Who Will Be Responsible for Scorching the Earth?

[EmptyTimCup]

Warmongers or Peacemakers: Who Will Be Responsible for Scorching the Earth?


.... we now have peace in our time ......






.....1936 19 German divisions marched across a bridge and re occupied the Rhineland .... no resistance was offered, but several doz strongly worded letters were sent Hitler claimed it was an internal issue regarding territory ... and despite all the diplomacy and negotiation taken, no action was taken and that was 1936 .... enormously encouraged and enlightened by the failure to act on the part of the west Hitler annexed the entire country of Austria ....


.... in the end 50 million people died, because politicians who should have known better, bet their freedom and security on a philosophy on goodwill, negotiations and compromise ......

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

OK, I was liking PJTV until that little diddy there.

Churchill worship. Sorry, wrong. Does not compute with the facts. I am in the Buchanan camp; Churchill is the single figure most responsible for the collapsed of the British Empire and the decline of western civilization.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

OK, I was liking PJTV until that little diddy there.

Churchill worship. Sorry, wrong. Does not compute with the facts. I am in the Buchanan camp; Churchill is the single figure most responsible for the collapsed of the British Empire and the decline of western civilization.

You don't have to worship Churchill to know that Buchanan is full of crap on this one. It's not as though Hitler just wanted the Sudetenland or Stalin just wanted a piece of Poland.

I'd buy into Buchanan's knowledge of history the way I'd buy into Obama's knowledge of economics.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

You don't have to worship Churchill to know that Buchanan is full of crap on this one. It's not as though Hitler just wanted the Sudetenland or Stalin just wanted a piece of Poland.

I'd buy into Buchanan's knowledge of history the way I'd buy into Obama's knowledge of economics.

I guess I'll just let history speak for itself then and pretend it would have been worse without dear old Winston.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

I guess I'll just let history speak for itself then and pretend it would have been worse without dear old Winston.

I could care less if he's a saint or a sinner. Stalin and Hitler were among the world's worst villains before the war ever began. If we hadn't gone to war with them, they would still have rolled over Europe and slaughtered millions. Hitler had been killing people for over a dozen years, and Stalin for at least as long. World War II was just the big leagues for them. They'd been in the minors for years.

Buchanan is into stirring the pot to sell books. I half expect him to come out with a book deconstructing Reagan one day or declaring Jimmy Carter our greatest President. It doesn't matter about political ideology. It gets books into people's hands.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

I could care less if he's a saint or a sinner. Stalin and Hitler were among the world's worst villains before the war ever began. If we hadn't gone to war with them,

I must have missed that one. We went to war with Stalin when?

Churchill helped bring on war in 1914 because he was a war mongering imperialist. Fine. Nothing new under the sun. However, the secret agreements he helped create with the French general staff were, in fact, the surest way to bring about war with Germany. Had they known Britain had a deal to come to Frances aid, they may well not have launched the Shieffelin plan and averted the Great War. If nothing else, you have to agree it was nothing short of treason and duplicity that the Brit PM didn't even know about these agreements.

After that, Winston was suddenly all for the disarmament that made Great Britain impotent and also all for the evisceration of Germany. On top of that, he was a Hitler fan for quite some time.

From there, he was a leading proponent, getting his war on again, to support the Poles over Danzig, a laughable proposition in general principles given it was something like 80% German and a fantasy given Britain's weakened military state that Churchill helped create.

Churchill wasn't alone. Neither was Hitler or Stalin. However, he, like they, were key figures.

And no matter how you slice it, the ascendancy of Churchill mirrored the fall of the British Empire and the decline of Western civilization. Call that a coincidence if you like.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

I must have missed that one. We went to war with Stalin when?

I keep forgetting that Stalin was actually a GOOD guy because he fought on our side, and didn't actually kill any of his own people. Not even tens of millions of them. Forget it. Stalin was a nice guy. Ask any Russian today.

I could care less about Churchill's sainthood. I disagree with the premise that war with Germany was avoidable, unnecessary and unnecessarily provoked. At best, it began earlier due to the consequences of WWI. It was already coming.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

I keep forgetting that Stalin was actually a GOOD guy because he fought on our side, and didn't actually kill any of his own people. Not even tens of millions of them. Forget it. Stalin was a nice guy. Ask any Russian today.

I could care less about Churchill's sainthood. I disagree with the premise that war with Germany was avoidable, unnecessary and unnecessarily provoked. At best, it began earlier due to the consequences of WWI. It was already coming.

I'll ask again; When did we go to war with Stalin? There was two outcomes possible in 1939; A German dominated Europe or a Russian one; not both, and everyone knew it. Without exception, the Pols, Czechs and pretty much everyone else would have taken the Germans.

The third possibility, a Britain dominated one, was impossible on it's face. They went to war, the Brits, for what?

The war with Germany, from our standpoint was TOTALLY avoidable. From Britain's standpoint, it should have been avoided given what it cost them.

Germany had no serious designs on Great Britain. They just didn't. Hitler had great respect for the English and, frankly, saw Anglo/Saxon dominance as the way to go.

I do agree WWII was coming; the Brits and French saw to it.

As for Stalin, you can be flip all you like. He was a monster and #1 to Hitlers #2, frankly. We called it a holocaust when Hitler killed his own. It was 'just Gulags' when our fine Russian friends killed 3 times as many of their own.

[EmptyTimCup]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

On top of that, he was a Hitler fan for quite some time.

Ahem ....

Larry (not that WC was a progressive) a lot of Progressives thought Fascism and Hitler and Mussolini were pretty ok guys in the early 30's until they had been in power a few yrs and did some embarrassing things ..... and the progressives quietly quit acknowledging their Fascist Roots

[see Liberal Fascism for facts]

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by EmptyTimCup

Ahem ....

Larry (not that WC was a progressive) a lot of Progressives thought Fascism and Hitler and Mussolini were pretty ok guys in the early 30's until they had been in power a few yrs and did some embarrassing things ..... and the progressives quietly quit acknowledging their Fascist Roots

[see Liberal Fascism for facts]

Stack it up any way you like it, Churchill is a key figure, perhaps THE key figure in the collapse of the British Empire and the decline of Western civilization yet we idolize him. Dubbya, saddly, was a fan and, looking at his record, followed in his foot steps; not acting in ones own national self interest in favor of high minded ideas of how OTHER people should live.