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

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

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)

totally agree, I'm not trying to defend Germany lol. It's just interesting to me to look at it from a different angle

I think we can agree that your initial premise that Churchill was to blame has been effectively squashed, though he was a warmonger ! he had some terrible ideas about India i seem to recall from my history books. But regardless, compared to Hitler he was like a little kitten.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
and I personally believe Churchill and later Roosevelt did influence this escalation.

Very true, nasty Churchill tried to stop peace loving Germany from invading most of Europe, the naughty man. He should have just let Germany take over all of Europe.

Keep in mind, the thought behind it...a united Europe, is not a bad idea
its the details of getting to that end that is the evil bit.
Europe is now almost united anyhow..done properly through treaties, laws, currency, etc..growing pains for sure..but this is how its meant to be done.

So, the motivation behind the NSP was fine, the method however deserved the right proper smackdown they got.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening

 

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.

Bull#, we're talking about 1933-1939 and the initial stages after the invasion of Poland. If Churchill never had done the insane measures against Germany, the Holocaust would have never happened. And sorry to burst your bubble, but it was never the intention of Hitler to "conquer" Europe. Hitler wanted to rightfully insert the German land that was stolen from them after Versaille back into Germany Proper. But that land was occupied by Poles who were unwilling to hand it over. 99% of that land housed Germans btw.

Well considering that Churchill was still in the 'wilderness' at that point, he can hardly be held responsible for 33-39.

You have a point, BUT that certainly is not it.

reply to post by ConservativeAwakening

I've read a lot of # on this board but this has got to be the mother of it all.

You use Lincoln as your avatar. You insult his memory. He wouldn't have endorsed such foolishness.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

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.

Erm, what, sorry? The Blitz was the deliberate targeting of civilians. Which the Germans started in Poland. If you want to be really picky they started it in Guernica in 1937.

edit on 14-1-2013 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo

History lesson, Churchill was already breaking the German codes in August of 1940. They knew that Hitler personally ordered the German air force to only strike tactical or military targets, and not to strike civilian areas in England. Even after knowing this, Churchill ordered the fire bombing of Berlin and other cities 7 times in August of 1940. After the 7th time, Hitler gave that infamous speech where his nerves crack and he declares he will burn down their cities. The latter part is the only thing you nowadays learn about.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
WW2 could probably have been prevented with clever politics instead of warmongering, shame it wasn't.

Oh, the benefit of hindsight. WW2 could have been prevented if Hitler was not the person he was, or if this, that and the other happened.

The historical evidence was that the only war mongering was the programme of rearmaments and the imperial ambitions of the three Axis allies – Germany, Japan and Italy. The European democracies – notably France and Great Britain completely misread both the size and ruthlessness of the German ambition in Europe and of the Japanese ambition in the Far East.

It is crass revisionism to attempt to blame Churchill on WW2 when (a) he was not a decision-maker and (b) he was not on the side of the aggressor.

Regards

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

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)

totally agree, I'm not trying to defend Germany lol. It's just interesting to me to look at it from a different angle

I think we can agree that your initial premise that Churchill was to blame has been effectively squashed, though he was a warmonger ! he had some terrible ideas about India i seem to recall from my history books. But regardless, compared to Hitler he was like a little kitten.

never said Churchill was to blame for everything, but he DID have an itch against the Germans, and he was of course a believer in absolute English hegemony over Europe....and large parts of the globe lol

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)

Gah
See, this is Hitlers true taint on the world.
Eugenics is a great subject to discuss and ideal to move forward...
Unfortunately, his slaughterhouse method tainted the word itself so you can't even discuss scientific methods of genetic modification without someone bringing up hitler and all sorts.

We need a new name, or need to reclaim the word..Hitler wasn't practicing eugenics..he was selectively breeding and slaughtering..
This is like comparing hole in head drilling in the 13th century with todays brain surgery...very different..yet when someone needs to get their brain worked on, you don't have people cringe and think of shamans digging holes in the head of people to let the bad spirits out...

Originally posted by Obsrvr
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening

 

I've read a lot of # on this board but this has got to be the mother of it all.

You use Lincoln as your avatar. You insult his memory. He wouldn't have endorsed such foolishness.

Come now..be civil. This is just a subject being kicked around and some new (albeit flawed) perspectives to see things through...for better or worse...there should be no subject that is too taboo to consider if only academically. OPs isn't saying he supports the methods of the reich..he simply is viewing the starting of the aggression as less black/white as history says it is.

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
WW2 could probably have been prevented with clever politics instead of warmongering, shame it wasn't.

Oh, the benefit of hindsight. WW2 could have been prevented if Hitler was not the person he was, or if this, that and the other happened.

The historical evidence was that the only war mongering was the programme of rearmaments and the imperial ambitions of the three Axis allies – Germany, Japan and Italy. The European democracies – notably France and Great Britain completely misread both the size and ruthlessness of the German ambition in Europe and of the Japanese ambition in the Far East.

It is crass revisionism to attempt to blame Churchill on WW2 when (a) he was not a decision-maker and (b) he was not on the side of the aggressor.

Regards

Believe it or not, Hitler actually offered to disarm together with Britain and France PRIOR to the outbreak of war.

And the German ambition for Europe was initially not war. It's hard to imagine that nowadays, but the initial ambition of Hitler's Germany was a partnership with the UK, the returning of once century old German land that was at the time occupied by Poland and the European united defense against the Soviet lurking danger in the east.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

History lesson, Churchill was already breaking the German codes in August of 1940. They knew that Hitler personally ordered the German air force to only strike tactical or military targets, and not to strike civilian areas in England. Even after knowing this, Churchill ordered the fire bombing of Berlin and other cities 7 times in August of 1940. After the 7th time, Hitler gave that infamous speech where his nerves crack and he declares he will burn down their cities. The latter part is the only thing you nowadays learn about.

Real history lesson: Enigma was not being broken on a regular basis in August of 1940. They were still in the process of getting a real handle on it, although thanks to the flood of intercepts from the May to July period from the various German invasions they finally had enough to start to break it properly.
As for the bombing of Berlin in August 1940 this happened after the Germans bombed London. Ok, so the latter was an accident, but the British weren't to know that. You also mentioned "fire bombing". No, sorry, incorrect. They just used H.E. in 1940. It was the Germans who used incendiaries on the UK.
All of which is besides the point as the Germans started off civilian bombing in Europe with Wielun, Warsaw, Rotterdam, etc, etc, etc.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
you're absolutely right. BUT remember this, Germany did not declare war against anybody. People seem to forget that. Germany didn't even declare war against Poland because they didn't see their invasion of Poland as a war, they saw it as a justification against the border cruelties happening every day between Germany and Poland. And I wasn't referring to an escalation early on, I meant after the invasion, Churchill pretty much WANTED war against Germany, whereas the Nazis weren't even thinking about war funny enough.

That is a ridiculous statement! There were no border incidents. The Germans manufactured consent via the Gleiwitz incident in order to invade Poland. And they ballsed that up royally...the whole thing was supposed to be broadcast but they used the wrong frequency, so no one heard what was going on...they used concentration camp inmates, dressed up as soldiers to fake a 'conflict'...and even though the whole operation was a failure, they still went ahead with the planned invasion under the erroneous assumption, based on idiot-von Ribbentrop's 'intelligence' that England would have no issues with Poland being invaded...due to our treaty with Poland we had no choice but to declare war. Churchill, at this stage, had absolutely nothing to do with it. Churchil may have wanted conflict, almost all of the establishment though, at that stage, wanted appeasement...and very, very, very reluctantly declared war.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
never said Churchill was to blame for everything, but he DID have an itch against the Germans, and he was of course a believer in absolute English hegemony over Europe....and large parts of the globe lol

Well, me being of English speaking language and in a nation founded by England (America), I tend to side with the English in matters regarding global cultural domination...much rather be dealing with tea and Monty Python verses blood sausage and David Hasselhoff

reply to post by SaturnFX


Funnily enough eugenics was being practised in the USA before Hitler took up the practice. I guess it means a lot of different things to different people. Healthy breeding practices = good, sterilising or executing anyone who doesn't meet the criteria = bad. Kind of old hat these days with the emerging field of genetic engineering.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
That is a ridiculous statement! There were no border incidents. The Germans manufactured consent via the Gleiwitz incident in order to invade Poland. And they ballsed that up royally...the whole thing was supposed to be broadcast but they used the wrong frequency, so no one heard what was going on...they used concentration camp inmates, dressed up as soldiers to fake a 'conflict'...and even though the whole operation was a failure, they still went ahead with the planned invasion under the erroneous assumption, based on idiot-von Ribbentrop's 'intelligence' that England would have no issues with Poland being invaded...due to our treaty with Poland we had no choice but to declare war. Churchill, at this stage, had absolutely nothing to do with it. Churchil may have wanted conflict, almost all of the establishment though, at that stage, wanted appeasement...and very, very, very reluctantly declared war.

Very well said!

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
never said Churchill was to blame for everything, but he DID have an itch against the Germans, and he was of course a believer in absolute English hegemony over Europe....and large parts of the globe lol

No he wasn't. Churchill was pro-free trade. He only wanted hegemony over the seaways. Which is why he gave up the colonies in exchange for that. If Churchill wanted Europe...then he lost...didn't he? Germany got that...even if they, seemingly, lost the war.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

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)

totally agree, I'm not trying to defend Germany lol. It's just interesting to me to look at it from a different angle

I think we can agree that your initial premise that Churchill was to blame has been effectively squashed, though he was a warmonger ! he had some terrible ideas about India i seem to recall from my history books. But regardless, compared to Hitler he was like a little kitten.

never said Churchill was to blame for everything, but he DID have an itch against the Germans, and he was of course a believer in absolute English hegemony over Europe....and large parts of the globe lol

I always thought that England learnt a lot about Ethics after the Second World War and voluntarily disbanded many of the domininions of the failing British Empire. Not quite sure to what degree the new superpower USA had to do with this but it's an interesting time in history.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

History lesson, Churchill was already breaking the German codes in August of 1940. They knew that Hitler personally ordered the German air force to only strike tactical or military targets, and not to strike civilian areas in England. Even after knowing this, Churchill ordered the fire bombing of Berlin and other cities 7 times in August of 1940. After the 7th time, Hitler gave that infamous speech where his nerves crack and he declares he will burn down their cities. The latter part is the only thing you nowadays learn about.

Real history lesson: Enigma was not being broken on a regular basis in August of 1940. They were still in the process of getting a real handle on it, although thanks to the flood of intercepts from the May to July period from the various German invasions they finally had enough to start to break it properly.
As for the bombing of Berlin in August 1940 this happened after the Germans bombed London. Ok, so the latter was an accident, but the British weren't to know that. You also mentioned "fire bombing". No, sorry, incorrect. They just used H.E. in 1940. It was the Germans who used incendiaries on the UK.
All of which is besides the point as the Germans started off civilian bombing in Europe with Wielun, Warsaw, Rotterdam, etc, etc, etc.

You're partially correct, but they Brits DID break sufficiently the codes for Churchill to know that Hitler gave the order to not bomb civilian areas in England. Yes of course the Nazis were already bombing civilian areas in Europe, BUT not as horrendously as the allies later did. Wielun seemed to be an accident, historically it's not really worked up, but the rest was true

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
you're absolutely right. BUT remember this, Germany did not declare war against anybody. People seem to forget that. Germany didn't even declare war against Poland because they didn't see their invasion of Poland as a war, they saw it as a justification against the border cruelties happening every day between Germany and Poland. And I wasn't referring to an escalation early on, I meant after the invasion, Churchill pretty much WANTED war against Germany, whereas the Nazis weren't even thinking about war funny enough.

That is a ridiculous statement! There were no border incidents. The Germans manufactured consent via the Gleiwitz incident in order to invade Poland. And they ballsed that up royally...the whole thing was supposed to be broadcast but they used the wrong frequency, so no one heard what was going on...they used concentration camp inmates, dressed up as soldiers to fake a 'conflict'...and even though the whole operation was a failure, they still went ahead with the planned invasion under the erroneous assumption, based on idiot-von Ribbentrop's 'intelligence' that England would have no issues with Poland being invaded...due to our treaty with Poland we had no choice but to declare war. Churchill, at this stage, had absolutely nothing to do with it. Churchil may have wanted conflict, almost all of the establishment though, at that stage, wanted appeasement...and very, very, very reluctantly declared war.

Partially not true, yes the Gleiwitz incident, part of the greater Operation Himmler plans, did happen, but they did not use concentration camp inmates, German agents dressed as Polish militia did it, and nobody was supposed to be killed mind you, although one person was later injured and died. The false flag attack does not take away from the historical facts that there in fact WERE massive border violations, and the League of Nations did nothing after Germany protested multiple times. The Polish were backed BEFORE the 1st of September by the UK, so they were acting very aggressive towards Germany. There were even quasi-battles on the borders between German and Polish militias.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
You're partially correct, but they Brits DID break sufficiently the codes for Churchill to know that Hitler gave the order to not bomb civilian areas in England. Yes of course the Nazis were already bombing civilian areas in Europe, BUT not as horrendously as the allies later did. Wielun seemed to be an accident, historically it's not really worked up, but the rest was true

Hitler gave that order because he was very busy trying to broker peace with England...Churchill knew such an option was not possible...even if he had wanted it, he knew that that permanent under-secretary, Robert Vansittart had ordered against it. Churchill knew exactly what he was dealing with on both sides, his and Germany's. That is why he was the man of the moment, and why he was so assured of his own destiny in that role.