Churchill Still Stands Alone

[Saweeep]

The same guy who appeased Hitler? Never mind the fact he's a product of Victorian England.

I cast my reservations about Churchill.

Mixing up Neville Chamberlin and Winston Churchill is an absolutely unforgivable. History buff my ass.

If you're an Angle in real life, then it's your obligation to tell non-Angles like yours truly about this; it's a shame your own women didn't even teach this at school and for the most part, still don't.

Stop insulting and I already learned something new. :dodgy:

Researching something before spouting one's opinion is the normal methodology of the intelligent and learned.

When I know nothing about a topic and am keen to learn I keep my mouth shut and my ears open.

 

[Phoenix]

Lol, so we're agreed. Churchill definitely didn't appease Hitler or suck his toe. Got it

 

[SteveMcMahon]

Neville Chamberlain was the Hitler toe sucker.

Poor Neville Chamberlain.

Few people in history have been so unfairly vilified.

People mock him for waving around the "piece of paper" he got from Hitler agreeing to a peaceful settlement of Germany's claims over Czechoslovakia. But they forget that Chamberlain's desire for peace with Germany was wildly popular at the time.

It was 1938. WW1 had only ended 20 years before. Most adults still painfully remembered losing their fathers, brothers, sons, friends, and neighbours in the trenches. Nearly a million British men perished in the Great War, and millions more of our allies died in what people hoped had been the "war to end all wars".

The public didn't want war. Churchill's warmongering wasn't popular.

Furthermore, Britain was in no shape to fight a major European war in 1938. The army could only have sent two divisions, while the navy and the air force were scrambling to re-arm.

Chamberlain wasn't psychic. He probably knew that Hitler was a bad sort, but couldn't predict he would turn out to be a genocidal madman. In 1938, Germany was a fascist dictatorship, but then our later allies in the Soviet Union were a communist dictatorship. The only European holocaust that had been perpetrated by 1938 was Stalin's atrocity in the Ukraine, which killed up to 7.5 million people.

And as a peacetime statesman, Chamberlain was hugely successful. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, he skillfully navigated the economic crisis of the early 30's, balancing the budget and soon restoring the country to surplus. That Britain never suffered the widescale privation people in America and Germany endured during the 30's is in large part thanks to Chamberlain.

And when war with Germany finally came, little over a year later, the breathing room Chamberlain had obtained for British rearmament proved to be crucial. We might not have survived the Battle of Britain had the RAF and the country's radar defences not been built up in the final years of Chamberlain's premiership.

He deserves better than to be painted as an appeaser. He was a decent man who did the best he could, and it's doubtful Churchill would have achieved more in his place.

 

[Lemmo]

I'd blame Chamberlain much more for providing guarantees to Poland that the UK wasn't strong enough to support, which encouraged them to refuse to negotiate regarding Danzig and the Polish Corridor and led to WWII, than for "appeasement".

And balance of power considerations aside, it is hard to say the UK had a principled reason for opposing Germany. Germany was taking bordering scraps of territory that were populated by large numbers of Germans and/or had been taken from Germany after WWI. Meanwhile, the UK was ruling over 25% of the world's population. Bizarre that people buy the idea of appeasement when viewing Germany's demands in the context of 1930s Europe.

 

[Sawyer]

This is an interesting article regarding Poland:

The Man Who Started WW2

I personally hope Churchill is getting assfucked regularly by Satan in hell right next to Roosevelt.

It's not hard being a "leader" when the most powerful group in the world is backing you.

 

[Saweeep]

It's not hard being a "leader" when the most powerful group in the world is backing you.

I think the starving, daily bombed peoples of this isle would disagree with the notion that they were being backed by anyone during the darkest days of WW2.

 

[Sawyer]

It's not hard being a "leader" when the most powerful group in the world is backing you.

I think the starving, daily bombed peoples of this isle would disagree with the notion that they were being backed by anyone during the darkest days of WW2.

Of course they weren't being backed by anyone… who was deferential to their real interests as a people. As evidenced by contemporary history.

 

[Saweeep]

It's not hard being a "leader" when the most powerful group in the world is backing you.

I think the starving, daily bombed peoples of this isle would disagree with the notion that they were being backed by anyone during the darkest days of WW2.

Of course they weren't being backed by anyone… who was deferential to their real interests as a people. As evidenced by contemporary history.

I have no idea what this means.

 

[Sawyer]

In the simplest of terms, this is what Churchill fought for:

I wonder if those who died realized it.

 

[Vaun]

In the simplest of terms, this is what Churchill fought for:

I wonder if those who died realized it.

So you are blaming modern UK progressivism on Churchill? :tinfoilhat:

 

[Sawyer]

Well what is it but Bolshevism, and what was Hitler fighting?

From my study Churchill from his early debts was owned by the Bolsheviks and America, well America never stood a chance.

 

[SteveMcMahon]

I'd blame Chamberlain much more for providing guarantees to Poland that the UK wasn't strong enough to support, which encouraged them to refuse to negotiate regarding Danzig and the Polish Corridor and led to WWII, than for "appeasement".

And balance of power considerations aside, it is hard to say the UK had a principled reason for opposing Germany. Germany was taking bordering scraps of territory that were populated by large numbers of Germans and/or had been taken from Germany after WWI. Meanwhile, the UK was ruling over 25% of the world's population. Bizarre that people buy the idea of appeasement when viewing Germany's demands in the context of 1930s Europe.

Sure.

Let's be clear. The principle that was at stake for Britain in the world wars wasn't the neutrality of Belgium (WW1) or the sanctity of Poland (WW2). It was about preventing the Germans from dominating the Continent, and thereby becoming so powerful they'd threaten the Empire.

That was what had Churchill so worked up. He was a big fan of Imperial Japan at one time, because they hated the Commies and were far enough away not to be considered a threat. But he'd be damned if he'd let the Jerries overtake our preeminent position in world affairs.

As with all costly wars, we threw around a lot of fine-sounding propaganda and wrote some post hoc justifications for the conflict into the history books. We had to. The nation needed it.

Same shit is going on now with the end of our Iraqi and Afghan adventures, although unlike with the end of WW2, we can't credibly claim to have stopped a Hitler figure.

 

[Lemmo]

I'd blame Chamberlain much more for providing guarantees to Poland that the UK wasn't strong enough to support, which encouraged them to refuse to negotiate regarding Danzig and the Polish Corridor and led to WWII, than for "appeasement".

And balance of power considerations aside, it is hard to say the UK had a principled reason for opposing Germany. Germany was taking bordering scraps of territory that were populated by large numbers of Germans and/or had been taken from Germany after WWI. Meanwhile, the UK was ruling over 25% of the world's population. Bizarre that people buy the idea of appeasement when viewing Germany's demands in the context of 1930s Europe.

Sure.

Let's be clear. The principle that was at stake for Britain in the world wars wasn't the neutrality of Belgium (WW1) or the sanctity of Poland (WW2). It was about preventing the Germans from dominating the Continent, and thereby becoming so powerful they'd threaten the Empire.

That was what had Churchill so worked up. He was a big fan of Imperial Japan at one time, because they hated the Commies and were far enough away not to be considered a threat. But he'd be damned if he'd let the Jerries overtake our preeminent position in world affairs.

As with all costly wars, we threw around a lot of fine-sounding propaganda and wrote some post hoc justifications for the conflict into the history books. We had to. The nation needed it.

Same shit is going on now with the end of our Iraqi and Afghan adventures, although unlike with the end of WW2, we can't credibly claim to have stopped a Hitler figure.

Agreed, but one would have hoped that almost 70 years after the war people would accept a more accurate assessment of WWII - it was part of a long standing attempt by the UK and France to beat down the Germans to an isolated and 2nd rate power and ended in disaster for pretty much all involved. Instead, we hear the same misty eyed propaganda like it is 1942. And as a result neither WWI or WWII seems to have taught the US or the UK the benefits of neutrality.

 

[Sawyer]

Appropriately understood, WW2 was a battle for the soul of Western Civilization. Hitler was fighting for Christendom, the US and England were fighting against it. The US and England were fighting against their own interests, insofar as their interests were aligned with Western Civilization. Certainly the argument can be made that England and the US were already so broken off from tree of Christendom that it would be only natural that they fight against it. But when we discuss modern progressivism in the US and England, absolutely it is the result of Christendom losing WW2.

The victors got their own country, Israel, and their own ethnic sovereignty, and the losers get to have their borders dissolved, their currencies destroyed, their women debauched, their children saturated with pornography and indecency, and every last shred of their peoplehood crushed. You can call it modern progressivism but to me it's nothing more than the march of communism, insofar as communism was always a doctrine of which the primary purpose was the destruction of eastern and western Christendom.

That's what Churchill and Roosevelt fought for. I'm sure there are many viable arguments as to why this is a good thing and why the victors of WW2 have set the world on such a positive track. I'm not saying there aren't probably reasons to love Churchill. I'd just rather have borders, standards and decency instead.

 

[Sawyer]

A people finally win what they've been fighting for since Christ.

Yes, in the simplest of terms, Jews beat Christians at WW2.

"By way of deception thou shalt do war."

 

[TheWastelander]

Hitler was fighting for Christendom

:tard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_euthanasia_and_the_Catholic_Church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenkampf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenkampf#The_Nazi_persecution_of_the_Christian_Churches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landeskirche#List_of_Landeskirchen_in_1922_with_changes_until_1945

 

[Lizard King]

I'd blame Chamberlain much more for providing guarantees to Poland that the UK wasn't strong enough to support, which encouraged them to refuse to negotiate regarding Danzig and the Polish Corridor and led to WWII, than for "appeasement".

And balance of power considerations aside, it is hard to say the UK had a principled reason for opposing Germany. Germany was taking bordering scraps of territory that were populated by large numbers of Germans and/or had been taken from Germany after WWI. Meanwhile, the UK was ruling over 25% of the world's population. Bizarre that people buy the idea of appeasement when viewing Germany's demands in the context of 1930s Europe.

Sure.

Let's be clear. The principle that was at stake for Britain in the world wars wasn't the neutrality of Belgium (WW1) or the sanctity of Poland (WW2). It was about preventing the Germans from dominating the Continent, and thereby becoming so powerful they'd threaten the Empire.

That was what had Churchill so worked up. He was a big fan of Imperial Japan at one time, because they hated the Commies and were far enough away not to be considered a threat. But he'd be damned if he'd let the Jerries overtake our preeminent position in world affairs.

As with all costly wars, we threw around a lot of fine-sounding propaganda and wrote some post hoc justifications for the conflict into the history books. We had to. The nation needed it.

Same shit is going on now with the end of our Iraqi and Afghan adventures, although unlike with the end of WW2, we can't credibly claim to have stopped a Hitler figure.

Well articulated.


Regarding the article:
If you follow the popular opinions about the wars, it is obvious to see why Churchill is almost idolised. It should be noted that Boris Johnson is a massive fan of Churchill, so his writings will be somewhat biased, and he would probably admit that himself.

 

[DChambers]

Neville Chamberlain was the Hitler toe sucker.

Poor Neville Chamberlain.

Few people in history have been so unfairly vilified.

People mock him for waving around the "piece of paper" he got from Hitler agreeing to a peaceful settlement of Germany's claims over Czechoslovakia. But they forget that Chamberlain's desire for peace with Germany was wildly popular at the time.

It was 1938. WW1 had only ended 20 years before. Most adults still painfully remembered losing their fathers, brothers, sons, friends, and neighbours in the trenches. Nearly a million British men perished in the Great War, and millions more of our allies died in what people hoped had been the "war to end all wars".

The public didn't want war. Churchill's warmongering wasn't popular.

Furthermore, Britain was in no shape to fight a major European war in 1938. The army could only have sent two divisions, while the navy and the air force were scrambling to re-arm.

Chamberlain wasn't psychic. He probably knew that Hitler was a bad sort, but couldn't predict he would turn out to be a genocidal madman. In 1938, Germany was a fascist dictatorship, but then our later allies in the Soviet Union were a communist dictatorship. The only European holocaust that had been perpetrated by 1938 was Stalin's atrocity in the Ukraine, which killed up to 7.5 million people.

And as a peacetime statesman, Chamberlain was hugely successful. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, he skillfully navigated the economic crisis of the early 30's, balancing the budget and soon restoring the country to surplus. That Britain never suffered the widescale privation people in America and Germany endured during the 30's is in large part thanks to Chamberlain.

And when war with Germany finally came, little over a year later, the breathing room Chamberlain had obtained for British rearmament proved to be crucial. We might not have survived the Battle of Britain had the RAF and the country's radar defences not been built up in the final years of Chamberlain's premiership.

He deserves better than to be painted as an appeaser. He was a decent man who did the best he could, and it's doubtful Churchill would have achieved more in his place.

I agree with all but the last paragraph. We now know that Germany in 1938 was almost totally unprepared to fight the major land war it did in 1940 against France. The reason for this was that both the Army and the Luftwaffe had not been armed with he modern equipment they would use in those first few years of the war.



As for Hitler fighting for Christendom:
:facepalm2:


He was not, and any study of Nazism that goes beneath the surface of the 3rd Reich would make this painfully obvious. Nazism wasn't simply a political ideology it was religious as well. The occult nature of the party has been well documented. That is why couples in the 3rd Reich were married not by the church, not by the State, but by the PARTY. Party, Religion, and State were all merged in Nazi Germany.

 

[WalterBlack]

In the simplest of terms, this is what Churchill fought for:

I wonder if those who died realized it.

Churchill was no fan of Islam. UK is now such a police state, that somebody was arrested for reading out Churchill's opinion of Islam - what happened to freedom of speech?!

Arrested for quoting Winston Churchill: European election candidate accused of religious and racial harassment after he repeats wartime prime minister’s words on Islam during campaign speech

A candidate in the European elections was arrested on suspicion of racial harrassment after quoting a passage about Islam, written by Winston Churchill, during a campaign speech.

Paul Weston, chairman of the party Liberty GB, made the address on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, in Hampshire on Saturday.

A member of the public took offence at the quote, taken from Churchill's The River War and called police.

The passage from the book, written by the wartime Prime Minister and first published in 1899, focuses on Churchill's observations about Islam while serving during the Anglo-Egyptian reconquest of the Sudan.

Here are Churchill’s comments about Islam:

'How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!,' wrote Churchill.

'Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

'The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

'A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

'The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

'Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

'No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.

 

[Sawyer]

Hitler was fighting for Christendom

:tard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_euthanasia_and_the_Catholic_Church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenkampf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenkampf#The_Nazi_persecution_of_the_Christian_Churches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landeskirche#List_of_Landeskirchen_in_1922_with_changes_until_1945

I didn't say Germany was a perfect representative for Christendom. It was a futile attempt at salvaging the remnants of an already lost civilization. In hindsight it is clear as day it was over before it started. What's interesting to me is looking through Hitler's eyes and wondering how the hell he thought he had a ghost of a chance.

There are two possible explanations:

1. It was reasonable at the time to believe the rest of the world hadn't been as corrupted as Weimar. Instead it was obvious the rest of the world had already been completely bought (in hindsight).

2. Even Hitler knew the world had been completely bought but was a pawn to hold the final nail in Christendom's coffin. This seems unlikely as I think he was, in essence, a man of good will.

Wastelander, you're an American fundamentalist Christian. Usually that means one is a Christian Zionist. I can respect that, but your opinion is clouded by the fact that a Christian Zionist believes Israel is a positive fulfillment of prophecy.