Don't Mention the War. Or Churchill.

[Scootersp]

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.

My understanding is the nazi's took over what countries and land they could and sought to exterminate people of certain types, they instigated a plan to which Churchill (and others - almost the entire world) responded to try and stop. My impression is the Germans were proactive and aggressive and we were reactive and defensive? Happy to be informed otherwise....

If after successfully beating back this regime we raped and piliged their homeland or starting wiping out the remaining German civilians I might have some sympathy with your views, but again my understanding is that we withdrew shortly after and left Germans to rebuild Germany.

[B210bandit]

The British Army still has a presence in Germany, although it is being reduced.

[TorqueVR]

Eric Mc said:

TorqueVR said:

I'm going to Cambodia next week - would it help if I got their views on Churchill and report back about their beer?

Absolutely - two crucial topics that need discussing.

So, the beer's ok and I have appropriate reading material.



Our guide reckons the Cambodian's were rather pleased when we helped kick the Japanese out in WW2 and says that Churchill was a much nicer bloke than Pol Pot. So it's a yes for Winston.

[Halb]

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.

INdeed, you've made some good points. Last night Bill Maher was on and there was a decent chat about this lil contretemps

Eric Mc said:

There are a few who could have led Britain' Lord Halifax was quite keen to do so.

Indeed, but then he baulked at the last, in the seconds that counted he decided not to take the job, and allowed Churchill to do so....I'd like to know what made him make that decision...

[irocfan]

cardigankid said:

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...

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.

You said there was no such thing as a just war - no mention of Winston there. I merely gave a few examples where war was/would have been justified - again no mention of Winnie. Please rebut my argument rather than bang on about WC

[anonymous-user]

Smithy, you haven't seen any suspicious looking characters around that could be German spies have you?

[Eric Mc]

Halb said:

Indeed, but then he baulked at the last, in the seconds that counted he decided not to take the job, and allowed Churchill to do so....I'd like to know what made him make that decision...

His public position was that they couldn't have a member of the House of Lords as PM.

I'm not altogether sure that was the real reason.

[Halb]

Eric Mc said:

His public position was that they couldn't have a member of the House of Lords as PM.

I'm not altogether sure that was the real reason.

I don't think it was either. If I had to venture, I reckon that he felt his position, being amendable to Germany (failed attempts to broker peace) being less tenable as the phoney war moved on, and he didn't wish to have Churchill behind him pushing for more military action.
I don't think that is the be all and end all of it by any means, but it seems realistic considering the mood of the country, and what had been happening, and what we've found out decades later.

[Pothole]

cardigankid said:

We shouldn’t buy a story just because it is picturesque. Let’s just take a slightly more German perspective on this. You can’t project current attitudes and standards back in history. You have to accept that at the end of the C19 and start of the C20, the British Empire was seen, particularly by itself, as the successor to Rome, in its ethos, its civilising force and its economic benefits. Therefore, anything that was done to make and keep Britain as the one and only global superpower was not only good but to the benefit of humanity. The fact that the principal benefit accrued to a very small elite would not have been seen as a problem. Germany was a more efficient industrial nation than Britain, and bluntly, Britain could not compete with Germany on level terms. It still can’t. That is the main problem with Britain and the EU, and always has been. 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, Russia was to get Constantinople, France was to get Alsace and Lorraine, as well as a free hand in North Africa. So, how many people were killed so that Britain could control world trade? How many war graves in France, or War Memorials in every town and village in Britain are down to that. Look at what Kipling said.’They died because their fathers lied’. Britain beggared itself to be colossally supreme in Dreadnoughts at at time when the same interests were trying to prevent the introduction of social security rights which had existed in Germany for 30 years. Look at Churchill in that perspective - an entertaining maverick - comparable in that respect to Boris Johnson.

There is no doubt that Churchill saw himself as a Great War leader in the mould of his ancestor, Marlborough. But Gallipoli shows the real extent of his ability.

No First World War, no destruction of the German regime, no outrageous war reparations, no War Guilt clause, no hyper inflation, no Hitler. Simple as that. And in the end Britain had to surrender its prime position to America, having bankrupted herself.

And so Churchill’s story goes on.

Even the German historian dug up by the BBC in 2014 doesn't blame Britain over Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia and France...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

[CrutyRammers]

Sorry, germany didnt cause ww1? A complicated setup for sure, but they did rather invade france. Saying that they had no choice is a bit of a stretch.

[Oakey]

I think cardigankid was on GMB this morning arguing with Piers Morgan and refusing to answer whether we were justified entering the war

[anonymous-user]

CrutyRammers said:

Sorry, germany didnt cause ww1? A complicated setup for sure, but they did rather invade france. Saying that they had no choice is a bit of a stretch.

Well quite. There's some seriously impressive mental gymnastics going on to try and justify German aggression whilst also condemning Churchill's supposed legacy of a justifiable war.

[JagLover]

Pothole said:

Even the German historian dug up by the BBC in 2014 doesn't blame Britain over Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia and France...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

What a surprise that 10 professional historians would all put the UK at the bottom of the list of those responsible for WW1.

The more interesting question is why some feel the need to claim the reverse. Or indeed to pretend that well documented German atrocities did not take place.

There are two motivations for this IMO. First of all those who tried to make WW1 a political weapon against the establishment and so must pretend they were all as bad as each other.

Secondly an understandable feeling that such sacrifice should generate some tangible benefit, rather than merely restoring the status quo, but now with Britain much poorer and many dead and maimed. This though is not really a criticism of the decision to go to war, though it is a justifiable criticism of the peace treaty that followed and the mistakes of the inter-war years.

[Fast and Spurious]

Churchill. Am I right in saying that even "Bomber" Harris distanced himself from Churchills decision to bomb Dresden? Wasn't it a "show" to "impress" Stalin? Certainly contentious even from day 1.

A question: Which WW2 leader pushed for the use of poison gas and Anthrax "drenching" the cities of the enemy?

[CrutyRammers]

Fast and Spurious said:

Churchill. Am I right in saying that even "Bomber" Harris distanced himself from Churchills decision to bomb Dresden?

Not according to anythig I've ever read, no. Quite the opposite in fact, harris considered it justified and always defended it.

[Eric Mc]

Indeed. From mid 1944 onwards, UK politicians of all hues began to distance themselves from the bombing offensive of Germany - even though it was their policy in the first place.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

If you think Churchill was a racist, just wait until you hear about the bloke he beat.

[V8 Fettler]

Pothole said:

Even the German historian dug up by the BBC in 2014 doesn't blame Britain over Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia and France...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

The primary cause of the Great War was the Congress of Vienna 1815.

[Halb]

I thort it was coz a bloke called Archie Ducke shot an ostrich coz he was hungry?

[anonymous-user]

Halb said:

I thort it was coz a bloke called Archie Ducke shot an ostrich coz he was hungry?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGxAYeeyoIc