This looks really good.
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.
As Watson noted, nobody should take Pat Buchanan too seriously.Quote:
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.
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.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.Rabid Cougar said: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.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.
Well..had Sir W not rallied and stood firm ALONE in that Darkest Hour it is highly likely that both FDR's favorite uncle and most of the western world would have been defeated by Herr Hitler. Had the Stalin worshiper not given Uncle Joe a free hand and even encouragement due to a near criminal misguided irrational hatred of Imperialism and the glory of Empire and allowed Sir W's views to be upheld the Poles and perhaps all of the slave states of Eastern Europe might have been liberated from the clutches of communism.huisachel said:
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: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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?