Migration Nightmares Hitting Europe

#1,452
#1,452
I can't decide on Churchill. So much to admire and so much to second guess but you have to consider what he was up against. Anybody that takes a firm position against him or hero-worships him is probably applying poor judgment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,453
#1,453
n_huffhines said:
I can't decide on Churchill. So much to admire and so much to second guess but you have to consider what he was up against. Anybody that takes a firm position against him or hero-worships him is probably applying poor judgment.
Click to expand...

Everyone has their faults and skeletons in the closet. But Churchill was who the UK needed during WWII. Especially in the early days where they pretty much stood alone against Nazi Germany. Sure, we helped with the Lend-Lease Act by getting them the supplies they so desperately needed, but I personally believe without Churchill there to be the steady rock the British people came to look up to as well as putting steel into their resolve they wouldn't have lasted through the Battle of Britain.

It's not hero worship, but he truly was a giant among modern day historical world leaders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,454
#1,454
i think we simplify the narrative. NC was weak (what was he supposed to do? Pre-emptively attack nazis because he dodn't believe they would leave Poland alone? That's a hard decision to make.) and WC was strong and saved the day. He was defimitely the right man to lead a country in war but maybe someone more diplomatic could have created a better outcome. I hate the firebombing of German civilians. It may have been nevessary but i kinda think Hitler didn't care if civilians got harmed. We just don't know what an alternate reality looks like. All we know is Churchill won and that's saying something.
 
#1,455
#1,455
n_huffhines said:
i think we simplify the narrative. NC was weak (what was he supposed to do? Pre-emptively attack nazis because he dodn't believe they would leave Poland alone? That's a hard decision to make.) and WC was strong and saved the day. He was defimitely the right man to lead a country in war but maybe someone more diplomatic could have created a better outcome. I hate the firebombing of German civilians. It may have been nevessary but i kinda think Hitler didn't care if civilians got harmed. We just don't know what an alternate reality looks like. All we know is Churchill won and that's saying something.
Click to expand...

I think the modern distance from WW1 makes it easy for us to hindsight second guess. The horror of WW1 was still in the psyche of Europe. It feels so far away, but to them it is the same time distance as the late 90's is to us. Could you imagine if we lost millions upon millions of men in an ultimately useless war back in the late 90's? How eager would we be for war?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,456
#1,456
n_huffhines said:
i think we simplify the narrative. NC was weak (what was he supposed to do? Pre-emptively attack nazis because he dodn't believe they would leave Poland alone? That's a hard decision to make.) and WC was strong and saved the day.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would tend to think Chamberlain's largest mistake was giving away parts of other nations (Czechoslovakia mainly) as appeasement and "peace at all costs."

Nobody was really in a position to stop the German advances in the early days of WWII, so it wasn't really his "fault" for lack of a better term.

n_huffhines said:
He was defimitely the right man to lead a country in war but maybe someone more diplomatic could have created a better outcome. I hate the firebombing of German civilians. It may have been nevessary but i kinda think Hitler didn't care if civilians got harmed. We just don't know what an alternate reality looks like. All we know is Churchill won and that's saying something.
Click to expand...

WWII, as we've debated before, was never going to have a better outcome than it did. It was never going to be negotiated into a peaceful settlement nor were any of the belligerents ever going to accept anything short of domination. I do agree the firebombings in Europe didn't accomplish much, but it was a completely different method of warfare back then. Nations had no problems trading city for city in brutal fighting and bombing campaigns. But remember, one of the main goals of WWII was to destroy the desire and will of the German people to wage warfare. It can be debated on whether or not that was effective with the way they ferociously fought all the way to the end of the war.

Regardless, Churchill will be a statesman that is remembered in perpetuity IMO. As both a strong leader and as a gifted speaker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,458
#1,458
Grand Vol said:
WWII, as we've debated before, was never going to have a better outcome than it did. It was never going to be negotiated into a peaceful settlement nor were any of the belligerents ever going to accept anything short of domination. I do agree the firebombings in Europe didn't accomplish much, but it was a completely different method of warfare back then. Nations had no problems trading city for city in brutal fighting and bombing campaigns. But remember, one of the main goals of WWII was to destroy the desire and will of the German people to wage warfare. It can be debated on whether or not that was effective with the way they ferociously fought all the way to the end of the war.

Regardless, Churchill will be a statesman that is remembered in perpetuity IMO. As both a strong leader and as a gifted speaker.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can say that. Seems like it's impossible for it to be true. We'd have had to make every right decision for there to "never" be a better possible outcome. I don't think the allies made every right decision. I don't think you do either.

Nothing to do with WC, but the Treaty of Versailles created the climate for Hitler to gain power. We can start there and probably change everything for the better.
 
#1,459
#1,459
n_huffhines said:
I don't know how you can say that. Seems like it's impossible for it to be true. We'd have had to make every right decision for there to "never" be a better possible outcome. I don't think the allies made every right decision. I don't think you do either.

Nothing to do with WC, but the Treaty of Versailles created the climate for Hitler to gain power. We can start there and probably change everything for the better.
Click to expand...

It goes beyond Hitler and Germany. Japan was already heavily involved in expanding their empire long before we thought about embargoes and sanctions. The Soviets were not that content to sit on their side of the border at the time even though they still faced a long uphill struggle in their economy. And Germany's defeat, regardless of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, was still a sore spot with most of that nation that didn't care for the way it ended. Italy was angling to be a colonial power, though a couple of centuries late.

In fairness, WWII was really little more than a continuation of WWI. Sure, there was about a decade of "peace" during that time, but as soon as the Nazis took power in Germany, the die was cast for a continuation of the European wars. The Pacific Theater was certainly a different situation, but still linked to the continued struggle for "empires" in a day when empires were falling out of fashion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,460
#1,460
n_huffhines said:
I don't know how you can say that. Seems like it's impossible for it to be true. We'd have had to make every right decision for there to "never" be a better possible outcome. I don't think the allies made every right decision. I don't think you do either.

Nothing to do with WC, but the Treaty of Versailles created the climate for Hitler to gain power. We can start there and probably change everything for the better.
Click to expand...

All of WWII can be traced to that Treaty, including Russia and Japan.
 
#1,461
#1,461
n_huffhines said:
I don't know how you can say that. Seems like it's impossible for it to be true. We'd have had to make every right decision for there to "never" be a better possible outcome. I don't think the allies made every right decision. I don't think you do either.

Nothing to do with WC, but the Treaty of Versailles created the climate for Hitler to gain power. We can start there and probably change everything for the better.
Click to expand...

Total war was exactly what was needed. Germany and Japan both had to be razed to take the piss out of them for good. Mission accomplished. The Versailles treaty was a half measure and Europe choosing to ignore Germany's rearmament cost millions of lives. Part of the reason the EU exists is to prevent such a war again. Coal, steel, oil, etc. resources are basically pooled so that there's no benefit to invasion.
 
#1,462
#1,462
DancingOutlaw said:
Total war was exactly what was needed. Germany and Japan both had to be razed to take the piss out of them for good. Mission accomplished. The Versailles treaty was a half measure and Europe choosing to ignore Germany's rearmament cost millions of lives. Part of the reason the EU exists is to prevent such a war again. Coal, steel, oil, etc. resources are basically pooled so that there's no benefit to invasion.
Click to expand...

LMFAO the Versailles Treaty was a half measure? They economically crippled Germany and destroyed the hope their fledgling republic that grew in the wake of WW1 ever had. Germany rearmed in the face of the treaty, it was only because it wasn't enforced that Germany could rearm. Hitler correctly guessed that the millions dead were too fresh in the allies minds for them to declare war over it and be the aggressors.

Your understanding of WW1-2 is very different than that the common view that the harshness of the treaty caused many of the circumstances that directly led to the rise of the Nazis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,465
#1,465
Madscientistvol said:
LMFAO the Versailles Treaty was a half measure? They economically crippled Germany and destroyed the hope their fledgling republic that grew in the wake of WW1 ever had. Germany rearmed in the face of the treaty, it was only because it wasn't enforced that Germany could rearm. Hitler correctly guessed that the millions dead were too fresh in the allies minds for them to declare war over it and be the aggressors.

Your understanding of WW1-2 is very different than that the common view that the harshness of the treaty caused many of the circumstances that directly led to the rise of the Nazis.
Click to expand...

My point was that by not completely destroying Germany's will to fight they left the remnants in place for WWII 20 years later. Warmongering nations care nothing about paper. They understand the bullet and bayonet. Germany went around fighting everyone, eventually things went south, and they called a truce before any enemy soldier could step foot in their country. The citizens were led to believe that the fighting stopped not because Germany was getting its ass kicked, but that the Jews and bolsheviks had sabotaged the whole affair. That would not have been a plausible story had the allies burned the country down.
 
#1,467
#1,467
DancingOutlaw said:
My point was that by not completely destroying Germany's will to fight they left the remnants in place for WWII 20 years later. Warmongering nations care nothing about paper. They understand the bullet and bayonet. Germany went around fighting everyone, eventually things went south, and they called a truce before any enemy soldier could step foot in their country. The citizens were led to believe that the fighting stopped not because Germany was getting its ass kicked, but that the Jews and bolsheviks had sabotaged the whole affair. That would not have been a plausible story had the allies burned the country down.
Click to expand...

So what would you have had? Germany surrendered and prostrated herself at the feet of the allies and gave in to one of the most lopsided peace treaties in history. Would you have had us invade after she surrendered at the cost of hundred of thousands if not millions more lives. Would you have had us rape every last man woman and child on our way in and burn every field and blow up every factory. How much would have been enough? Try judging this without hindsight. This was the costliest war in history to that point and the main enemy just gave up.
 
#1,468
#1,468
Madscientistvol said:
So what would you have had? Germany surrendered and prostrated herself at the feet of the allies and gave in to one of the most lopsided peace treaties in history. Would you have had us invade after she surrendered at the cost of hundred of thousands if not millions more lives. Would you have had us rape every last man woman and child on our way in and burn every field and blow up every factory. How much would have been enough? Try judging this without hindsight. This was the costliest war in history to that point and the main enemy just gave up.
Click to expand...

better terms. The Nazis rose to power because of how bad the treaty was. Germany wasn't even an aggressor in WWI. Disarmament was probably as far as they should have taken it. Imposing the reparations and breaking the country up was way too much.
 
#1,469
#1,469
LouderVol said:
better terms. The Nazis rose to power because of how bad the treaty was. Germany wasn't even an aggressor in WWI. Disarmament was probably as far as they should have taken it. Imposing the reparations and breaking the country up was way too much.
Click to expand...

The Treaty of Versailles did start the ball rolling for WWII.
 
#1,471
#1,471
Madscientistvol said:
LMFAO the Versailles Treaty was a half measure? They economically crippled Germany and destroyed the hope their fledgling republic that grew in the wake of WW1 ever had. Germany rearmed in the face of the treaty, it was only because it wasn't enforced that Germany could rearm. Hitler correctly guessed that the millions dead were too fresh in the allies minds for them to declare war over it and be the aggressors.

Your understanding of WW1-2 is very different than that the common view that the harshness of the treaty caused many of the circumstances that directly led to the rise of the Nazis.
Click to expand...

Good, educated post...

The treaty of Versailles was meant to permanently cripple the German military, economy and society...

And it brought just that, before the rise of Hitler, because Germany had no voice at the bargaining table, after offering an armistice to end fighting. Economic depression, hunger, crime, lewd and immoral behavior ran rampant. Ethnic Germans were now trapped in foreign countries via the forced ceding of almost half its territory. Germans were angry, and rightfully so...

Hitler did a lot of wrong in history's eyes, but he also did a lot of good in bringing Germany out of the mess that the Versailles treaty unfairly induced on the German people...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,474
#1,474
Pacer92 said:
Good, educated post...

The treaty of Versailles was meant to permanently cripple the German military, economy and society...

And it brought just that, before the rise of Hitler, because Germany had no voice at the bargaining table, after offering an armistice to end fighting. Economic depression, hunger, crime, lewd and immoral behavior ran rampant. Ethnic Germans were now trapped in foreign countries via the forced ceding of almost half its territory. Germans were angry, and rightfully so...

Hitler did a lot of wrong in history's eyes, but he also did a lot of good in bringing Germany out of the mess that the Versailles treaty unfairly induced on the German people...
Click to expand...

That treaty was the reason Hitler was able to rise to power and stoke the fires in his people that he did.

This is exactly why our Union went out of their way to preserve the dignity of the former Confederates​ once the battles had been decided....... That and they were afraid of a guerilla campaign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top