Is Churchill really a "Hero" or was he as bad or worse than Hitler?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by George VI
I quoted the wrong person.
Well it appears the final sentence of your post has possibly somewhat rebounded.
Pots and kettles spring to mind.
Original post by DJKL
Well it appears the final sentence of your post has possibly somewhat rebounded.
Pots and kettles spring to mind.
Pots and kettles spring to mind.
Not really, one is an honest mistake the other a dishonest one. I am not trying to compare a man to a mass murdering warlord.
Original post by George VI
Not really, one is an honest mistake the other a dishonest one. I am not trying to compare a man to a mass murdering warlord.
Nor am I.
It was you who decided to apply the phrase "congratulations idiot "to your deeply flawed interpretation of my post, so possibly you should consider that in the circumstances I am possibly somewhat justified in suggesting that you apply it to yourself, honest mistake or otherwise.
Original post by DJKL
Nor am I.
It was you who decided to apply the phrase "congratulations idiot "to your deeply flawed interpretation of my post, so possibly you should consider that in the circumstances I am possibly somewhat justified in suggesting that you apply it to yourself, honest mistake or otherwise.
It was you who decided to apply the phrase "congratulations idiot "to your deeply flawed interpretation of my post, so possibly you should consider that in the circumstances I am possibly somewhat justified in suggesting that you apply it to yourself, honest mistake or otherwise.
Ok, sorry for misquoting you, it was directed against the distorted statistics and the post which contained Churchill having meetings in nude as evidence of being genocidal.
Original post by George VI
Ok, sorry for misquoting you, it was directed against the distorted statistics and the post which contained Churchill having meetings in nude as evidence of being genocidal.
Thank you.
I can think of nothing less threatening than conducting meetings in the nude so I also doubt it is evidence of genocidal tenencies.
As I understand matters, whilst Churchill did like baths, and was inclined to dictate from the bath, his secretaries sat within the room next door and did not require to observe his ablutions; though Johnson does suggest the possibility (maybe conjecture) that on departing the bathroom Churchill may have been a little careless, on occasion, re towel placement.
Original post by DJKL
They are not soldiers.
They were pilots and member of the army. Here is a good music from back than.
[video="youtube;3WwAg0912hA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WwAg0912hA[/video]
Original post by slaven
They were pilots and member of the army. Here is a good music from back than.
[video="youtube;3WwAg0912hA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WwAg0912hA[/video]
[video="youtube;3WwAg0912hA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WwAg0912hA[/video]
Not perhaps airmen , members of the Luftwaffe, the aerial component of the Wehrmacht, rather than soldiers?
Not sure I would really count the preparatory work they undertook, to try to enable Sealion to commence, to actually be part of Sealion.
The fact that the invasion fleet never really embarked would tend, to me anyway, to suggest Sealion really did not take place in any meaningful way and that is why I queried your deaths re Sealion.
I understood that air superiority and naval superiority were preconditions rather than parts of Operation Sealion but stand to be corrected.
Original post by DJKL
Not perhaps airmen , members of the Luftwaffe, the aerial component of the Wehrmacht, rather than soldiers?
Not sure I would really count the preparatory work they undertook, to try to enable Sealion to commence, to actually be part of Sealion.
The fact that the invasion fleet never really embarked would tend, to me anyway, to suggest Sealion really did not take place in any meaningful way and that is why I queried your deaths re Sealion.
I understood that air superiority and naval superiority were preconditions rather than parts of Operation Sealion but stand to be corrected.
Not sure I would really count the preparatory work they undertook, to try to enable Sealion to commence, to actually be part of Sealion.
The fact that the invasion fleet never really embarked would tend, to me anyway, to suggest Sealion really did not take place in any meaningful way and that is why I queried your deaths re Sealion.
I understood that air superiority and naval superiority were preconditions rather than parts of Operation Sealion but stand to be corrected.
Oh, I see you make distionctions between soldiers and pilots as two separate branches. in that cases you are right.
Are you suggesting the Battle of Britain was not part of Operation Sealion?
Original post by slaven
Oh, I see you make distionctions between soldiers and pilots as two separate branches. in that cases you are right.
Are you suggesting the Battle of Britain was not part of Operation Sealion?
Are you suggesting the Battle of Britain was not part of Operation Sealion?
I think it was more a precondition stage.
As I understand matters Goering promised Hitler (and the army) he would deliver air superiority across the Channel to allow the invasion barges assembled safer passage, he failed (though they came pretty close), possibly because they diverted attacks from the airfields to cities allowing Fighter Command time to draw breath.
IMHO one of two significant mistakes made by Germany in 1940 (the other being stopping the advance which in part enabled the Dunkirk evacuation)
Original post by DJKL
I think it was more a precondition stage.
As I understand matters Goering promised Hitler (and the army) he would deliver air superiority across the Channel to allow the invasion barges assembled safer passage, he failed (though they came pretty close), possibly because they diverted attacks from the airfields to cities allowing Fighter Command time to draw breath.
IMHO one of two significant mistakes made by Germany in 1940 (the other being stopping the advance which in part enabled the Dunkirk evacuation)
As I understand matters Goering promised Hitler (and the army) he would deliver air superiority across the Channel to allow the invasion barges assembled safer passage, he failed (though they came pretty close), possibly because they diverted attacks from the airfields to cities allowing Fighter Command time to draw breath.
IMHO one of two significant mistakes made by Germany in 1940 (the other being stopping the advance which in part enabled the Dunkirk evacuation)
Yes, the reason why Germany allowed the evacuation of Dunkirk is they hoped to negotiate peace with the UK.
The only thing tht saved the UK was the radars, as nobody had tham back than.
Original post by Frankenbacon
After the Treaty of Versailles, parts of Germany were given to Czechoslovakia
Nope. Czechoslovakia was carved entirely out of former Austro-Hungarian territory.
The hostility between the two peoples led to the minority Germans in Poland being murdered by the Poles.
Evidence please?
Hitler went to Chamberlain and told him that unless he stopped the Poles massacring the Germans in Poland, then he, Hitler, would send troops in to stop it.
Chamberlain promised Hitler that he would stop it and announced to the world that he had reached a peace settlement with Germany.
That was the Munich agreement 30 Sept, 1938
Chamberlain promised Hitler that he would stop it and announced to the world that he had reached a peace settlement with Germany.
That was the Munich agreement 30 Sept, 1938
Nope, the Munich Agreement was about Czechoslovakia and the Sudetenland. Poland actually tacitly collaborated with Germany at the time in order to take a chunk of Czechoslovakia for themselves.
Well, Chamberlain broke his promise and as you well know, Hitler kept his.
After his troops stopped the massacres in Poland, Hitler offered peace and a full withdrawal of troops.
After his troops stopped the massacres in Poland, Hitler offered peace and a full withdrawal of troops.
He did no such thing.
The whole world pretty much said yes. Churchill said No. He wanted war.
You know Churchill wasn't even in the government in September 1939, never mind leading it?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by anarchism101
Evidence please?
Czechoslovakia received the Hultschin district from Germany;
A child could have researched this one. It is all over the internet.
https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/media_nm.php?MediaId=1620
Through total ignorance and knowledge of the official story you try and knock years of hard research.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
(edited 7 years ago)
[QUOTE="Frankenbacon;69418524"]
Yes, you are correct about Hultschin. On the other hand a child with a below-average IQ could have found out that Munich was about Czechoslovakia, not Poland as you claimed. The same applies to all the other points made by @anarchism101 about everything else you allege. Given that you haven't refuted any of them, I assume you realise you are incorrect.
Original post by anarchism101
Nope. Czechoslovakia was carved entirely out of former Austro-Hungarian territory.
Evidence please?
Czechoslovakia received the Hultschin district from Germany;
A child could have researched this one. It is all over the internet.
https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/media_nm.php?MediaId=1620
Through total ignorance and knowledge of the official story you try and knock years of hard research.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Evidence please?
Czechoslovakia received the Hultschin district from Germany;
A child could have researched this one. It is all over the internet.
https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/media_nm.php?MediaId=1620
Through total ignorance and knowledge of the official story you try and knock years of hard research.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Yes, you are correct about Hultschin. On the other hand a child with a below-average IQ could have found out that Munich was about Czechoslovakia, not Poland as you claimed. The same applies to all the other points made by @anarchism101 about everything else you allege. Given that you haven't refuted any of them, I assume you realise you are incorrect.
Well If you think about it Hitler only tried to do what was best for his country, as at the time of the war when Germany got defeated, everyone blamed Germany for the war, and Hitler had to make Germany great and powerful again. So all of his decisions was for his country. People think he's bad because he hated and killed a lot of communists and Jews but that's it really.
But Churchill did kill a lot of people like Hitler, and he didn't really care that much about he's country like Hitler. He also didn't influence that much people positively like Hitler had done but he did try to do the best for the people in Britain.
I think the worse person was Stalin. I mean come on he killed way more people than hitler. All he wanted was to be in power.
All of them at some point were bad leaders but that's all in the past. We need to think about what trumps bloody gonna do to America and what he's plan is
But Churchill did kill a lot of people like Hitler, and he didn't really care that much about he's country like Hitler. He also didn't influence that much people positively like Hitler had done but he did try to do the best for the people in Britain.
I think the worse person was Stalin. I mean come on he killed way more people than hitler. All he wanted was to be in power.
All of them at some point were bad leaders but that's all in the past. We need to think about what trumps bloody gonna do to America and what he's plan is
He was a pretty bad guy but a lot of things youre trying to pin on him simply werent much to do with him, well not at all. Maybe a better question would be what's was worse, the Third Reich or the British Empire?
-one billion people dying under the British is laughable, the early empire was all about trade and regional wars with Indian princes, a lot of people died on both sides but compared to the numbers of WW2 is small.
-It was not, contrary to popular belief, the British who invented concentration camps, it was the Spanish in CUba in 1898 who used them, and about 500 000 died. The difference between the Boer situation and the Nazis was intent. The British were using scorched earth policy to beat the boers and then the women and children were left homeless, so they put them in camps and due to negligence a lot of people got dysentry, cholera, typhus etc. there wasnt a lot of intent to actually murder these people and very few knew what was happening; after the Fawcett report, fatality rates went from about 35% to 2%. The Third Reich was a systematic regime of mass murder.
I just realised how old this post was so ill stop, but yes, Hitler was bad, Churchill wasn't too much better, but Stalin was by far the worst. Churchill's high regard today is a sickening myth
-one billion people dying under the British is laughable, the early empire was all about trade and regional wars with Indian princes, a lot of people died on both sides but compared to the numbers of WW2 is small.
-It was not, contrary to popular belief, the British who invented concentration camps, it was the Spanish in CUba in 1898 who used them, and about 500 000 died. The difference between the Boer situation and the Nazis was intent. The British were using scorched earth policy to beat the boers and then the women and children were left homeless, so they put them in camps and due to negligence a lot of people got dysentry, cholera, typhus etc. there wasnt a lot of intent to actually murder these people and very few knew what was happening; after the Fawcett report, fatality rates went from about 35% to 2%. The Third Reich was a systematic regime of mass murder.
I just realised how old this post was so ill stop, but yes, Hitler was bad, Churchill wasn't too much better, but Stalin was by far the worst. Churchill's high regard today is a sickening myth
[QUOTE=
The hostility between the two peoples led to the minority Germans in Poland being murdered by the Poles.
Evidence please?
Why are you asking me for evidence?
You're a big boy. Surely you know how to research.
You would do well to read the following link.
It is accurate, very informative and referenced.
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/wrsynopsis.html
By the way, how are you doing with the jewish Bolsheviks?
The hostility between the two peoples led to the minority Germans in Poland being murdered by the Poles.
Evidence please?
Why are you asking me for evidence?
You're a big boy. Surely you know how to research.
You would do well to read the following link.
It is accurate, very informative and referenced.
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/wrsynopsis.html
By the way, how are you doing with the jewish Bolsheviks?
Original post by Frankenbacon
Why are you asking me for evidence?
You're a big boy. Surely you know how to research.
You would do well to read the following link.
It is accurate, very informative and referenced.
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/wrsynopsis.html
By the way, how are you doing with the jewish Bolsheviks?
You're a big boy. Surely you know how to research.
You would do well to read the following link.
It is accurate, very informative and referenced.
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/wrsynopsis.html
By the way, how are you doing with the jewish Bolsheviks?
You clearly don't know how to research because you make fundamental errors which negate your arguments as pointed out by myself and anarchism101. People who wish to be taken seriously shouldn't claim that Munich was about Poland.
That article is risible. The author doesn't even put their name to it, which doesnt surprise me given they make stupid statements such as that mobilisation is the same as a declaration of war.
Original post by Frankenbacon
Education is a really good thing.
And you're lacking it.
Original post by Frankenbacon
After the Treaty of Versailles, parts of Germany were given to Czechoslovakia, Danzig and the corridor were taken from Germany and Given to Poland.
After the Treaty of Versailles, parts of Germany were given to Czechoslovakia, Danzig and the corridor were taken from Germany and Given to Poland.
It seems that you didn't dig too deep. Those lands originally belonged to Poland and Czechy. Czech lands were anected by Austria as a result of dynastic deals, which many times turned out very bad for the Czech nation. The lands given to Poland actually belonged to Poland, and were taken from it illegally during the Partitions of Poland, in XVIIIth century. Austria, Prussia and Russia took advantage over a country exhausted in numerous defensive wars of XVIIth and XVIIIth century, and falling into anarchy due to faulty system of "noble's democracy" in which there was no strong central power that would rule the country.
This is Poland in XVIIIth century, before the partitions.
And this is Poland after Versailles and plebiscites in which people voted to which country their region should belong to.
Original post by Frankenbacon
The hostility between the two peoples led to the minority Germans in Poland being murdered by the Poles.
The hostility between the two peoples led to the minority Germans in Poland being murdered by the Poles.
This is exactly what the Nazis wanted world to believe. The fact is IIIrd Reich was terrorizing Poles living in German to greater extent.
Various incidents against the German minority did happen, but there was no state funded design of persecuting germans.
Original post by Frankenbacon
They wanted a problem.
They wanted a problem.
Rubbish. All they wanted was to secure that they have an ally on the eastern boarder of germany, so they lied to Polish government and made promises about sending fleet and bombers to Poland in case of war. When Hitler came to power, and marshall Piłsudski was still alive, he proposed a joint French-Polish action against Germany to get rid of the Nazi government, and French refused such option, so they were not that quick to have a problem with Germany. Polish authorities neither, in Polish docitrine the Soviet Russia was a number one enemy. Some Polish historians even call the september capaign "A great improvisation of Rydz-Śmigły" as there was no plan prepared for such war, and army didn't know how to organize logistcs and how to act in changing situation. The campaign was an almost complete chaos.
Original post by Frankenbacon
It was possible they could have been sole suppliers of European goods to America.
It was possible they could have been sole suppliers of European goods to America.
Possible, but If this was the case, then the Allies would not let the germany to rebuild it's army.
In 1933, Poland on it's own would easily defeat Germany, not to mention France, and Great Britain together. Still, those countries did nothing and waited till it was too late to win.
Original post by Frankenbacon
After his troops stopped the massacres in Poland, Hitler offered peace and a full withdrawal of troops.
After his troops stopped the massacres in Poland, Hitler offered peace and a full withdrawal of troops.
This one of the most impudent and disgusting lies I have ever seen. Hitler didn't want to withdraw anything. All he wanted was to fool people like you by accusing his enemies of things that his men actually were doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_crimes_against_the_Polish_nation
Original post by Ilikeharrypotter
Well If you think about it Hitler only tried to do what was best for his country,
There is no way to prove that he only wanted best for his country, establishing organizations that terrorized Germans themselves (SA, later on the Gestapo) and runned things like
It turnes out that even various Wehrmacht officers were very against of what he was doing and quetly aided vicitims of the nazi regime, like captain Wilm Hosenfeld who saved Vladilav Szpilman and many others, germans too, or even stood up openly against, like major Josef Gangl, who asked americans to help his squad and attacked a prison guarded by SS.
Original post by Ilikeharrypotter
Hitler had to make Germany great and powerful again. So all of his decisions was for his country.
Hitler had to make Germany great and powerful again. So all of his decisions was for his country.
Those were stupid decisions, built up terror and occupation of foreign lands that Germany often even had no historical rights towards.
Original post by Ilikeharrypotter
People think he's bad because he hated and killed a lot of communists and Jews but that's it really.
People think he's bad because he hated and killed a lot of communists and Jews but that's it really.
Hitler didn't only killed Jews and communists. His troops and police were killing innocent men, women and children, that were guilty of nothing apart from going to synagogues instead of churches. In my hometown, the germans killed shoemakers, tailors, smiths - people like that, and there children. What on Earth a Jewish shoemaker who's ancestors lived in Poland for centuries did to Germany?!
Moreover, people forget that Slavs were also aimed for gradual exterminations, and Poles were first victims in the german death camps.
Original post by Ilikeharrypotter
I think the worse person was Stalin. I mean come on he killed way more people than hitler. All he wanted was to be in power.
I think the worse person was Stalin. I mean come on he killed way more people than hitler. All he wanted was to be in power.
Stalin was a paranoic who wanted to be in power, while both Hitler and Churchill believed that they are one of a kind, but Hitler's design was to exterminate whole nations, while Churchill didn't have such ideas and even criticised the british concentration camps.
Original post by Ilikeharrypotter
All of them at some point were bad leaders but that's all in the past. We need to think about what trumps bloody gonna do to America and what he's plan is
All of them at some point were bad leaders but that's all in the past. We need to think about what trumps bloody gonna do to America and what he's plan is
You're so ignorant and your thinking is so unbalanced, that it'll be better if you won't think about such matters.
(edited 7 years ago)
You're so ignorant and your thinking is so unbalanced, that it'll be better if you won't think about such matters.
Look "you know it all" just go and get a life rather than critisising what people really think and secondly, I was just bored and didnt bother to give any evidence or justify any of my explanations properly so shut the hell up and let people live in peace.
Look "you know it all" just go and get a life rather than critisising what people really think and secondly, I was just bored and didnt bother to give any evidence or justify any of my explanations properly so shut the hell up and let people live in peace.
Probably another of my posts to be deleted.
You all have a very good understanding of the OFFICIAL story.
The jews will be so proud of you. Good for you. You should do well.
I was hoping one or two of you might be interested in the truth.
Go at it... Bars of soap. Shrunken heads. Lampshades.
Yet does any one of you what IG Farben was and why it is not as well known as Churchill?
Of coarse not. It would blow the holocaust story to bits.
As does this.
Theodor Herzl decided in the late 1800's there was going to be a holocaust. He just didn't know where or when.
You can google must but not all of them.
http://balder.org/judea/Six-Million-140-Occurrences-Of-The-Word-Holocaust-And-The-Number-6,000,000-Before-The-Nuremberg-Trials-Began.php
You all have a very good understanding of the OFFICIAL story.
The jews will be so proud of you. Good for you. You should do well.
I was hoping one or two of you might be interested in the truth.
Go at it... Bars of soap. Shrunken heads. Lampshades.
Yet does any one of you what IG Farben was and why it is not as well known as Churchill?
Of coarse not. It would blow the holocaust story to bits.
As does this.
Theodor Herzl decided in the late 1800's there was going to be a holocaust. He just didn't know where or when.
You can google must but not all of them.
http://balder.org/judea/Six-Million-140-Occurrences-Of-The-Word-Holocaust-And-The-Number-6,000,000-Before-The-Nuremberg-Trials-Began.php
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- WJEC GCSE English Literature (AIC and Heroes)
- Please my GCSE Edexcel History answer to a question
- A level classical civilisation world of hero 2023
- Can someone correct my Macbeth essay
- .
- Feeling depressed and hopeless
- How does one even go about answering this question!?
- Any high-achievers willing to share revision techniques for GCSEs?
- Post Your Favourite Inspirational Quotes :)
- Book quotes
- A-level Classical Civilisation Study Group 2023-2024
- I can't stop cheating
- A-level Classical Civilisation Study Group 2022-2023
- English Literature Macbeth
- Edexcel IGCSE History | DEPTH STUDIES
- AQA A-Level English Literature B Paper 1 - 24th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Slim Essay question - Of Mice and Men
- Can someone assess my two paragraphs for Eng lit?
- Is GCSE English lit hard?
- OCR A-Level History Unit 1 (Y101-Y113) - 9th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
