FAO our American friends

[Im Dicky Too 0]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing HC. It''s wrong of you to make such simplistic judgements now about a situation which, at the time, was more difficult, concerning and frightening than you could or will ever be able to comprehend.

I agree with what you have written about how history will look back on ''W''s'' presidency... but rather it comes in your line ''If you give a bully what he wants, he will keep demanding more, not just go away and leave you in peace for ever.'' I suppose hindsight will tell us who is more correct.

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]

Well, turns out Churchill was correct despite what the majority thought. Hitler had not done much diplomatically to deserve the benfit of the doubt.  I am sure the people of Czechoslovakia were not too pleased, either.  It''s really common sense.  If you give a bully what he wants, he will keep demanding more, not just go away and leave you in peace for ever.

 I liken that to W in that history will look back on his presidency with admiration for having the ''nads and forethought to take on terrorism rather than turn yey another blind eye to it. There is plenty of b1tching and moaning about it now, but if we can break it down or eliminate it, opinions will change.

[/quote]

Let''s not forget that it was Britain you started the second world war by declaring war on Germany, in that famous ''we gave Germany until 11am to respond, but they didn''t'' speech by Chamberlain.

Churchill was a real thug, in the First World War he was one of the main architects of the planning and execution of the ill-fated Gallipolo campaign, where troops were sent in ill-equipped and unprepared against an underestimated enemy.

Despite, perhaps because of, Churchill''s blood lust, he was in America well before the outbreak of war, trying to drum up support for a war with Germany amongst American citizens who by and large saw the events of the 30s as yet another European colonial war. Which indeed it was. Hitler was truly impressed by the British Empire and desired to emulate the British success by bringing the Slav and Russian population under German control with a view to building a German Empire in the East, just as Charlemagne had done centuries before. Hitler wanted to cut a deal with the British. He even agreed to the British-German naval pact with established a ratio of 100 British warships to 30 German.

Hitler''s enemy was really Russia. And if the British had stood aside and allowed him access to the Soviet Union via Czechoslovakia and Poland, the Second World War would have been between these two countries. No one can predict the outcome, but two large states slugging it out and depleteing all their resources in a war of attrition would have been of great advantage to the British, since the British Empire would have been unaffected and British Industry intact. Britain would have stood to profit from a German-Russian war by supplying arms and supplies to the two sides, just as the US supplied the British and continue to supply on side or the other in just about every war since then.

A war of Fascists against Communists would have enabled Britain to cut some great deals in terms of trade, resources and territory. Our Empire would probably survived much longer, the European Union and the State of Israel probably would not exist today.

Hitler held back from invading Britain when all other enemies had been defeated. Hess flew to England on a personal mission to persuade the Government to make a peace deal. He was never allowed to publish his message to the British people and was never seen again until the Nuremburg trials.

Unfortunately maveriks like Churchill gambled everything on destroying Germany so that there could be only one great European power. The gamble failed. America and the Soviets were the winners. We ended up bankrupt at the end of the war. Our industry shattered, our Empire broken. Incidently, it was only in the past couple years that we repaid the last of our war loans to the Yanks. British propaganda portrays Churchill as some great super hero. During the Boer war he was responsible for creating the world''s first concentration camps (British invention). He was a war criminal of the highest order.

 

[a1canary 0]

Man alive, Churchill was a war criminal! Don''t start that on here. Please take these discussions elsewhere. Like here perhaps:

http://americanhistoryforums.com

[Houston Canary 0]

It''s wrong of you to make such simplistic judgements  - I''m Dicky too

No, it''s wrong of you to make something simple way more complicated than it is. All this diplomacy and tact your type thrives on usually accomplishes nothing and often only serves to make things worse by delaying the obvious simple solution''s initiation.  For a present day example, check out what the UN has accomplished in Darfur while people are starving and being raped and killed.

Had Hitler been stopped earlier, Germany would not have had the military capacity they did.  Hitler did not walk away from these meetings with hat in hand, grateful to his superior benefactors, he laughed at them for being so naive and full of themselves and their worthless spineless tactics.

As for the guy who says Churchill was a thug and war criminal, is that the new politically correct way of looking at things?  What pathetic minority does it serve?  Yah, he had the major screw up at Gallipoli, but he was obviously talented enough to overcome that and get voted in as PM.  It''s pretty harsh judging anyone''e tactics in WWI since it was fought by implementing old tactics using new technology. 

[Yellow Pecker 0]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]

It''s wrong of you to make such simplistic judgements  - I''m Dicky too

No, it''s wrong of you to make something simple way more complicated than it is. All this diplomacy and tact your type thrives on usually accomplishes nothing and often only serves to make things worse by delaying the obvious simple solution''s initiation.  For a present day example, check out what the UN has accomplished in Darfur while people are starving and being raped and killed.

Had Hitler been stopped earlier, Germany would not have had the military capacity they did.  Hitler did not walk away from these meetings with hat in hand, grateful to his superior benefactors, he laughed at them for being so naive and full of themselves and their worthless spineless tactics.

As for the guy who says Churchill was a thug and war criminal, is that the new politically correct way of looking at things?  What pathetic minority does it serve?  Yah, he had the major screw up at Gallipoli, but he was obviously talented enough to overcome that and get voted in as PM.  It''s pretty harsh judging anyone''e tactics in WWI since it was fought by implementing old tactics using new technology. 

[/quote]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]

It''s wrong of you to make such simplistic judgements - I''m Dicky

too

No, it''s wrong of you to make something simple way more complicated than it is. All this

diplomacy and tact your type thrives on usually accomplishes nothing and often only serves to make

things worse by delaying the obvious simple solution''s initiation. For a present day example,

check out what the UN has accomplished in Darfur while people are starving and being raped and

killed.

Had Hitler been stopped earlier, Germany would not have had the military capacity they did.

Hitler did not walk away from these meetings with hat in hand, grateful to his superior

benefactors, he laughed at them for being so naive and full of themselves and their worthless

spineless tactics.

As for the guy who says Churchill was a thug and war criminal, is that the new politically correct way of looking at things? What pathetic minority does it serve? Yah, he had the major

screw up at Gallipoli, but he was obviously talented enough to overcome that and get voted in as

PM. It''s pretty harsh judging anyone''e tactics in WWI since it was fought by implementing old

tactics using new technology.

[/quote]

Churchill was a top drawer toff. Born at Blenheim Palace with a silver - nay a platinum - spoon in his mouth.

Educated at Harrow he proved spectacularly average as a scholar and like many of the less intelligent of the ruling classes was sent to Sandhurst Military Academy. The more intelligent toffs went off to make careers in trade, commerce and running the family businesses. Churchill wasn''t considered bright enough by his father to be entrusted with the family''s interests so he was packed off to the army.

Churchill was a descendant of the Duke of Marlborough, William and Mary''s hired hand. A general who did all the fighting on behalf of the monarchs so that William could stay in London rather than be shot at. The Duke was a brilliant servant and having cleaned up against the French and the Austro-Hungarians he brought a long-lasting peace to Britain for which he was rewarded with the Dukedom and Blenheim Palace.

Winston Churchill wanted to emulate the feats of his illustrious ancestor and set about fighting in the West Indies, India, the Sudan and South Africa. Whereever there was a war his was in the thick of it. He was a wild and reckless soldier and never passed up an opportunity to get into the front line of the action.

Not being the brightest spark never prevented the British ruling classes from ruling, and with a military reputation behind him, Churchill entered the military wing of politics.

Although propaganda newsreels of the second world war showed Churchill touring bombed out sites around the country, he was often jeered by the locals. It is a myth that the whole country was behind the government in wartime. There were many strikes in the mines, at the docks and in

industry. Churchill was no friend of the working classes. A cabinet minister during the Jarrow Hunger March, when the hunger marchers arrived in London Churchill described them ''a dirty, little rabble''.

But when it came to fighting wars, Churchill had no compunction about sending ten of thousands of young working class men to die in his ill-thought out Gallipoli campaign. He bullied the War Council into accepting his plan to open a new front in Turkey, completely under-estimating the fighting ability of the Turks. Two thirds of British battlefleet were sunk by mines in the Dardanelles. Churchill ordered a shore landing without informing the War Council. The government had no idea about the Gallipoli landings until after the event. Without British ships having cleared out the Turkish emplacements, it was a turkey shoot , if you forgive the pun. The Allies were stranded on a tiny beach, facing a sheer cliff to climb. The Turks simply lobbed shells over the side and turned the battle site into one huge cemetery. Two hundred thousand casualties on our side.

General Slim who fought at Gallipoli, as did the Royal Norfolk Regiment, described those who had been in command at the campaign the worst in the British Army since the Crimean War. It didn''t stop Churchill, the none-too bright scholar, from advancing in British politics.

The minority served by this are our young people, who hopefully can learn the truth about our recent history rather than the myths and cover ups that surround it.

[king canary 7,605]

Dont agree with your view Yellow Hammer, and its not one shared by many in this country.

But HC to say that making a decision to declare war is simple is just ridiculous. Chamberlain knew that if he declared war he was putting the lives of millions of innocent people at stake. The idea that it should have just been simple aggression is just plain stupid.

As for George W Bush. The comparisons between this war and WWII are just not there. America was attacked on American soil and rightly struck back against those who perpertrated it, but that goal seems to have been entirely forgotten. Iraq, while no paridise, had no links to Al Quida before the war, and by invading them you just gave the terrorists a new battle ground and a new reason for fighting you. And if McCain gets in the same thing will happen with Iran, with the Republican schoolyard form of diplomacy ''they wont do what I want so I''m not talking to them.'' Whats so bad about sitting down and talking to these world leaders who dont agree with America, who dislike Israel, or god forbid elect a socialist Government!

[Houston Canary 0]

Nothing is wrong with talking, KC.  It is when talking is obviously not working that other means need to be applied, and when you''re dealing with butchers, there usually aren''t a lot of other options than force. See how diplomacy is working with N Korea?  They just keep breaking the agreements and demanding more handouts so they can feed their people a little bit while developing nukes.  Meanwhile, they have concentration camps in operation handling the problems Kim wants kept out of sight.  We should talk to him some more and see if he will change his ways, right?

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]Nothing is wrong with talking, KC.  It is when talking is obviously not working that other means need to be applied, and when you''re dealing with butchers, there usually aren''t a lot of other options than force. See how diplomacy is working with N Korea?  They just keep breaking the agreements and demanding more handouts so they can feed their people a little bit while developing nukes.  Meanwhile, they have concentration camps in operation handling the problems Kim wants kept out of sight.  We should talk to him some more and see if he will change his ways, right?[/quote]

You''re completely correct about North Korea but we won''t do anything to them because they have a pretty immense military capability and can fight back. That''s why only diplomacy is being used in that case, not because of some high moral ideal. 

[king canary 7,605]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]Nothing is wrong with talking, KC.  It is when talking is obviously not working that other means need to be applied, and when you''re dealing with butchers, there usually aren''t a lot of other options than force. See how diplomacy is working with N Korea?  They just keep breaking the agreements and demanding more handouts so they can feed their people a little bit while developing nukes.  Meanwhile, they have concentration camps in operation handling the problems Kim wants kept out of sight.  We should talk to him some more and see if he will change his ways, right?[/quote]

What about Chavez? Last time I checked he is a democratically elected leader, but the US have dont like him so wont talk to him. McCain says we should not talk to these people without ''preconditions.'' What does that mean? We will only talk to you if you do what we say?

[Beauseant 0]

macdougall''s perm wrote the following post at 29/09/2008 6:47 AM

You''re completely correct about North Korea but we won''t do anything to them because they have a pretty immense military capability and can fight back. That''s why only diplomacy is being used in that case, not because of some high moral ideal. 

 

 

 

 

And,of course,they don''t have any oil.....

[Houston Canary 0]

You guys are contradicting each other as you agree.  But you''re wrong about N Korea and their massive military being a reason.  Iraq had the 4th or 5th biggest military, and we took them down in weeks.

Chavez has all sorts of oil, and we don''t go there, so oil can''t be the instigating factor.  The US imports most of our oil from Canada, anyways.  China and Japan have a lot more at stake with that wigged out lunatic in N Korea building nukes than the Euros or Americans do.  They just seem very unwilling to take any drastic measures while N Koreas die of hunger and others are imprisoned for being related to those who speak out against the regime. It is THAT kind of sh^t that gets America''s attention as much as anything.

[macdougalls perm 0]

I didn''t mention America. I said ''we''.