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

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
I know this is really sensitive to talk about, that's why I rather shouldn't, but in is not entirely true that the Einsatzgruppen were only killing jews. After 1933, a large amount of Jews fled to Poland (where they were equally treated bad, Poland was also anti-semitic), there were large amounts of partisans that were Jewish and Communists. Of course the massacres were completely horrible....but historically speaking, large portions of Jews were partisans and communists which resisted the Nazis rightfully

edit on 14-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)

And your point is what exactly?

exactly what I said.

I think that you'll find that the truth is a lot more complicated than that. And I dislike your inference that Jewish = Communist.

I didn't say Jewish = Communist, I said that historically speaking, a large amount of Jews were communists or partisans during ww2!

Originally posted by max100
the OP stated..
"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."

The nazis were gearing up to the holocaust long before marching into Poland.
I assume from the tenet of your argument you see no problem with the stated goals and the resultant forced social order and European domination. Your obvious defence of this form of political application leaves me wondering where you have sourced you're material from.


peace

that is simply not entirely true, the Holocaust as it happened only was able to manifest because the war was enlarging. Of course I see a problem of the original goals of the Nazis for Europe, but those original goals are far less horrible than what the war did.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
I know this is really sensitive to talk about, that's why I rather shouldn't, but in is not entirely true that the Einsatzgruppen were only killing jews. After 1933, a large amount of Jews fled to Poland (where they were equally treated bad, Poland was also anti-semitic), there were large amounts of partisans that were Jewish and Communists. Of course the massacres were completely horrible....but historically speaking, large portions of Jews were partisans and communists which resisted the Nazis rightfully

edit on 14-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)

And your point is what exactly?

exactly what I said.

I think that you'll find that the truth is a lot more complicated than that. And I dislike your inference that Jewish = Communist.

I didn't say Jewish = Communist, I said that historically speaking, a large amount of Jews were communists or partisans during ww2!

Out of the many, many millions dead i'd have to say a tiny minority of them were comunist or partisans. Even if they were I'm not sure how this is valid in this discussion.

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
Well they were killing off the intelligensia in Poland (60,000 aprox) so i assume they were just carring on the behaviour they'd picked up in Poland. Some of the attrocities in the warsaw ghetto are beyond belief. In Hitlers Armenian quote "...with orders for them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish race and language. Only in this way can we obtain the living space we need."

This is where it does get very complicated. By the time of the Warsaw Ghetto clearance, the Death Camps were in operation and the wholesale, industrial annihilation of the Jews was in full swing...hence why Warsaw was being 'cleansed'. The intelligensia were killed because they were a threat to Nazi rule. The ghetto Jews were killed because they were starving slowly to death and there was seen to be little alternative other than to dispose of them as humanely as possible. BUT, that only applied to 'white' Jews. Jews who possessed Slavic characteristics had already been summarily executed by the Eisatzgruppen in the course of the invasions.

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
I know this is really sensitive to talk about, that's why I rather shouldn't, but in is not entirely true that the Einsatzgruppen were only killing jews. After 1933, a large amount of Jews fled to Poland (where they were equally treated bad, Poland was also anti-semitic), there were large amounts of partisans that were Jewish and Communists. Of course the massacres were completely horrible....but historically speaking, large portions of Jews were partisans and communists which resisted the Nazis rightfully

edit on 14-1-2013 by ConservativeAwakening because: (no reason given)

And your point is what exactly?

exactly what I said.

I think that you'll find that the truth is a lot more complicated than that. And I dislike your inference that Jewish = Communist.

I didn't say Jewish = Communist, I said that historically speaking, a large amount of Jews were communists or partisans during ww2!

Out of the many, many millions dead i'd have to say a tiny minority of them were comunist or partisans. Even if they were I'm not sure how this is valid in this discussion.

that is simply not true, can't help ya with that...

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

I didn't say Jewish = Communist, I said that historically speaking, a large amount of Jews were communists or partisans during ww2!

Please provide a cite for everything you've been claiming, because you're digging yourself further and further into the ground with every statement. Please, please do some basic research and read up. This thread is getting ridiculous.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
Well they were killing off the intelligensia in Poland (60,000 aprox) so i assume they were just carring on the behaviour they'd picked up in Poland. Some of the attrocities in the warsaw ghetto are beyond belief. In Hitlers Armenian quote "...with orders for them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish race and language. Only in this way can we obtain the living space we need."

This is where it does get very complicated. By the time of the Warsaw Ghetto clearance, the Death Camps were in operation and the wholesale, industrial annihilation of the Jews was in full swing...hence why Warsaw was being 'cleansed'. The intelligensia were killed because they were a threat to Nazi rule. The ghetto Jews were killed because they were starving slowly to death and there was seen to be little alternative other than to dispose of them as humanely as possible. BUT, that only applied to 'white' Jews. Jews who possessed Slavic characteristics had already been summarily executed by the Eisatzgruppen in the course of the invasions.

edit on 14-1-2013 by KilgoreTrout because: there not their

im not so sure where you're getting this idea that the slavic jews were immediately killed, do you have a source for me to look at? and actually there was really only one Jewish ethnic group in the east, the european jews, or eastern european jews, they were practically all slavic, and they differ from "israelic jews"

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I think the fact Hitler's germany even had a "Eisatzgruppen" makes it a just and morally correct war with the vast majority of the blame landing directly at hitlers, and his supporters feet. Not quite sure why the OP can't see this. I think he's just playing devils advocate for the hell of it.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

I didn't say Jewish = Communist, I said that historically speaking, a large amount of Jews were communists or partisans during ww2!

Please provide a cite for everything you've been claiming, because you're digging yourself further and further into the ground with every statement. Please, please do some basic research and read up. This thread is getting ridiculous.

why don't you cite what you said? show me how you can make the claim that a very tiny proportion of the Jews killed by the active einsatzgruppen weren't politically affiliated with communist ideologies or weren't partisans, rightfully partisans that is!

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

I think the fact Hitler's germany even had a "Eisatzgruppen" makes it a just and morally correct war with the vast majority of the blame landing directly at hitlers, and his supporters feet. Not quite sure why the OP can't see this. I think he's just playing devils advocate for the hell of it.

the Soviets had even worse einsatzgruppen, they killed more with their own version. Why didn't the allies equally declare war against the Soviet union when they attacked Poland together with Germany? ever thought about that?

as other posters have said it was sanctions imposed after WW1 that caused WW2 also it was primary the British along with other European countries that started WW1 not Germany. After the war a large amount of wealthy Jewish moved into Germany taking advantage of a highly sanctioned and poor country buying up large amounts of property and businesses. They paid the Germans very low wages and could get around the sanctions claiming not to be of German ancestry. We all know what came next, They forced the Jewish to wear the star of David on their clothing which was ironic, they then took back the land and property they had acquired during the sanctions. As kid after learning about WW2 i wanted to know why the Germans hated the Jewish so much and looked into it. Our history books make it sound like they just decided one day they didnt like them and the people had been EVIL ect which is nonsense. Now in no way does that mean it was right of the Germans to do what they did but it paints a clearer picture as to why they did it.

Exactly, this is the point I was making a few pages back about history in schools being chosen information deliberately missing out relevant facts. This it appears, is the point OP is trying to make, that there are aspects PRIOR to WW2 that with the right politics it could and should have been prevented.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth

as other posters have said it was sanctions imposed after WW1 that caused WW2 also it was primary the British along with other European countries that started WW1 not Germany. After the war a large amount of wealthy Jewish moved into Germany taking advantage of a highly sanctioned and poor country buying up large amounts of property and businesses. They paid the Germans very low wages and could get around the sanctions claiming not to be of German ancestry. We all know what came next, They forced the Jewish to wear the star of David on their clothing which was ironic, they then took back the land and property they had acquired during the sanctions. As kid after learning about WW2 i wanted to know why the Germans hated the Jewish so much and looked into it. Our history books make it sound like they just decided one day they didnt like them and the people had been EVIL ect which is nonsense. Now in no way does that mean it was right of the Germans to do what they did but it paints a clearer picture as to why they did it.

Exactly, this is the point I was making a few pages back about history in schools being chosen information deliberately missing out relevant facts. This it appears, is the point OP is trying to make, that there are aspects PRIOR to WW2 that with the right politics it could and should have been prevented.

Bravo. all I was trying to say lol

reply to post by ConservativeAwakening


Pre war jewish population of Poland = 3,300,000

Post war jewish population of Poland = 300,000

are you telling me that 3 million jews were partisans ? Seriously ?

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening

 

Pre war jewish population of Poland = 3,300,000

Post war jewish population of Poland = 300,000

are you telling me that 3 million jews were partisans ? Seriously ?

of course not! don't put words in my mouth, all I was trying to say is that there was a high number of communist affiliation with some partisan Jews fighting against the Nazis! duh....

and please show me the source for your numbers, I'm interested

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

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).

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.

Hitler wanted a Nazi Empire by taking Poland, shaming the French and expanding in to the east (getting rid of the 'Untermensch' that lived there).

It is true that the Nazis did not want war with the British Empire until they had consolidated in the east. They wanted a deal and a free pass to steamroller east capturing the land and resources there. Fortunately they were not given one.

1939/1940 was one of those pivotal moments in history. The British Empire chose to stand alone against the Nazi regime when we didn't have to. The British Empire broke itself on a point of principle. As bad as things were they would be worse if the Nazi Empire was allowed to consolidate and continue with the land and resources stolen from the east.

Churchill was in many ways a flawed character and also very much a product of his time. However he was the right flawed character, in the right place, at the right time.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
im not so sure where you're getting this idea that the slavic jews were immediately killed, do you have a source for me to look at? and actually there was really only one Jewish ethnic group in the east, the european jews, or eastern european jews, they were practically all slavic, and they differ from "israelic jews"

Personally I don't believe in race divisions at all...but I am describing the Nazi mentality, not my own...how many citations do you want? Himmler by Peter Padfield....The Order of the Death's Head by Heinz Hohne...The Villa, The Lake, The Meeting by Mark Rosen...shall I go on or is that enough to get you started.

You have already stated that some Jews fled to Poland, and other areas, following the publication of the Nuremberg Laws...watch some Nazi Propaganda films, you'll soon understand the 'ethnic' differences that I am referring to, and that so offended the Nazi mentality...

The Jews that were killed, immediately following the invasion of Poland, and later Russia, were ethnically Slavic. The Jews that were ghettoised and later transported, referred to in official Nazi documentation as 'Reich Jews', were largely undisguishable from the rest of the Western and Northern European populations.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by Logos23

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening


you're actually wrong there, Hitler does in fact mention gas in Mein Kampf, I believe he was referring to the Jews in Germany during the first world war, which he saw as saboteurs, partisans and really whatever else.

Even if the mass gassing of Jews in 1925 was a thought he had in retrospect only at that time.....it was a plan that worked out pretty well for him at a future time in WWII wouldn't you say?

he wasn't thinking about using gas to kill the jews in 1925, he was talking about the Jews during ww1. I think he meant in retrospect it would have fitted his plan to kill the jews during the first world war

Again.....even if one argues that in 1925 when Hitler mentions killing large numbers of Jews by gassing them in Mein Kampf and mentions at that time that the Jewish people were an inferior race BUT he was only talking in reference to WWI and it wasn't his intent or plan for the future......it was an "unintentional" plan that worked out quite well for him in WWII if that's the case!
I can't get away from the fact you are suggesting that even though he mentioned gassing the Jews he considered an inferior race in 1925 that it wasn't actually his desire or intent AFTER WWI....if it wasn't his intent or desire then coincidence much?

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
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.

You believe wrong.

there are a lot of things that aren't taught in school about the beginnings of the war,

Like what? (that is of importance in this matter, that is)

England was the first to pursue radically aggressive measures towards Germany

Germany starting wars against neighboring countries and then declaring war on England is not radically aggressive?

, 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.

Maybe you are right. England should just have been invaded as Hitler wanted. Had the English agreed on that, clearly it would have saved plenty of lives. Good thinking.

British.

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
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.

You believe wrong.

there are a lot of things that aren't taught in school about the beginnings of the war,

Like what? (that is of importance in this matter, that is)

England was the first to pursue radically aggressive measures towards Germany

Germany starting wars against neighboring countries and then declaring war on England is not radically aggressive?

, 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.

Maybe you are right. England should just have been invaded as Hitler wanted. Had the English agreed on that, clearly it would have saved plenty of lives. Good thinking.

British.

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

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).

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.

Hitler wanted a Nazi Empire by taking Poland, shaming the French and expanding in to the east (getting rid of the 'Untermensch' that lived there).

It is true that the Nazis did not want war with the British Empire until they had consolidated in the east. They wanted a deal and a free pass to steamroller east capturing the land and resources there. Fortunately they were not given one.

1939/1940 was one of those pivotal moments in history. The British Empire chose to stand alone against the Nazi regime when we didn't have to. The British Empire broke itself on a point of principle. As bad as things were they would be worse if the Nazi Empire was allowed to consolidate and continue with the land and resources stolen from the east.

Churchill was in many ways a flawed character and also very much a product of his time. However he was the right flawed character, in the right place, at the right time.

I agree with you, only thing I would add and maybe correct is that the 3rd reich didn't want to completely distroy the entirety of the east, that was only after the Soviet Union was secretly planning for war with Germany prior to Germany's operation barbarossa. At first, all the Nazis wanted was the return of the practically "stolen" historical lands that were occupied by Poland.