It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Incidently...as a side thought.
You can say that anyone whom opposes a nation is a warmonger...join or die is a typical understanding between nations when war is brewing...to join means to be a tool. So, your suggesting that should a nation demand you surrender and kowtow to them, you should...else your a warmonger?
I don't even think the French think that way.
No no, but what you have to understand is that the Nazis WERE NOT keen on destroying the great old countries of Europe, the war with France, England, was seen as a devastation to the geo political plans of the Nazi Regime.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening[/i
you're completely correct, but here's the thing, Poland was given land after 1918 that belonged 100% to Germany, for centuries, 99% of the people living in western Poland were Germans. They were treated badly, and by the way, the government of Poland back then should have been seen as a quasi fascist government, Jews were segregated, Poland had "all Aryan" universities. And the Nazis did not have this popular idea of them today that they were to conquer Europe, in fact they had their eye on Eastern Europe. Hitler dreamed like a madman about a Anglo-Germanic led Europe. with Germany and the UK at the front.edit on 14-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)
Mhmm, as was taught to me in school.
There are right and wrong ways to do things.
Right way would be for proper legal procedures with the (what was it back then..league of nations?)...the wrong way of course is rolling in the tanks after 20 years.
They took a gamble, they lost. the UK understands the issues with trying to reclaim nations that used to be part of your empire...history tends to show quite clearly that soverign nations either are reigned in before they split, or that's it...once the world accepts the new nation, then you attack the world...
the US had a civil war over this...right when the south mentioned such breaking off, the guns were firing...had they waited 20 or so years after they formed their own union..the story would possibly be very different.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Incidently...as a side thought.
You can say that anyone whom opposes a nation is a warmonger...join or die is a typical understanding between nations when war is brewing...to join means to be a tool. So, your suggesting that should a nation demand you surrender and kowtow to them, you should...else your a warmonger?
I don't even think the French think that way.
No no, but what you have to understand is that the Nazis WERE NOT keen on destroying the great old countries of Europe, the war with France, England, was seen as a devastation to the geo political plans of the Nazi Regime.
Right..keep the structures...exterminate the people..especially the jews. Bad move.
I don't hammer the reich completely..some aspects are understandable, some are almost commendable..but their dealing with destruction of human life is what completely taints any shred of sanity or decency from them and anything they claim their own...
This is what Joe warrior picked up his rifle for..not because they had some greater belief in border negotiations or anything else...it was simply because the Nazis were extermining an entire people for...erm..the lulz I guess (banking and finance issues in reality).
Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
Greetings, first thread for me. I'll just say that I was always interested in alternative ww2 history, so I'm sure a lot of you will know the darker side to Churchill. Was he a warmonger? Did he inevitably escalate the situation in Europe to the point of actually somewhat causing ww2? I always viewed Churchill in an ambiguous light, he seems to me to be rather glorified. I personally believe the war could have been averted if it weren't for England's radical position towards Germany in the 30s and 1939,40. The war could have been stopped by 1940 in my opinion, there are a lot of things that aren't taught in school about the beginnings of the war, England was the first to pursue radically aggressive measures towards Germany, like the bombing of civilian areas. No wonder the Germans retaliated with the Blitz, the Brits did it first anyway. So what do you think? Did Churchill make the European situation worse? I believe so.
Originally posted by bknapple32
How dare people stop a regime beginning the process of genocide and marching armies into sovereign nations.
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Churchill you say,
Well what about Henry Ford who received the Nazi Grand Cross of the German Eagle, or what about Joseph Kennedy, he was very cosy with the Nazi’s, Hoover was actually quite an admirer of the Nazi’s at first. How about we also talk about the German American Bund as well OP…..
The man responsible for all those deaths was Hitler, I don’t recall Churchill gassing the Jews.
Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening[/i
you're completely correct, but here's the thing, Poland was given land after 1918 that belonged 100% to Germany, for centuries, 99% of the people living in western Poland were Germans. They were treated badly, and by the way, the government of Poland back then should have been seen as a quasi fascist government, Jews were segregated, Poland had "all Aryan" universities. And the Nazis did not have this popular idea of them today that they were to conquer Europe, in fact they had their eye on Eastern Europe. Hitler dreamed like a madman about a Anglo-Germanic led Europe. with Germany and the UK at the front.edit on 14-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)
Mhmm, as was taught to me in school.
There are right and wrong ways to do things.
Right way would be for proper legal procedures with the (what was it back then..league of nations?)...the wrong way of course is rolling in the tanks after 20 years.
They took a gamble, they lost. the UK understands the issues with trying to reclaim nations that used to be part of your empire...history tends to show quite clearly that soverign nations either are reigned in before they split, or that's it...once the world accepts the new nation, then you attack the world...
the US had a civil war over this...right when the south mentioned such breaking off, the guns were firing...had they waited 20 or so years after they formed their own union..the story would possibly be very different.
Do you know that Hitler actually complained to the League of Nations prior to their invasion of Poland? They had asked the international community to look at the border violations and aggravation of Poland against the Germans living in Polish controlled country and directly at the border.
Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
yes of course, the DEATHS in total, but the 1939/40 stage could have been the gist of it. It escalated, and I personally believe Churchill and later Roosevelt did influence this escalation.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening[/i
you're completely correct, but here's the thing, Poland was given land after 1918 that belonged 100% to Germany, for centuries, 99% of the people living in western Poland were Germans. They were treated badly, and by the way, the government of Poland back then should have been seen as a quasi fascist government, Jews were segregated, Poland had "all Aryan" universities. And the Nazis did not have this popular idea of them today that they were to conquer Europe, in fact they had their eye on Eastern Europe. Hitler dreamed like a madman about a Anglo-Germanic led Europe. with Germany and the UK at the front.edit on 14-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)
Mhmm, as was taught to me in school.
There are right and wrong ways to do things.
Right way would be for proper legal procedures with the (what was it back then..league of nations?)...the wrong way of course is rolling in the tanks after 20 years.
They took a gamble, they lost. the UK understands the issues with trying to reclaim nations that used to be part of your empire...history tends to show quite clearly that soverign nations either are reigned in before they split, or that's it...once the world accepts the new nation, then you attack the world...
the US had a civil war over this...right when the south mentioned such breaking off, the guns were firing...had they waited 20 or so years after they formed their own union..the story would possibly be very different.
Do you know that Hitler actually complained to the League of Nations prior to their invasion of Poland? They had asked the international community to look at the border violations and aggravation of Poland against the Germans living in Polish controlled country and directly at the border.
Which is a more sane way of doing things
but world war 1 basically resolved that issue with the defeat of Germany...aka, you lost, you also lost some bits...just deal with it.
so years of moaning about your loss..from a war...and you then decide to go in again...
it was doomed to begin with. It reminds me a bit about Palestine moaning about their land they lost in 76, when they attacked and were promptly slapped.
A lot can be learned about WW1 and 2 and the consequences of a lost war..and more importantly, the insanity of trying to hit the undo button on the consequences of the first action with the same action
Germany is lucky they weren't completely dismantled after the second round.
Anyhow. we did Germany a favor. the average german citizen was about as happy of the situation as france was...occupied and forced to adopt or very bad things happen. Many people look back at WW2 and see the allies liberated many areas..from north Africa, france, Poland, etc...but the german people also give credit to the allies for liberating them from the Nazi's also...its what is taught in their schools.
Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
If you're trying to defend Germany during world war two just give up now. Whatever way you want to spin it, Germany was a society based on insane ideas, eugenics, social control, death to political opponents. It was more of a gangster run society rather than a political system run society.edit on 14-1-2013 by Hopeforeveryone because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
I wasn't referring to overall civilian targeting, I was only talking about the conflict between the UK and Germany. In that conflict, it was England who provoked Hitler into unleashing the Blitz.
Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
and I personally believe Churchill and later Roosevelt did influence this escalation.
Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
the sad thing is that most likely the Holocaust would not have been able to manifest if the war had not escalated in late 1940. People seem to forget that the actual goal of the Nazi Regime was not to destroy and plunge and exterminate, but to build up a new social order in Germany and work with the UK on European domination.
Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
This thread has gotten way off track already.
Could the OP please confirm the following, as this is how it reads to me
a) he agrees WW2 and it's atrocities were mostly committed by Hitler's Germany
b) he agrees the Holocaust was an evil atrocity and is under no way excusable
c)the point being made in the OP is that of the POLITICAL situation PRIOR WW2 regarding Germany trying to live under unlivable circumstances (Versaille) (possibly avoidable with good politics), Germany trying to RECLAIM parts of Poland, the generally deluded and misguided political situation and lack of understanding and compromise of the political leaders of the day, including Churchill that FAILED in stopping WW2 before it started, which could have been done with the correct politics
Please let this thread keep to the facts it is not excusing the Holocaust if it was I would not be writing in it.
The thread is about the politics of the worlds leaders of the day and how WW2 could have and should have been prevented.