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

"Um I'm pretty sure Hitler inscinerating millions of Jews had something to do with it. Me thinks Churchill had no choice but to take out a man trying to conquer Europe. "

Hitler had to be stopped, Churchill did what he had to do.

Churchill took on a job that no man would have wanted to take. He was not PM when germany invaded poland, he was first lord of the admiralty. He played an amazing juggling match against hitler, while at the same time keeping Stalin at bay diplomaticaly. At any point we could have been overrun by massivley superior strength.
he was no war monger. He was a master tactician.

In 1938 Churchill was an admirer of Hitler;


"I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations." (Winston Churchill in The London Times, Monday, November 7, 1938)

Shortly after this he makes a trip to the USA after which he is firmly a member of the Hitler is evil and must be destroyed along with Germany faction, one way or another Churchill was recruited and knew his backing was in the USA.

I get the sense any form of compromise was not on this groups agenda, that it was not Britains interests that were being represented, indeed if they had been defeated and occupied that would only have been a minor setback.

Churchill wanted to escalate the bombing campaign against civiliian targets, again hardly in Britains interest, in many ways i would consider him a traitor to the British people, who gained nothing from the war.

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
Churchill took on a job that no man would have wanted to take. He was not PM when germany invaded poland, he was first lord of the admiralty. He played an amazing juggling match against hitler, while at the same time keeping Stalin at bay diplomaticaly. At any point we could have been overrun by massivley superior strength.
he was no war monger. He was a master tactician.

Germany's original goal was never ever the destruction of England. Hitler deified England in the beginning. Only after the UK and France had declared war against Germany, an action Hitler did not respond with to them, did Germany see it necessary to devise plans for war with England. Of course Churchill was a warmonger. As was everybody back then. Did you know Hitler even envisioned some kind of futuristic end war where the 3rd Reich and a greater UK would TOGETHER fight against the USA in 1980? No kidding...

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
In 1938 Churchill was an admirer of Hitler;


"I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations." (Winston Churchill in The London Times, Monday, November 7, 1938)

Shortly after this he makes a trip to the USA after which he is firmly a member of the Hitler is evil and must be destroyed along with Germany faction, one way or another Churchill was recruited and knew his backing was in the USA.

I get the sense any form of compromise was not on this groups agenda, that it was not Britains interests that were being represented, indeed if they had been defeated and occupied that would only have been a minor setback.

Churchill wanted to escalate the bombing campaign against civiliian targets, again hardly in Britains interest, in many ways i would consider him a traitor to the British people, who gained nothing from the war.

edit on 15-1-2013 by Kantzveldt because: (no reason given)

wow, didn't know that quote, thanks for sharing!! Another interesting little puzzle piece

reply to post by ConservativeAwakening


Cherry picked quote there, i like your style!

We both know he was actually referring to Hitler being a strong leader that stood up for what he believed, rather than he thought Hitler was correct in his ideologies.

This is an interesting thread for various reasons and debate is good but lets keep it honest if we can, eh?

ETA:

Response for Kantzveldt rather than yourself! D'oh!

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
Churchill took on a job that no man would have wanted to take. He was not PM when germany invaded poland, he was first lord of the admiralty. He played an amazing juggling match against hitler, while at the same time keeping Stalin at bay diplomaticaly. At any point we could have been overrun by massivley superior strength.
he was no war monger. He was a master tactician.

Germany's original goal was never ever the destruction of England. Hitler deified England in the beginning. Only after the UK and France had declared war against Germany, an action Hitler did not respond with to them, did Germany see it necessary to devise plans for war with England. Of course Churchill was a warmonger. As was everybody back then. Did you know Hitler even envisioned some kind of futuristic end war where the 3rd Reich and a greater UK would TOGETHER fight against the USA in 1980? No kidding...

A lot of the british upper classes were impressed by hitler before the war.Before his true agenda became apparent. churchill had to react to the barbarisms unfolding before him. He was a cornered animal he was no warmonger.

reply to post by Flavian



The point is that war with Germany was not in Britains interest nor was there any strong moral or ideological reason to do so, the confrontational approach which resulted in the guarantee toward Poland which provided the trigger for war was orchestrated BY financiers in the USA.

“In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he has succeeded in restoring
Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very great extent, reversed the results of the Great War…. the vanquished are in the process of becoming the victors and the victors the vanquished…. whatever else might be thought about these exploits they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world.”

– Winston J.Churchill, 1935.



“I have never met a happier people than the Germans and Hitler is one of the
greatest men. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country.”

- David Lloyd George, Daily Express, 17.9.1936




I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the ‘Americans’ around Roosevelt. We ignore Hitler’s pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realise that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany; instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Union. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentlessly pursued now, only under a different label.”

- British Attorney General, Sir Hartley Shawcross,
Stourbridge, March 16th, 1984

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
Churchill took on a job that no man would have wanted to take. He was not PM when germany invaded poland, he was first lord of the admiralty. He played an amazing juggling match against hitler, while at the same time keeping Stalin at bay diplomaticaly. At any point we could have been overrun by massivley superior strength.
he was no war monger. He was a master tactician.

Germany's original goal was never ever the destruction of England. Hitler deified England in the beginning. Only after the UK and France had declared war against Germany, an action Hitler did not respond with to them, did Germany see it necessary to devise plans for war with England. Of course Churchill was a warmonger. As was everybody back then. Did you know Hitler even envisioned some kind of futuristic end war where the 3rd Reich and a greater UK would TOGETHER fight against the USA in 1980? No kidding...

A lot of the british upper classes were impressed by hitler before the war.Before his true agenda became apparent. churchill had to react to the barbarisms unfolding before him. He was a cornered animal he was no warmonger.

the barbarism (I think you are referring to the war barbarism?) would never ever have manifested if Britain and Churchill weren't so keen on fighting a senseless war against Germany. British hegemony....

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
reply to post by Flavian

 

The point is that war with Germany was not in Britains interest nor was there any strong moral or ideological reason to do so, the confrontational approach which resulted in the guarantee toward Poland which provided the trigger for war was orchestrated BY financiers in the USA.

“In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he has succeeded in restoring
Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very great extent, reversed the results of the Great War…. the vanquished are in the process of becoming the victors and the victors the vanquished…. whatever else might be thought about these exploits they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world.”

– Winston J.Churchill, 1935.



“I have never met a happier people than the Germans and Hitler is one of the
greatest men. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country.”

- David Lloyd George, Daily Express, 17.9.1936




I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the ‘Americans’ around Roosevelt. We ignore Hitler’s pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realise that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany; instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Union. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentlessly pursued now, only under a different label.”

- British Attorney General, Sir Hartley Shawcross,
Stourbridge, March 16th, 1984

holy cow, that last quote i will save for myself, that's eye opening...THANKS for these great quotes...

just reposting:

" I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the ‘Americans’ around Roosevelt. We ignore Hitler’s pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realise that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany; instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Union. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentlessly pursued now, only under a different label. "

- British Attorney General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, Stourbridge, March 16th, 1984

reply to post by ConservativeAwakening


Its a sily argument you are making. History has born out the facts. I just cant work out what your agenda is here.
Do you have some romantic notion of an anglo/nazi history that never was? what are you pushing here?

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening

 

Its a sily argument you are making. History has born out the facts. I just cant work out what your agenda is here.
Do you have some romantic notion of an anglo/nazi history that never was? what are you pushing here?

wow calm down bud, I'm just interested in all the alternative FACTS about ww2 that have been suppressed or avoided because it mingles with the allies version of the war. you don't offer anything to counter my words, so??

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


As I said before rudeness is a poor reply, just shows you have nothing valid to say.

reply to post by ConservativeAwakening


Oh and your Shawcross speech looks like its a HOAX.

Talk:Hartley Shawcross, Baron ShawcrossFrom Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search [edit] Probably a hoax...I did not yet add this quote to the article page, because I am not inclined to believe it credible, but do not yet have definitive evidence that it is bogus:

Step by step I have arrived at the conviction that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister and fatal. At the Nuremberg Trials, I, together with my Russian colleague, condemned Nazi aggression and terror. I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the Americans around Roosevelt. We ignore Hitler's pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realise that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany; instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Union. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentlessly pursued now, only under a different label.
This has appeared on many political websites as having been in an Associate Press release about a "Speech in Stourbridge, England" (16 March 1984). Some of them might have even been getting their apparently false information from the Wikipedia article where this had been posted by IP 82.20.9.123 on 3 August 2006, and only recently removed for lack of reliable citation. I have not posted it into the article, because it seems very out-of-character, and unlikely, and research done for Wikipedia indicates that claims it was quoted in an Associated Press release are very probably bogus. Even though the context of the statement seems limited to generally accepted indications that Hitler did not initially expect or desire war with Britain, and had thought of them as potential allies against Soviet power, I am very much inclined to doubt its authenticity. Such a statement, from such a figure would very likely have resulted in massive controversy, which many tabloids would have leapt upon with relish, and it would not be something which has only recently been appearing on the internet. Unless there is evidence from reliable sources found, to quote Shawcross: "Let us not foist this humbug on the world." ~ Kalki 15:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I searched the Associated Press archives for anything that contained the word "Nuremberg", and there is nothing containing that word in any 1984 AP document.The Evidence is that this is bogus.

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening

 

Oh and your Shawcross speech looks like its a HOAX.

Talk:Hartley Shawcross, Baron ShawcrossFrom Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search [edit] Probably a hoax...I did not yet add this quote to the article page, because I am not inclined to believe it credible, but do not yet have definitive evidence that it is bogus:

Step by step I have arrived at the conviction that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister and fatal. At the Nuremberg Trials, I, together with my Russian colleague, condemned Nazi aggression and terror. I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the Americans around Roosevelt. We ignore Hitler's pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realise that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany; instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Union. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentlessly pursued now, only under a different label.
This has appeared on many political websites as having been in an Associate Press release about a "Speech in Stourbridge, England" (16 March 1984). Some of them might have even been getting their apparently false information from the Wikipedia article where this had been posted by IP 82.20.9.123 on 3 August 2006, and only recently removed for lack of reliable citation. I have not posted it into the article, because it seems very out-of-character, and unlikely, and research done for Wikipedia indicates that claims it was quoted in an Associated Press release are very probably bogus. Even though the context of the statement seems limited to generally accepted indications that Hitler did not initially expect or desire war with Britain, and had thought of them as potential allies against Soviet power, I am very much inclined to doubt its authenticity. Such a statement, from such a figure would very likely have resulted in massive controversy, which many tabloids would have leapt upon with relish, and it would not be something which has only recently been appearing on the internet. Unless there is evidence from reliable sources found, to quote Shawcross: "Let us not foist this humbug on the world." ~ Kalki 15:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I searched the Associated Press archives for anything that contained the word "Nuremberg", and there is nothing containing that word in any 1984 AP document.The Evidence is that this is bogus.

lol, because some wiki nerd says it's false you want to believe that right? I think you don't want that quote to be true because it mingles with your own views. you gotta be better than that honestly.....

The Balfour Agreement, Baldwin, Rothschild, Zionists and the Palestine promise.
desip.igc.org...

By 1916, though, the Zionist dilemma was resolving itself. The czarist regime was in a state of progressive collapse. Rasputin—without whom, it’s said, there could have been no Lenin—was increasingly ascendant. The czar and his shifting cast of ministers controlled less and less. On March 15, 1917, the czar abdicated. As the regime weakened, Schiff’s thinking evolved. See Stein, p. 202.

As events in Russia unfolded, Weizmann and the other Zionists conducted intensive discussions with the British over what became the Balfour Declaration—the letter finally issued on Nov. 2, 1917 in which the British government promised its "best endeavours" to facilitate "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The Declaration went through many drafts, beginning, according to the Microsoft Encarta online encyclopedia, as early as March 1916.

What did the British get for their promise of "best endeavours"? Stories abound. One (the acetone myth) is that the promise was made in consideration of Weizmann’s service to the British as a wartime chemist. Another is that the British were moved primarily by stories they read in the Bible, and by their religious services. Still another is that the British wanted another client state in the Middle East, in addition to Egypt, to protect their regional interests and their route to India.

According to W.J.M. Childs, however (pp. 173-74) there were more immediate, concrete considerations, and certain obstacles as well. The six-volume semi-official study that includes Childs appears in modern bibliographies, but there’s an apparent unwillingness to report what he says. Accordingly, I quote him at length:

[A] most cogent reason [for the Declaration] lay in the state of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had been the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda; by 1917 they had done much in preparation for that general disintegration of Russian national life, later recognized as the revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under its own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the [Anglo-French-Italian-Russian] Entente [thus keeping Russia in the war].

It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence on world Jewry in the same way, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. It was believed, further, that it would greatly influence American opinion in favour of the Allies. Such were the chief considerations, which, during the later part of 1916 and the next ten months of 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.

But when the matter came before the Cabinet for decision delays occurred. Amongst influential English Jews Zionism had few supporters. . . . Jewish influence both within and without the Cabinet is understood to have exerted itself strenuously and pertinaciously against the proposed Declaration.

Under the pressure of Allied needs the objections of the anti-Zionists were either over-ruled or the causes of objection removed, and the Balfour Declaration was published to the world on 2nd November 1917. That it is in purpose a definite contract with Jewry is beyond question.

[I]t is possible to understand from many sources that directly, and indirectly, the services expected of Jewry were not expected in vain, and were, from the point of view of British interests alone, well worth the price which had to be paid. Nor is it to be supposed that the services already rendered are the last—it may well be that in time to come Jewish support will much exceed any thought possible in the past.

What were "the services expected of Jewry" that were "not expected in vain" and were "well worth the price"? In 1936, Samuel Landman let the cat out of the bag with a pamphlet entitled Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine. Landman had been in Weizmann’s circle during the war—a point easily ascertainable from biographies of Weizmann—and was in a position to know what had gone on between the Zionists and the British government. Landman’s pamphlet is available in full text online—see www.itk.ntnu.no...—and can be found in the British Library, the New York Public Library, the Harvard Library, and perhaps other collections as well.

Landman’s pamphlet was addressed to the British government. His complaint was that in 1916 there had been what he called a "gentleman’s agreement" between the Zionists and the British government; that the Zionists had fully upheld their own end of the agreement; and that now, 20 years later, the British had yet to deliver Palestine.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
reply to post by Flavian

 

The point is that war with Germany was not in Britains interest nor was there any strong moral or ideological reason to do so, the confrontational approach which resulted in the guarantee toward Poland which provided the trigger for war was orchestrated BY financiers in the USA.

“In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he has succeeded in restoring
Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very great extent, reversed the results of the Great War…. the vanquished are in the process of becoming the victors and the victors the vanquished…. whatever else might be thought about these exploits they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world.”

– Winston J.Churchill, 1935.



“I have never met a happier people than the Germans and Hitler is one of the
greatest men. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country.”

- David Lloyd George, Daily Express, 17.9.1936




I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the ‘Americans’ around Roosevelt. We ignore Hitler’s pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realise that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany; instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Union. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentlessly pursued now, only under a different label.”

- British Attorney General, Sir Hartley Shawcross,
Stourbridge, March 16th, 1984

Can't argue with any of that to be fair. However, that still doesn't put Churchill in the position of warmonger, it puts him in the position of puppet on a string.

reply to post by ConservativeAwakening


What else do you deny about WW2 I wonder?

Here is the Balfour Declaration, which some believe is instrumental in Britains involvement in Zionism, denying Jews Palestine and causing anti semitic unrest. There are theories about the involvement in Zionism by Britain, some about the continuation of the Monarchy, some financial, territorial.

www.itk.ntnu.no...

TAPPENDIX I.
THE BALFOUR DECLARATION.
FOREIGN OFFICE,
2nd November, 1917.
DEAR LORD ROTHSCHILD,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty's
Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist
aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:
" His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine
of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours
to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood
that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious
rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and
political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." I should be grateful
if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist
Federation.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR.

But Zionism in its second stage continued to be under the Foreign Office
only till 1921, when the Cairo Conference, under Mr. Winston Churchill,
transferred the cafe of Palestine to the Colonial Office, no doubt because
that Office is the only Government Department with experience of controlling
overseas Colonies and fostering their development. It is worth noting here
that this is the concern of Great Britain only and the views, if any, of
foreign countries in regard to such colonial development are of no great
moment. The case of Palestine, however, differs entirely from that of any
British Colony, or even of other British Mandated territories. Firstly, by
its historical associations, Palestine is of interest to all foreign
countries. Secondly, its growth is at all times of intense interest to the
Jewish inhabitants of the countries of the world. To-day, in view of what is
happening to Jews in Central and Eastern Europe, the speeding up of
Palestinian development is of poignant necessity in almost all foreign
countries, which the Foreign Office would obviously be better able to
appreciate. Thirdly, the constitution of Palestine is sui generis in that
Great Britain is the trustee appointed by the League of Nations to
administer Palestine for the benefit, not only of the present population,
but of the Jewish people as a whole, who are to " reconstitute their
National Home." (*5) There is no precedent in Colonial Office experience for
the case of Palestine, and what happens in and about Palestine can, and
does, have important repercussions in foreign countries, and it would,
therefore, be a very useful step if the Foreign Office could be kept fully
informed of such repercussions.
Moreover, the fact that the very existence of the future of Jewish Palestine
depends, from the point of view of international law, on a Mandate of the
League of Nations has powerfully contributed towards making the Jews
everywhere into strong supporters of the League of Nations. In France, for
instance, it is well known that the Jews are among the leaders of the
pro-League policy. In other lands it is equally true, though less well
known. For instance, the views of such a man as Dr. Einstein - a convinced
Zionist believer in the League - count heavily in the land where he now
dwells-the U.S.A.
The Mandates Commission of the League has taken its duties of supervising
the administration of the mandated territories very seriously. The Minutes
of the Mandates Commission relating to Palestine are printed almost in
extenso in Zionist periodicals all over the world and carefully studied. The
undecided British attitude recorded in these Minutes has had an unfortunate
effect on Jewish minds, especially in America. Faith in British promises and
in the value of the League has been shaken. The three massacres (1920, 1921,
1929) of Jews in Palestine under British protection have naturally given
very severe shocks to Jewish opinion.