in my "post count" although others seem weirdly fascinated by it and can't stop themselves raising it as some sort of "weapon" to use against me.
If you want me to cease posting on PH, maybe I will. It does seem that an enthusiastic PHers is also a despised one. Strange or what.
As regards the topic of this thread, Churchill is an interesting subject. I like discussing Churchill. He's a fascinating character.
cardigankid said:
So, Germany did not start or cause the First World War. Britain, with Churchill to the fore, forced that issue. There was no Morocco crisis, there was no Agadir crisis, there was no naval arms race, at least on the German side. They were all a fiction. It was a put up job,
Germany had been planning to invade France (again) since 1905, and they started their attack before Britain was in the war.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan
To continue with my German perspective on this, the Schlieffen Plan was essentially defensive, and was a response to Germany’s problem of being pinned between two major enemies, France and Russia. Germany had been caught in a trap between these powers with the additional possibility of a naval blockade by Great Britain. The conflict was made inevitable by Britain, once it kicked off the Germans had to act. It had to knock France out fast before turning to face Russia in force. It was British diplomacy which put the Germans in this position, and I would go so far as to say that it was Britain who had prepared the ground for the conflagration starting in the Balkans. Why did Britain come into the war? Because Belgian neutrality had been infringed, and the British press was filled with phoney horror stories about supposed war atrocities by Germans in Belgium. The Belgians were not neutral as it happened. Britain had reached a secret military agreement with Belgium some years before.
However, back to Churchill? They say power was his objective and war was his element. I do not doubt that for a moment, but war is a wicked evil thing and wicked evil things are done in war. There is no such thing as a just war, a good war or a justified war and if there is one pernicious thing about Churchill’s legacy it is that it gives the impression that there is.
However, back to Churchill? They say power was his objective and war was his element. I do not doubt that for a moment, but war is a wicked evil thing and wicked evil things are done in war. There is no such thing as a just war, a good war or a justified war and if there is one pernicious thing about Churchill’s legacy it is that it gives the impression that there is.
cardigankid said:
There is no such thing as a just war, a good war or a justified war and if there is one pernicious thing about Churchill’s legacy it is that it gives the impression that there is.
I think that 6,000,000 Jews plus gypsies, disabled people, LGBT, Slavs etc would like to dispute that fact. I suspect that there are a lot of people in Cambodia who wished that someone had wiped out the Kymher Rouge early on...optimal909 said:
He is a hero for the Brits, for obvious reasons, and I respect it.
IMHO he committed genocide with the bombing of Dresden that served no sound strategic purpose.
For God's sake don't educate yourself on what Truman authorised to be dropped on Japan, Dresden was genocide? Please....IMHO he committed genocide with the bombing of Dresden that served no sound strategic purpose.
It was an axis of pure evil and it needed destroying in any which way it could.
irocfan said:
cardigankid said:
There is no such thing as a just war, a good war or a justified war and if there is one pernicious thing about Churchill’s legacy it is that it gives the impression that there is.
I think that 6,000,000 Jews plus gypsies, disabled people, LGBT, Slavs etc would like to dispute that fact. I suspect that there are a lot of people in Cambodia who wished that someone had wiped out the Kymher Rouge early on...So, consider that when we get all this stuff about the Greatest Englishman Whoever Lived. Some people may have preferred to get their sons, brothers or husbands back. And, most importantly, when someone tells you that we should be going to war, he is a fool or a criminal.
cardigankid said:
Churchill never lifted a finger to save any of them, before or during WW2. Whether pushing Britain into war with Germany saved any of them or caused their demise is debatable, never mind all the others who died, or the deliberate destruction without any military reason whatsoever of a large number of German cities, resulting in men, women and children suffocated crushed and burnt to death. Who are the war criminals? Don’t be deluded, everyone. What is for certain is that Churchill pushed for the war. He truly said that all he had to offer was blood toil sweat and tears. He left Britain completely bust and stuffed. When it was obvious that Britain and the British Empire were finished he sought to translate his imperial vision into a brotherhood or commonwealth of The English Speaking Peoples, hence his history of that title. America was supposed to pick up the flag and carry it forward. Instead of which they ripped Britain off, selling them second rate war materials, forcing them to destroy much of it in 1945, but making them pay in full for every last piece of it. The Americans to whom Churchill put Britain into hock were absolutely determined to finish the British Empire and Britain’s leading role in the world, and they did. The Special Relationship is a very one sided affair. They tell us to jump and we ask how high. That is where Winston Churchill led Britain.
So, consider that when we get all this stuff about the Greatest Englishman Whoever Lived. Some people may have preferred to get their sons, brothers or husbands back. And, most importantly, when someone tells you that we should be going to war, he is a fool or a criminal.
Other opinions are available. So, consider that when we get all this stuff about the Greatest Englishman Whoever Lived. Some people may have preferred to get their sons, brothers or husbands back. And, most importantly, when someone tells you that we should be going to war, he is a fool or a criminal.
cardigankid said:
Churchill never lifted a finger to save any of them, before or during WW2. Whether pushing Britain into war with Germany saved any of them or caused their demise is debatable, never mind all the others who died, or the deliberate destruction without any military reason whatsoever of a large number of German cities, resulting in men, women and children suffocated crushed and burnt to death. Who are the war criminals? Don’t be deluded, everyone. What is for certain is that Churchill pushed for the war. He truly said that all he had to offer was blood toil sweat and tears. He left Britain completely bust and stuffed. When it was obvious that Britain and the British Empire were finished he sought to translate his imperial vision into a brotherhood or commonwealth of The English Speaking Peoples, hence his history of that title. America was supposed to pick up the flag and carry it forward. Instead of which they ripped Britain off, selling them second rate war materials, forcing them to destroy much of it in 1945, but making them pay in full for every last piece of it. The Americans to whom Churchill put Britain into hock were absolutely determined to finish the British Empire and Britain’s leading role in the world, and they did. The Special Relationship is a very one sided affair. They tell us to jump and we ask how high. That is where Winston Churchill led Britain.
So, consider that when we get all this stuff about the Greatest Englishman Whoever Lived. Some people may have preferred to get their sons, brothers or husbands back. And, most importantly, when someone tells you that we should be going to war, he is a fool or a criminal.
Jesus... is this what we are teaching our children now?So, consider that when we get all this stuff about the Greatest Englishman Whoever Lived. Some people may have preferred to get their sons, brothers or husbands back. And, most importantly, when someone tells you that we should be going to war, he is a fool or a criminal.
cardigankid said:
Churchill never lifted a finger to save any of them, before or during WW2. Whether pushing Britain into war with Germany saved any of them or caused their demise is debatable, never mind all the others who died, or the deliberate destruction without any military reason whatsoever of a large number of German cities, resulting in men, women and children suffocated crushed and burnt to death. Who are the war criminals? Don’t be deluded, everyone. What is for certain is that Churchill pushed for the war. He truly said that all he had to offer was blood toil sweat and tears. He left Britain completely bust and stuffed. When it was obvious that Britain and the British Empire were finished he sought to translate his imperial vision into a brotherhood or commonwealth of The English Speaking Peoples, hence his history of that title. America was supposed to pick up the flag and carry it forward. Instead of which they ripped Britain off, selling them second rate war materials, forcing them to destroy much of it in 1945, but making them pay in full for every last piece of it. The Americans to whom Churchill put Britain into hock were absolutely determined to finish the British Empire and Britain’s leading role in the world, and they did. The Special Relationship is a very one sided affair. They tell us to jump and we ask how high. That is where Winston Churchill led Britain.
So, consider that when we get all this stuff about the Greatest Englishman Whoever Lived. Some people may have preferred to get their sons, brothers or husbands back. And, most importantly, when someone tells you that we should be going to war, he is a fool or a criminal.
The internet has got a lot to answer for giving people like you a place to express your vile views.So, consider that when we get all this stuff about the Greatest Englishman Whoever Lived. Some people may have preferred to get their sons, brothers or husbands back. And, most importantly, when someone tells you that we should be going to war, he is a fool or a criminal.
Look, Eric Mc said he wanted to debate Churchill. I’ve given him quite a bit to chew on. If my facts are wrong or argument is incorrect, then tell me, but be prepared to get into the detail. However, as he said himself, the problem with the internet is a discussion rapidly descends into personal abuse, and I suggest that we avoid that.
cardigankid said:
Look, Eric Mc said he wanted to debate Churchill. I’ve given him quite a bit to chew on. If my facts are wrong or argument is incorrect, then tell me, but be prepared to get into the detail. However, as he said himself, the problem with the internet is a discussion rapidly descends into personal abuse, and I suggest that we avoid that.
Not much to debate, really. You don't like Churchill, that much is obvious.cardigankid said:
Churchill never lifted a finger to save any of them, before or during WW2.
Well, what would have been your suggestion? On the other hand, attempting to overthrow the perpetrators is "lifting a finger".cardigankid said:
Whether pushing Britain into war with Germany saved any of them or caused their demise is debatable, never mind all the others who died, or the deliberate destruction without any military reason whatsoever of a large number of German cities, resulting in men, women and children suffocated crushed and burnt to death. Who are the war criminals? Don’t be deluded, everyone. What is for certain is that Churchill pushed for the war. He truly said that all he had to offer was blood toil sweat and tears.
"Pushing Britain into war" - I think you'll find that was Hitler. But I do see, within the structure of your "argument", how that nugget fits in."...or caused their demise is debatable" - again, I think you'll find that was was Hitler & his cohorts.
"...never mind all the others who died, or the deliberate destruction without any military reason whatsoever of a large number of German cities, resulting in men, women and children suffocated crushed and burnt to death" - yes, well that part does have some merit for debate. However given the nature of "total war", this sort of question has no right answer. It's a bit of the paradox that results from war.
"Who are the war criminals? Don’t be deluded, everyone." - yet again, that would be Hitler & his cohorts. With some Stalin & the Japs thrown in.
"What is for certain is that Churchill pushed for the war. He truly said that all he had to offer was blood toil sweat and tears." - yep, see, I think you've misunderstood this, which sort of explains the construct of your argument.
Am I a fan of Churchill? Not particularly. But he was the leader we (the Great Britain of the day) had at the time. As others have said, "he was the leader we needed at the time" & thank God we did.
War in Europe in the mid 20th C was inevitable, given the aspirations of two of the most pernicious leaders of the day. One eventually shot himself. The other was Stalin.
All in my opinion, of course.
Oh, and if you want to avoid unpleasant responses to your posts, best not to suggest that readers not agreeing with you are "deluded".
cardigankid said:
To continue with my German perspective on this, the Schlieffen Plan was essentially defensive, and was a response to Germany’s problem of being pinned between two major enemies, France and Russia. Germany had been caught in a trap between these powers with the additional possibility of a naval blockade by Great Britain. The conflict was made inevitable by Britain, once it kicked off the Germans had to act. It had to knock France out fast before turning to face Russia in force. It was British diplomacy which put the Germans in this position, and I would go so far as to say that it was Britain who had prepared the ground for the conflagration starting in the Balkans. Why did Britain come into the war? Because Belgian neutrality had been infringed, and the British press was filled with phoney horror stories about supposed war atrocities by Germans in Belgium. The Belgians were not neutral as it happened. Britain had reached a secret military agreement with Belgium some years before.
It became fashionable after WW1 to claim that all stories of German atrocities in Belgium were propaganda.They were not
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium
Secondly in terms of the specific chain of events that led to war the axis powers made most of the decisions that led to it.
Certainly it did not suit Russia to go to war in 1914.
AW111 said:
I have been intrigued for a long time by the "Churchill as the one true king" view of history.
Regardless of how good or bad a leader he was, the implicit assumption that only Churchill could have lead England to victory is odd, to say the least.
There are a few who could have led Britain' Lord Halifax was quite keen to do so.Regardless of how good or bad a leader he was, the implicit assumption that only Churchill could have lead England to victory is odd, to say the least.
However, it's hard to see who else in the government of that time who could have led Britain and convinced both the government and the population that Britain needed to stand firm against Naziism.
Have you any suggestions?
AW111 said:
I have been intrigued for a long time by the "Churchill as the one true king" view of history.
Regardless of how good or bad a leader he was, the implicit assumption that only Churchill could have lead England to victory is odd, to say the least.
More the fact that we stayed in the war.Regardless of how good or bad a leader he was, the implicit assumption that only Churchill could have lead England to victory is odd, to say the least.
Many were calling for a negotiated peace after the fall of France and Hitler would have been quite happy with that.
The fact that we stayed in the war meant that Germany couldn't allocate all of its army to the invasion of the soviet union in 1941 and also meant that Russia had another source of military supplies.
The war in the east in 1941 was very close and Britain not being in the war might have led to the fall of Moscow.
Then later the fact we were still in the war meant that an invasion of western Europe was possible.
In terms of the actual direction of the war, Churchill did OK. Most British generals were fairly poor so setbacks in places like North Africa and Burma weren't really down to him. He also held back D-Day for as long as he could to try and avoid a similar scale of casualties among British soldiers as in WW2.
That is really where the whole bomber campaign comes from. He wanted to demonstrate Britain was doing something without a repeat of the WW1 slaughter.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff