This looks really good.

That does look incredible and as a fan of Gary Oldman I'm sure it will will memorable.

I'm not sure if this is a derailment, but what are some opinions of Churchill during WW2? The UK was for a period the only unoccupied country to be at war with Germany but it seems that Pat Buchanan's thesis of Churchill being a cause of the carnage of the Second World War has found some new life.

From 2002 movie:



Duke of Marlborough (John Churchill):

Looks very interesting. The voice is not there but since WSC has possibly the most distinctive and well known voice in human history its probably no use trying to find an actor that can play him and get the voice down.

Looking forward to this one. Sir W is , by far, on the top of my list as greatest historical figures of all time. Saved western civilization and thereof humanity .

Rabid Cougar said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

As Watson noted, nobody should take Pat Buchanan too seriously.

One of the things that I admire the most about Churchill and the rest of the British leadership during WWII was their willingness to stand up and personally face what was a very real and existential threat. Churchill himself and the Royal Family remained in London during the Nazi Blitz and their presence and willingness to face the bombs with fellow Londoners helped rally the country. Incredible leadership.

---

---

Obviously we are not talking about the British leadership at the beginning of WWII..... "Peace in our time"Chamberlain.....whose actions or rather inactions could be blamed for the German continued aggressions.

---

Obviously.

Churchill was right one time in his entire life; it just happened to be at the most important moment.

And England did not win the war or beat Hitler. At the end of the war, Poland was not free; it was occupied by the forces of the fellow who did beat Hitler-----Joseph Stalin, who was as bad as Hitler.

Rabid Cougar said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

As Watson noted, nobody should take Pat Buchanan too seriously.

One of the things that I admire the most about Churchill and the rest of the British leadership during WWII was their willingness to stand up and personally face what was a very real and existential threat. Churchill himself and the Royal Family remained in London during the Nazi Blitz and their presence and willingness to face the bombs with fellow Londoners helped rally the country. Incredible leadership.

---

---

Obviously we are not talking about the British leadership at the beginning of WWII..... "Peace in our time"Chamberlain.....whose actions or rather inactions could be blamed for the German continued aggressions.

---

There are explanations for Chamberlain's behavior that go beyond "he was a coward." He was constrained by a military that was not ready for war until 41 or 42 by their estimates and a nation that desperately wanted to avoid war. What Chamberlain did to the Czechs was criminal, but its more complicated than the simple narrative.

I don't think that Neville was a coward he simply reflected the prevailing absolute opposition to another continental slaughter that nearly destroyed his generation. Americans have no concept of the magnitude of the slaughterhouse and destruction of The Great War. The Prussian dominated Getman psyche transferred the horror and revulsion of the war into blind hatred and a desire for revenge. The rest of Europe was dedicated to no repeat. WC was simply astute enough to see thru the blinders of pacifism and diplomacy and understood the truth about Hitler and the Prussians.
THANK GOD

Dr. Watson said:

---

RPag said:

---

That does look incredible and as a fan of Gary Oldman I'm sure it will will memorable.

I'm not sure if this is a derailment, but what are some opinions of Churchill during WW2? The UK was for a period the only unoccupied country to be at war with Germany but it seems that Pat Buchanan's thesis of Churchill being a cause of the carnage of the Second World War has found some new life.

---

I'm not aware of a single historian who takes Pat Buchanan's opinion of World War II seriously. The seeds of the war were planted at Versailles and during the 20s, when French and British policies about reparations drove Germany's nascent government into the ground. Churchill was not the driving force behind that. But anyone who argues that Hitler was not the biggest threat to world stability by 1939 is simply not realistic.

---

How could they not? It's logic is difficult to disregard.

Germany in 1939 was the MOST IMMEDIATE nearby threat, but not at all the biggest. WC knew that Stalin was even worse than Hitler and was a greater long term threat. That is the difference between WC and fdr. Fdr was sympathetic to communism and it blinded him and caused the creation of the superpower Russia, the Cold War and the devastation of Eastern Europe, North Korea, and Vietnam .

We should have trickeled aid in to Russia, instead of a full avalanche, and invaded through Greece/Yugoslavia in 43 as WC wanted, not because it was the best way to defeat the Germans but because it would have blocked the soviets.

Hitler destroyed Eastern Europe. Sure, when Stalin occuppied the Baltics, only after his pact with Hitler, thr NKVD did shoot hundreds of thousands but Germany's invasion of Eastern Europe destroyed those countries in a way the West cannot understand. And it wasn't just Jews; over 3 million Soviet POWs where starved to death, another million in Leningrad, and the million or so non Jewish Poles. About half a pre war Belarus was either killed or displaced. If Stalin would have better commanded his armies and defended his terroritories, there would have been no where for a final solution to occur.

This is a problem with the whole 'Stalin was far worse' narrative. Communism in the eastern bloc countries after WW2 was vicious and inhuman, but it was not a system of mass killing.

RPag said:

---

Hitler destroyed Eastern Europe. Sure, when Stalin occuppied the Baltics, only after his pact with Hitler, thr NKVD did shoot hundreds of thousands but Germany's invasion of Eastern Europe destroyed those countries in a way the West cannot understand. And it wasn't just Jews; over 3 million Soviet POWs where starved to death, another million in Leningrad, and the million or so non Jewish Poles. About half a pre war Belarus was either killed or displaced. If Stalin would have better commanded his armies and defended his terroritories, there would have been no where for a final solution to occur.

This is a problem with the whole 'Stalin was far worse' narrative. Communism in the eastern bloc countries after WW2 was vicious and inhuman, but it was not a system of mass killing.

---

I think the pre-war Ukrainians might disagree with you.

Three million or so starved to death in Ukraine and nearly another million, mostly Poles and Ukranians, were shot during the Terror. Stalin was a monster, but my point was that his occupation of Eastern Europe after the war was nothing like the German occupation in 1941-1944.

RPag said:

---

Three million or so starved to death in Ukraine and nearly another million, mostly Poles and Ukranians, were shot during the Terror. Stalin was a monster, but my point was that his occupation of Eastern Europe after the war was nothing like the German occupation in 1941-1944.

---

the Germans had already killed off millions of Eastern Europeans who Stalin would have eventually killed. The nazi genocide was based on the " master race" belief. Communist/socialist genocide is simply based on whims and a hatred of all humanity. It isn't based on a theory of a master race but of a master class. FAR FAR worse. Stalin , like ALL communists and socialists, are simply pure evil and are destructive to ALL of humanity. NO ONE is safe nor free to prosper in Stalin's world NOR in nay communists/socialist state other than the ruling elite. Communism/socialism is BY FAR the worst " ism" in the history of mankind.
I agree that the optimum solution was to give the reds just enough support to allow them to stay in the fight until we developed the bomb. An invasion via WC's route would have saved tens of millions and prevented the enslavement of half a world. Hopefully Hitler would have had enough time to defeat the reds and exterminate the communists just before we nuked Berlin.

This is my point exactly. We know this is not true because Stalin did occupy those countries after WW2 and he employed no genocidal campaigns. The ethnic cleansing he attempted was brutal but it was mostly directed towards ethnic Germans in Poland and it was supported by Western Allies and was no where near as brutal as the Nazis were.

RPag said:

---

This is my point exactly. We know this is not true because Stalin did occupy those countries after WW2 and he employed no genocidal campaigns. The ethnic cleansing he attempted was brutal but it was mostly directed towards ethnic Germans in Poland and it was supported by Western Allies and was no where near as brutal as the Nazis were.

---

Communism/socialism differs GREATLY from nazism since it its based on world domination UNDER the red banner directed by the small elite in Moscow. Communism relies on a world wide PR campaign which promises the socialist utopia for ALL and therefor can NOT establish wide open genocide and wholesale racial extermination . Communim/socialism requires masses of dupes and fellow travelers who buy into the fraud and cancerous disease of socialism . They have to , in public, pander to the oppressed minorities until they have them behind an air tight Iron Curtin THEN they can begin the slow extermination. The nazis could not care less on recruitment. THEY decided who would be allowed to join them and ALL else was sub humans to be destroyed. Nazism believes in world conquest where ONLY the master race has any rights and privileges. All others are either fodder for the camps or useful slaves and conquered races under the total control of Aryans.
Stalin did not need to set up the extermination squads since the nazis had already done the bulk of the work to the same people that Stalin would have destroyed , just like he did in Russia. Communism also seeks to co-opt states to join them under Moscow control with their own elite and the bulk enslaved under the communist banner. The Germans simply used brute force and saw no need to maintain the conquered states as entities.

But this is rapidly becoming an angels and needles conversation as I think we agree that both "isms" are pure evil and MUST be destroyed at every opportunity. Both are fatal to humanity and human progress.

I am going to need a source or citation for this. Stalin, through the famine in Ukraine and the Great Terror killed far more people prior to the war. During the war, Hitler killed 5.7 million Jews, 3 million Soviet POWs, and millions of non Jewish Slavs. Hitler killed far more during the war. Not to mention the Holocaust and thr death of millions of Slavs was only possible do to the invasion of the USSR. Same with the deaths in the gulags; by far the most deadly period of the gulag was 1941-1944 because of food shortages caused by the German invasion.

I recommend Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands: Hitler Between Stalin and Hitler. For a brief look:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/

I'll see what I can do. Bottom line, Churchill knew this better than most leaders but was determined to handle Stalin on England's own terms. That is why he used Stalin in 1940-3. By 43 he was all in on landing in Yugoslavia instead of a second front.

As someone who knows very little about the war part of WW2, why wasn't this done? Was Normandy chosen because of proximity to England? Should liberating Western Europe have been the brunt of the Allie strike?

RPag said:

---

As someone who knows very little about the war part of WW2, why wasn't this done? Was Normandy chosen because of proximity to England? Should liberating Western Europe have been the brunt of the Allie strike?

---

Logistically difficult and terrain was tough too. But the real reason is that Roosevelt and Stalin were all in on France and their propaganda was too, so they had to choose France. It also might have led to fighting the Russians at some point.

Marshall and the rest of the Joint Chiefs believed that the best approach was the shortest one. An invasion thru northern France was the shortest route to the heart of the Reich , the industrial heart the Ruhr . Also FDR was completely enamored with his uncle Joe and was a classic 1920 stooge to the truth about communism. The east coast democrat elite ( much like today) were true believers in the plight of the proletariat and all of the class struggle pablum even though they were mostly fabulously wealthy and would be first in line to the hangmans noose had their socialist utopia came to the US.
Churchill understood the truth and was always thinking geopolitically and cared about the future of liberated Europe. The world has paid a terrible price for FDR's fantasy and flirtation with communism.