How Warmonger Churchill Destroyed the British Empire

[Colpy]

He posted an article- Where does he agree with it?



Nope- Locutus posts a number of these articles- it drives discussion on a variety of points of contention, prevents the Forum from going stale. Which is just what the Forum needs.

Ahhh....I never claimed the poster did agree with it.....I was attacking the article and the author of that article.

 

[damngrumpy]

First of all let us clear up the Communist and National Socialist difference.
Many think Hitler was left win He Was Not. National Socialism is the other
extreme. it was ultra right wing as opposed to Stalin and the Communists.
The only real difference between Stalin and Hitler was, well Stalin was an
equal opportunity killer he didn't discriminate he killed anyone he pleased.
Hitler selected certain groups.
Seriously Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister when the war broke out.
Churchill was the first Lord of the Admiralty at the beginning of WWI and
he lost the worst defeat Britain had the the Battle of the Darkinells.
Churchill said no to any deal with Hitler and that was not warmongering it
was Statesmanship. No one else was prepared to stand in front of a nut
case. Churchill was a lot of things but not a warmonger.
It should also be noted that the big companies that are screwing us all today
were the ones who armed Hitler to the teeth and now they are building up
China. Even worse we buy what they produce to economically strangle us
even more.

 

[Goober]

Ahhh....I never claimed the poster did agree with it.....I was attacking the article and the author of that article.

I apologize- I did not mean to imply that.

 

[Jonny_C]

Nope- Locutus posts a number of these articles- it drives discussion on a variety of points of contention, prevents the Forum from going stale. Which is just what the Forum needs.

Question is - Does Locutus come back and discuss? I'm betting he does.

Anyway, personally, I consider this a waste of time. Not only because of the drivel in the link, but the OP's apparent trolling.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

In addition to all the valid criticisms above, the author clearly doesn't understand the butterfly effect. He is claiming that Churchill's warmongering character led directly to the wars. But the butterfly effect says that in chaotic systems, causes can and do lead to large, unpredictable effects with no direct or readily apparent connection.

This is consistent with his overall "I don't understand it, but it sounds cool so I'll put it in" approach.

 

[Blackleaf]

Germans had better equipment, more men in uniform, and a plan. Everyone was scared and rightly so.

What SHOULD piss people off is the leaders of the "allies" had the chance to stop Hitler long before he could do any damage.................the rest being history.

One big mistake that the British made was introducing the Ten Year Rule in 1919, which was a big handicap for us whilst Hitler was remilitarising Germany in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles.

Ten Year Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[darkbeaver]

Hitler was a teetotaller who didn't drink or smoke. Apart from a tendency to invade his neighbours and ruthlessly murder civilians by the millions, he was a real moral pillar of the community.
Know why Hitler didn't drink? Made him mean. :lol:

Certainly this is the predictable moral fiber expected in a arch evil historical figure of AH,s stature. I didn't spend as much time with him as you did but your impression does seem valid.

Humans are really bad at predicting anything. The least predicatble thing we know of is probably war. WWI, in particular, strikes me as a great example of the Butterfly Effect. Or a Black Swan event.

Nonsense, I predict more war later this afternoon.