Don't Mention the War. Or Churchill.

[cardigankid]

JagLover said:

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.

No, it certainly did not, but it suited Britain for them to go to war.

I do not hate Churchill, I enjoyed the Malakand Field Force, The River War (a truly outstanding piece of work) and My Early Life (an entertaining semi-fiction). He was a better writer than a politician or war leader. I have probably got more of his books on my shelves than anyone else here, most of them first editions, as well as all volumes of the official biography by Randolph S Churchill and Martin Gilbert, and the volumes of reference documents . However, I think that it is high time that people, particularly in Britain, had a more realistic perspective on Churchill history.

I did not say that all Belgian atrocity stories were propaganda, but a very large proportion of them were, including most if not all of the lurid stuff, deliberately fabricated by a dishonest British press controlled by those who wanted war. From a German perspective, they would have argued that they were entitled to respond to civilian attacks on German forces which undoubtedly happened. The Belgians were not neutral in practice and they were armed to the teeth. Also that the Allied armies were equally responsible for abuse of civilians and prisoners of war. This happens in war, any war, and one of the reasons why we should be so cynical about politicians trying to urge us into it.

Nor did I call anyone deluded. I was urging all parties not to be taken in by propaganda masquerading as history.

The 'Chain of Events' which led to war in August 1914 were not an unfortunate coincidence. I think that it is historically demonstrable that they were deliberately orchestrated by Britain, by Churchill among others, to destroy Germany as a threat to British world power. ('The Fleet was Ready'. It sure was, that was why Churchill was made First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911.) If that were the case, would you agree that far from being any kind of hero, Churchill was a knowing party to the most obscene mass murder in history, not least of a generation of young British men who were all but wiped out.

Look at the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Can I ask, who here thinks that was the act of a few young hotheads?

[irocfan]

cardigankid said:

I did not say that all Belgian atrocity stories were propaganda, but a very large proportion of them were, including most if not all of the lurid stuff, deliberately fabricated by a dishonest British press controlled by those who wanted war. From a German perspective, they would have argued that they were entitled to respond to civilian attacks on German forces which undoubtedly happened. The Belgians were not neutral in practice and they were armed to the teeth.

so if a country is invaded you're against its citizens from trying to stop said invasion? Please don't give all this "that's what the army is for bks"

[John145]

I'm rather interested in hearing the alternative history that should have played out once Britain had declared neutrality and everyone accepted Hitler as Lord of Europe and Asia.

[cardigankid]

irocfan said:

so if a country is invaded you're against its citizens from trying to stop said invasion? Please don't give all this "that's what the army is for bks"

Not at all, however, if you are going to shoot back you need to expect return fire, and if you are in civvies, you can expect to be stood against a wall. Armies wear uniforms. That should avoid you being murdered if taken prisoner. And let's not get holier than thou on that issue. Belgium was however aligned with Britain and France against Germany, and they had agreed, prior to the outbreak of war, to let British forces go through Belgium to get at the Germans.

[cardigankid]

John145 said:

I'm rather interested in hearing the alternative history that should have played out once Britain had declared neutrality and everyone accepted Hitler as Lord of Europe and Asia.

The war that matters is the First World War. The Nazis were a product of the instability arising from the root and branch destruction of a country, much the same as the Taliban and Daesh, and Britain wasn't blameless there either. Speculation about alternative outcomes to WW2 don't seem to me to take us very far, but I can't see that Churchill's management of it achieved much for Britain or its Empire as it was.

Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 18th October 13:48

[jakesmith]

cardigankid said:

Whether pushing Britain into war with Germany saved any of them or caused their demise is debatable

So if Churchill hadn't brought the UK into the war, which resulted in the liberation of the concentration camps, where is there scope to debate the fate of those that hadn't yet been murdered in them?

[cardigankid]

Raygun - Could you pause for a moment and come out with a more rational reaction? Is it unpatriotic to be critical of Mr Churchill?

I'm simply telling you the facts. You can dispute the facts or you can dispute the reasoning.

However, once Boris takes power, all his mates get rich in a Wild West deregulation following Brexit, and a load more Brits get killed in some other ill judged but very expensive military intervention to show that Britain 'punches above its weight', you will be living with the consequences. That would be the result of being ignorant of history.

Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 18th October 13:58

[XCP]

I take the view that Germany started the first World war, partly because the Kaiser was bonkers. They got hammered. They then made the mistake of electing a leader who was also mad. This led to World War two.

Churchill was deeply flawed, but was the right man for the job at the time.

Revisionist versions of history are also available.

[cardigankid]

XCP said:

I take the view that Germany started the first World war, partly because the Kaiser was bonkers. They got hammered. They then made the mistake of electing a leader who was also mad. This led to World War two.

Churchill was deeply flawed, but was the right man for the job at the time.

Revisionist versions of history are also available.

Rather a coincidence to have two insane leaders one after the other. Tell me, is Vladimir Putin also insane?

Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 18th October 14:14

[cardigankid]

In fairness, I also read the Hotspur, the Wizard and plenty of Commando magazines when I was a kid, and I also held this simplistic view of history, but the more you find out the more you discover that it just was not like that.

[Smiler.]

cardigankid said:

I'm simply telling you the facts. You can dispute the facts or you can dispute the reasoning.

No, you're doing far more than that.

Your statements may contain some facts, but mainly your opinion.

cardigankid said:

Nor did I call anyone deluded.

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.

I think you did.

You are expressing the opinion that there was no reason for the bombing of Germany at that point, in those places, other than Churchill's desire for genocide. You have every right to make that claim.

You can in part, thank Churchill for that.

[XCP]

cardigankid said:

Rather a coincidence to have two insane leaders one after the other. Tell me, is Vladimir Putin also insane?

Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 18th October 14:14

I think there were sane leaders inbetween. Which of the Kaiser and Hitler were not insane, in your view?

[cardigankid]

Some try to portray the Kaiser as unhinged due to a withered arm. I do not think that there is any more evidence that he was insane than there is that Hitler had one ball.

[V8 Fettler]

cardigankid said:

JagLover said:

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.

No, it certainly did not, but it suited Britain for them to go to war.

I do not hate Churchill, I enjoyed the Malakand Field Force, The River War (a truly outstanding piece of work) and My Early Life (an entertaining semi-fiction). He was a better writer than a politician or war leader. I have probably got more of his books on my shelves than anyone else here, most of them first editions, as well as all volumes of the official biography by Randolph S Churchill and Martin Gilbert, and the volumes of reference documents . However, I think that it is high time that people, particularly in Britain, had a more realistic perspective on Churchill history.

I did not say that all Belgian atrocity stories were propaganda, but a very large proportion of them were, including most if not all of the lurid stuff, deliberately fabricated by a dishonest British press controlled by those who wanted war. From a German perspective, they would have argued that they were entitled to respond to civilian attacks on German forces which undoubtedly happened. The Belgians were not neutral in practice and they were armed to the teeth. Also that the Allied armies were equally responsible for abuse of civilians and prisoners of war. This happens in war, any war, and one of the reasons why we should be so cynical about politicians trying to urge us into it.

Nor did I call anyone deluded. I was urging all parties not to be taken in by propaganda masquerading as history.

The 'Chain of Events' which led to war in August 1914 were not an unfortunate coincidence. I think that it is historically demonstrable that they were deliberately orchestrated by Britain, by Churchill among others, to destroy Germany as a threat to British world power. ('The Fleet was Ready'. It sure was, that was why Churchill was made First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911.) If that were the case, would you agree that far from being any kind of hero, Churchill was a knowing party to the most obscene mass murder in history, not least of a generation of young British men who were all but wiped out.

Look at the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Can I ask, who here thinks that was the act of a few young hotheads?

Off you go then.

Tirpitz was building the German High Seas Fleet 1890s onwards, a bit before Churchill was made First Lord of the Admiralty.

The concept of the Belgians stopping the German juggernaut in August 1914 is laughable.

A united Germany - dominated by Prussia - was only going to do one thing: fight everybody.

[jakesmith]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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

Love this!

[cardigankid]

The prime cause of WW1 was the intention of the British Empire to maintain its prime world power status by reducing Germany. The number of modern warships Germany built was nowhere near the number Britain possessed at any time and were still building. Are we saying Germany was not allowed to have a navy? Masterminded by Lord Jacky Fisher and led from 1911 by Churchill, this force would allow Britain both to blockade Germany and dominate the seas. Britain particularly during the Entente Cordiale period of Edward VII set up a ring of steel around Germany, including Belgium with the specific intention of provoking a conflict which would allow them to flatten Germany. After a number of false starts they ultimately did with the Sarajevo incident which was directly organised by Russian diplomats with the knowledge and connivance of the British Government . Germany was faced with attacks from two sides and attempted to take France out of the war first using the Schlieffen strategy.

Britain was prepared by means of propaganda to go to war with Germany from 1910 or earlier. They were confident of winning given that they expected Russia and France to take the brunt of the German attack. Unfortunately technology favoured the defence, and the British Army was commanded by placemen selected for their obedience by Field Marshal Lord Roberts VC, who died in France in 1914 of natural causes. This incidentally was exactly what had happened in the Crimea when the Army was commanded by the Duke of Wellington's ageing Military Secretary rather than the Duke who had died two years earlier. Hence the 'Donkeys' like French, Haig and Rawlinson were left in charge. It might have been a different matter had Sir Garnet Wolseley survived as his proteges were far more able.

This was done quite intentionally by a select group of people including Winston Churchill (who had actually started in Parliament by advocating military economy). As a result, and this was a very different time to today, and they no doubt expected to win with fewer casualties than actually occurred, these people, including Churchill, were directly responsible for one to the worst human catastrophes in history. So mention him if you like, but don't expect everyone to treat him as a hero. I'm sorry but we are so conditioned in Britain to believing that we are always on the side of the good guys that we can't see what is actually going on.

You may say that this is my opinion not fact. For a start, what statement above would you like me to prove. And please don't say 'All of it'!

[John145]

cardigankid said:

Is it unpatriotic to be critical of Mr Churchill?

Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 18th October 13:58

Quite simply, yes.

But that’s simply how you’ll come across to 99.9% of people in England.

[XCP]

Mr Cardigan seems to have studied history at Hitler youth camp.

[V8 Fettler]

cardigankid said:

The prime cause of WW1 was the intention of the British Empire to maintain its prime world power status by reducing Germany. The number of modern warships Germany built was nowhere near the number Britain possessed at any time and were still building. Are we saying Germany was not allowed to have a navy? Masterminded by Lord Jacky Fisher and led from 1911 by Churchill, this force would allow Britain both to blockade Germany and dominate the seas. Britain particularly during the Entente Cordiale period of Edward VII set up a ring of steel around Germany, including Belgium with the specific intention of provoking a conflict which would allow them to flatten Germany. After a number of false starts they ultimately did with the Sarajevo incident which was directly organised by Russian diplomats with the knowledge and connivance of the British Government . Germany was faced with attacks from two sides and attempted to take France out of the war first using the Schlieffen strategy.

Britain was prepared by means of propaganda to go to war with Germany from 1910 or earlier. They were confident of winning given that they expected Russia and France to take the brunt of the German attack. Unfortunately technology favoured the defence, and the British Army was commanded by placemen selected for their obedience by Field Marshal Lord Roberts VC, who died in France in 1914 of natural causes. This incidentally was exactly what had happened in the Crimea when the Army was commanded by the Duke of Wellington's ageing Military Secretary rather than the Duke who had died two years earlier. Hence the 'Donkeys' like French, Haig and Rawlinson were left in charge. It might have been a different matter had Sir Garnet Wolseley survived as his proteges were far more able.

This was done quite intentionally by a select group of people including Winston Churchill (who had actually started in Parliament by advocating military economy). As a result, and this was a very different time to today, and they no doubt expected to win with fewer casualties than actually occurred, these people, including Churchill, were directly responsible for one to the worst human catastrophes in history. So mention him if you like, but don't expect everyone to treat him as a hero. I'm sorry but we are so conditioned in Britain to believing that we are always on the side of the good guys that we can't see what is actually going on.

You may say that this is my opinion not fact. For a start, what statement above would you like me to prove. And please don't say 'All of it'!

Congress of Vienna
The rise of Bismarck
The unification of Germany (dominated by a militaristic Prussia)
Naval ship building programme commenced by Tirpitz in the 1890s

The British would not stand by and allow a unified Germany to dominate continental Europe or for Germany to threaten British global interests. Realpolitik.

[Halb]

cardigankid said:

In fairness, I also read the Hotspur, the Wizard and plenty of Commando magazines when I was a kid, and I also held this simplistic view of history, but the more you find out the more you discover that it just was not like that.

THat's certainly true. THe full story won't be known, but things filter out along the line.