Don't Mention the War. Or Churchill.

[cardigankid]

Guys, this thread is headed 'Don't mention the war, or Churchill'. Mention him if you like but consider that others may not have the same view of him as you do. Just think - all those graves in France and Belgium, Thiepval, Tyne Cot - we have all got relatives there - not down to the Kaiser but to a ruling elite and a British Government of which he was an essential part. For me that rather takes the shine off his halo.

[Halb]

cardigankid said:

Guys, this thread is headed 'Don't mention the war, or Churchill'. Mention him if you like but consider that others may not have the same view of him as you do. Just think - all those graves in France and Belgium, Thiepval, Tyne Cot - we have all got relatives there - not down to the Kaiser but to a ruling elite and a British Government of which he was an essential part. For me that rather takes the shine off his halo.

THere was that pretty good doc a while back...I cannot recall if it was a Marr or a Schama one, but Churchill's death came up, and when the docker cranes all out their arms up as a 'salute.' THe old official story was that they did it out of respect, but the dockers hated him and were paid handsomely to do it. Secret histories can still be found over the official version, and more historians now are interested in telling all of it.

[Smiler.]

XCP said:

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

He's from Scotland, the the Goebbels I think.

[cardigankid]

V8 Fettler said:

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.

Well, yes, that is right, though Tirpitz's naval programme was never on the scale of Britain's (Google Herbert Mulliner, Coventry Ordnance and the 'Dreadnought Scare') and was never intended to establish world domination which britain's navy expressly was, and it depends what you define as British global interests. Germany was never going to invade India and it was never ever (despite Erskine Childers and William Le Queux) going to invade Britain. That was a load of hokum cooked up to scare the British people into believing that the Germans were evil (or insane) and supporting war. Bismarck unified Germany but he did not attempt to destroy France or Britain. Germany was doomed to destruction because Britain could not keep up with her industrial production, a fact which we now accept as a given, and then drive home in our Porsches and BMW's frankly without it being a huge problem. That was the only British interest which Germany threatened and for that it got flattened at the cost of millions of lives. Realpolitik does not justify slaughter on that scale, or any scale, and if you think it does we had best start digging our bomb shelters.

Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 18th October 18:58

[XCP]

And the mission to Afghanistan was just sight seeing presumably.

[cardigankid]

It took place in 1915-16 by which time Britain had been fighting Germany for a year and every option was on the table.

For a moment there I thought that you were talking about one of the British missions to Afghanistan.

[V8 Fettler]

cardigankid said:

V8 Fettler said:

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.

Well, yes, that is right, though Tirpitz's naval programme was never on the scale of Britain's (Google Herbert Mulliner, Coventry Ordnance and the 'Dreadnought Scare') and was never intended to establish world domination which britain's navy expressly was, and it depends what you define as British global interests. Germany was never going to invade India and it was never ever (despite Erskine Childers and William Le Queux) going to invade Britain. That was a load of hokum cooked up to scare the British people into believing that the Germans were evil (or insane) and supporting war. Bismarck unified Germany but he did not attempt to destroy France or Britain. Germany was doomed to destruction because Britain could not keep up with her industrial production, a fact which we now accept as a given, and then drive home in our Porsches and BMW's frankly without it being a huge problem. That was the only British interest which Germany threatened and for that it got flattened at the cost of millions of lives.

At least we've got that straight. The key point is that Tirpitz's naval programme was aimed specifically at the British, the British were only going to do one thing in response.

The Prussians had demonstrated their military prowess in the short war with France in 1870, a unified Germany (dominated by Prussia) was only going to do one thing in Europe: fight.

Germany didn't need to invade Britain to defeat Britain.

[XCP]

cardigankid said:

It took place in 1915-16 by which time Britain had been fighting Germany for a year and every option was on the table.

For a moment there I thought that you were talking about one of the British missions to Afghanistan.

It shows that whilst the Germans were never going to invade India, they didn't have to if they could stir up enough st there. Which is of course exactly what they tried to do.

[cardigankid]

V8 Fettler said:

At least we've got that straight. The key point is that Tirpitz's naval programme was aimed specifically at the British, the British were only going to do one thing in response.

The Prussians had demonstrated their military prowess in the short war with France in 1870, a unified Germany (dominated by Prussia) was only going to do one thing in Europe: fight.

Germany didn't need to invade Britain to defeat Britain.

1870 was ancient history by 1914. The Germans had attacked no one since then. Bismarck had achieved his objectives. The British on the other hand had attacked a wide range of nations and fought major wars. Germany had zero desire to fight anyone in Europe, and frequently rejected clear challenges intended to provoke them into doing so. It wanted access to world markets. By 1914 it was clear that Britain was going to attack them. And it was. Britain deliberately started the war. I am not saying that there was a general arms race, general tension mistrust and paranoia with everyone’s finger on the trigger. War takes more than that. It takes a nation that wilfully intends to do it. In 1939 it was Germany. But in 1914 it was Britain.

You should read a book called ‘1913, the Year before the Great War’. That was a prosperous forward looking time and it did not have to end. The 20th Century did not have to be the century of mechanised slaughter. The man in the street was not planning a war. Churchill and his mates did that. You absolutely cannot and must not trust politicians. The world could have been a hugely prosperous place, and it is now becoming so again. It does not have to be squandered on ways of killing each other for benefit of those who make the missiles.

Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 18th October 21:11

[cardigankid]

Why for example is Tony Blair a director of J.P. Morgan? Because he colluded in launching a war in Iraq that some parties made fortunes from. And he wanted to be a Middle East Peace Envoy? It’s enough to make you physically sick.

[DeejRC]

1870 was ancient history by 1914? Blimey, you haven’t been down to Alsace much recently have you? It’s not even ancient history now!
It’s a bit like saying Bosworth is ancient history to Lancastrians or the Tykes...

There is plenty of literature out there dealing with Bill being “bonkers” and most of the serious stuff ignoring his arm. I personally think it was his fractious relationship with Bis that had more impact than being bonkers.

V8 references back to Vienna and 1815, the trouble with History is we can all reference back to many different points and hang our arguments. The prostitution of Prussia before Napoleon several years earlier may be one such point. Others may look to Utrecht. My personal favourite Germanic historical reference point is Magdeburg.

None of which has a thing to do with Churchill. The Bavarians have never been the biggest fans of his family though...

[irocfan]

cardigankid said:

Why for example is Tony Blair a director of J.P. Morgan? Because he colluded in launching a war in Iraq that some parties made fortunes from. And he wanted to be a Middle East Peace Envoy? It’s enough to make you physically sick.

well we agree on something then!

[John145]

cardigankid said:

Guys, this thread is headed 'Don't mention the war, or Churchill'. Mention him if you like but consider that others may not have the same view of him as you do. Just think - all those graves in France and Belgium, Thiepval, Tyne Cot - we have all got relatives there - not down to the Kaiser but to a ruling elite and a British Government of which he was an essential part. For me that rather takes the shine off his halo.

It’s amazing that this is your point of view. Completely bizarre.

Could you perhaps give an example of what should have happened and how that would effect the 21st C.?

‘All those graves’... makes me sick.

[JagLover]

V8 Fettler said:

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

A Germany united under Prussian Militarism, of which Napoleon said "Prussia was hatched from a cannon ball" .

The common theme that links both Kaiser and Hitler is belief in both the desirability of war in general and a race war against the Slav in particular.

[V8 Fettler]

cardigankid said:

V8 Fettler said:

At least we've got that straight. The key point is that Tirpitz's naval programme was aimed specifically at the British, the British were only going to do one thing in response.

The Prussians had demonstrated their military prowess in the short war with France in 1870, a unified Germany (dominated by Prussia) was only going to do one thing in Europe: fight.

Germany didn't need to invade Britain to defeat Britain.

1870 was ancient history by 1914. The Germans had attacked no one since then. Bismarck had achieved his objectives. The British on the other hand had attacked a wide range of nations and fought major wars. Germany had zero desire to fight anyone in Europe, and frequently rejected clear challenges intended to provoke them into doing so. It wanted access to world markets. By 1914 it was clear that Britain was going to attack them. And it was. Britain deliberately started the war. I am not saying that there was a general arms race, general tension mistrust and paranoia with everyone’s finger on the trigger. War takes more than that. It takes a nation that wilfully intends to do it. In 1939 it was Germany. But in 1914 it was Britain.

You should read a book called ‘1913, the Year before the Great War’. That was a prosperous forward looking time and it did not have to end. The 20th Century did not have to be the century of mechanised slaughter. The man in the street was not planning a war. Churchill and his mates did that. You absolutely cannot and must not trust politicians. The world could have been a hugely prosperous place, and it is now becoming so again. It does not have to be squandered on ways of killing each other for benefit of those who make the missiles.

Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 18th October 21:11

Ancient history? Your grasp of the importance of historical events in shaping future actions is poor. In my experience, many of our continental neighbours still dislike the Germans for historical reasons stretching back to WW1 and beyond.

Which "major" wars did the British fight 1870 - 1914? Compared to even one battle of WW1, they were all relatively minor.

The British never had the capability to micro-manage events in Eastern Europe. Once the blue touch paper was lit in Sarajevo, the structure of the various treaties ensured that the Germans marched into Belgium. Some of these treaties involved Britain, some didn't.

[B210bandit]

John145 said:

‘All those graves’... makes me sick.

The feeling I got thinking of young compatriots who died at Gallipoli due to Churchill's incompetence.

[John145]

B210bandit said:

John145 said:

‘All those graves’... makes me sick.

The feeling I got thinking of young compatriots who died at Gallipoli due to Churchill's incompetence.

Mistakes happen in war. Soldiers die due to errors of judgement. Suggesting that everyone who gave their lives was for folly is sickening.

I still haven't heard any alternative to Britain entering WW1 and how this would shape the 21C.

[CrutyRammers]

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.

You need to provide evidence of that intent, in order to be convincing.

[Topbuzz]

Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecess...

Very interesting book. Lots of info and sources for further investigation.

[Smiler.]

Topbuzz said:

Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecess...

Very interesting book. Lots of info and sources for further investigation.

Thanks for this.