Winston Churchill was a monster

[GoodbyeDave]

Churchill was a nasty piece of work and few deny it. Few people liked him (King George V was being restrained when he called him an insufferable cad) and his friends were cut from the same cloth, like Frederick Lindemann who devised the policy of bombing residential districts in Germany.

He was an inspiring leader in the War, but what would have been the result had Hitler not been stupid enough to declare war on the USA and USSR? Defeat. It's easy to say "we will never surrender", but faced with overwhelming force the only alternative to surrender is death. Rejecting German peace proposals in 1940 would have left us with those alternatives, had not Hitler been stupider than Churchill.

 

[Nietzsche]

Churchill was a nasty piece of work and few deny it. Few people liked him (King George V was being restrained when he called him an insufferable cad) and his friends were cut from the same cloth, like Frederick Lindemann who devised the policy of bombing residential districts in Germany.

He was an inspiring leader in the War, but what would have been the result had Hitler not been stupid enough to declare war on the USA and USSR? Defeat. It's easy to say "we will never surrender", but faced with overwhelming force the only alternative to surrender is death. Rejecting German peace proposals in 1940 would have left us with those alternatives, had not Hitler been stupider than Churchill.

Errr no. The Nazis didn't have the capability to invade Britain. The Kriegsmarine would simply never be large enough.

 

[Wirey]

Errr no. The Nazis didn't have the capability to invade Britain. The Kriegsmarine would simply never be large enough.

Exactly this. Operation Sealion was war-gamed at Sandhurst after the war, and although the Germans forced a lodgment, the Royal Navy cut it off and starved it into submission.

Operation Sea Lion (wargame) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Millions?

Food in occupied Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the article:

The precise effect of the food crisis on German health and mortality has been a matter of some contention. Speaking of the Anglo-American zones, Herbert Hoover reported that in the fall of 1946, starvation produced a 40 percent increase in mortality among Germans over 70. However, John Farquharson cites statistics indicating that the incidence of hunger oedema was low in 1946–1947. According to the British Medical Journal, mortality in the British zone was above its pre-war level until June, 1946, when the death rate fell below that of 1938. Also, once it became clear there would be no rising, as threatened by the Nazis during the war, food controls were relaxed.

More propaganda punditry with no substance. They have books with historical truth in them. Try it!

Um, even your Wiki article mentions that the Allies had food controls to deny the Germans of an adequate amount of food:
"Fearing a Nazi rising, U.S. occupation forces were under strict orders not to share their food with the German population, and this also applied to their wives when they arrived later in the occupation. The women were under orders not to allow their German maids to get hold of any leftovers; "the food was to be destroyed or made inedible", although in view of the starving German population facing them many housewives chose to disregard these official orders.[18] Nevertheless, according to a U.S. intelligence survey a German university professor reportedly said: "Your soldiers are good-natured, good ambassadors; but they create unnecessary ill will to pour twenty litres of left-overcocoa in the gutter when it is badly needed in our clinics. It makes it hard for me to defend American democracy amongst my countrymen."[19]"

Better than a vague Wiki article, I have a book recommendation for you: http://www.amazon.com/After-Reich-Brutal-History-Occupation/dp/0465003389

Or you can continue to kiss Churchill's disgusting ***. Your choice. Doesn't matter to me.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Errr no. The Nazis didn't have the capability to invade Britain. The Kriegsmarine would simply never be large enough.

Maybe if they had more time and had retained France?

 

[Wirey]

Um, even your Wiki article mentions that the Allies had food controls to deny the Germans of an adequate amount of food:
"Fearing a Nazi rising, U.S. occupation forces were under strict orders not to share their food with the German population, and this also applied to their wives when they arrived later in the occupation. The women were under orders not to allow their German maids to get hold of any leftovers; "the food was to be destroyed or made inedible", although in view of the starving German population facing them many housewives chose to disregard these official orders.[18] Nevertheless, according to a U.S. intelligence survey a German university professor reportedly said: "Your soldiers are good-natured, good ambassadors; but they create unnecessary ill will to pour twenty litres of left-overcocoa in the gutter when it is badly needed in our clinics. It makes it hard for me to defend American democracy amongst my countrymen."[19]"

Better than a vague Wiki article, I have a book recommendation for you: After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation: Giles MacDonogh: 9780465003389: Amazon.com: Books

Or you can continue to kiss Churchill's disgusting ***. Your choice. Doesn't matter to me.

Millions? Did I miss the part where millions of Germans were deliberately starved? Wherever did you make up.... I mean, get that number? You know, the millions (notice the plural) one? I've read about 100 books on the war, and I have never heard 'millions'. Do you have a secret library with true books we mortals cannot see? Or are you as full of poop as the author of the article in the OP?

No straw men, no as hominem, just a source, please, l'il Franky.

 

[Wirey]

Maybe if they had more time and had retained France?

By then the Germans had essentially decided submarine warfare was the way to go. The time necessary to catch up with Britain, and the rest of the Commonwealth, just wasn't available. A look at warship performance during Operation Rosselsprung also shows a limitation the Germans faced that the British didn't. When large volumes of ship repairs were required, the Germans simply didn't have the facilities. The Tirpitz was essentially allowed to rot in Norway for want of a way to repair her.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Millions? Did I miss the part where millions of Germans were deliberately starved? Wherever did you make up.... I mean, get that number? You know, the millions (notice the plural) one? I've read about 100 books on the war, and I have never heard 'millions'. Do you have a secret library with true books we mortals cannot see? Or are you as full of poop as the author of the article in the OP?

No straw men, no as hominem, just a source, please, l'il Franky.

That book places the number of Germans killed off by the Allies under occupation as about 2.5 million, many of whom starved.

Since you erroneously believed that Churchill "saved Western civilization", I rather doubt the validity of whatever garbage you've been reading.

 

[Flankerl]

The most job was done by Stalin though.

Except of course that wasn't how military command worked in the USSR.

 

[Wirey]

That book places the number of Germans killed off by the Allies under occupation as about 2.5 million, many of whom starved.

Since you erroneously believed that Churchill "saved Western civilization", I rather doubt the validity of whatever garbage you've been reading.

I was about to argue with a child.

 

[Nietzsche]

Maybe if they had more time and had retained France?

Britain started from what is unquestionably a crushingly-superior position. The Nazis would be playing catch-up, and with the war on, Britain would be bombing their dockyards & harbors. It simply couldn't be done. Even if the Nazis somehow managed to snag the entirety of the French fleet intact & unscathed(basically impossible) they would still be too far behind. The only way for Germany to knock Britain out of the war is to tighten the screws by attempting to starve the UK. Something else that may've helped that end would be to implement their plan to drop counterfeit British Pounds from bombers, tank the British economy by flooding it with bad notes.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I was about to argue with a child.

...Okay...

 

[Brickjectivity]

That answers my questions about Churchill. Time to move on to a thread about Greece's financial disaster.

 

[Nietzsche]

That book places the number of Germans killed off by the Allies under occupation as about 2.5 million, many of whom starved.

People undoubtedly starved. But 2.5 million? Germans? No. Simply, no. The only sources I can find on this talk about the "REAL holocaust" and other neo-Nazi, Hitler-apologist crap.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

People undoubtedly starved. But 2.5 million? Germans? No. Simply, no. The only sources I can find on this talk about the "REAL holocaust" and other neo-Nazi, Hitler-apologist crap.

Of that number, they didn't all starve. That After the Reich book is not a fringe book.

 

[Nietzsche]

Of that number, they didn't all starve. That After the Reich book is not a fringe book.

So, I got into contact with a friend of mine who both owns & has read this book. He told me the biggest problem with the book is as follows;

It tries to paint the Nazis(as a whole) having fought an honorable war, with the Allied & Comintern armies raping & pillaging their way through Germany. While the latter did happen, it was not remotely to the extent the author tries to claim. And regards to the former..just no.

 

[MD]

Lol I posted a factual article and all the Churchill fanboys are crying because their role model was nothing more than a vicious tyrant.

And btw America saved Western Civilization. Not the Brits, or the Dutch or anyone else.

U.S. of A.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So, I got into contact with a friend of mine who both owns & has read this book. He told me the biggest problem with the book is as follows;

It tries to paint the Nazis(as a whole) having fought an honorable war, with the Allied & Comintern armies raping & pillaging their way through Germany. While the latter did happen, it was not remotely to the extent the author tries to claim. And regards to the former..just no.

Where does the book claim the former? I haven't read of all. I'm not a big non-fiction reader when it comes to books (I prefer to stick to horror and thriller novels), but I have the book on my computer.

 

[dust1n]

So, I got into contact with a friend of mine who both owns & has read this book. He told me the biggest problem with the book is as follows;

It tries to paint the Nazis(as a whole) having fought an honorable war, with the Allied & Comintern armies raping & pillaging their way through Germany. While the latter did happen, it was not remotely to the extent the author tries to claim. And regards to the former..just no.

It's not like Germany didn't just start a war against Russia with one of its sole strategies starving to death as many to people to make way for German settlers, for no real actual reason or gain, killing somewhere between 5-10 million civilians, not counting disease or starvation.

It's actually surprising Germany even still exists.

 

[Sapiens]

Lol I posted a factual article and all the Churchill fanboys are crying because their role model was nothing more than a vicious tyrant.

And btw America saved Western Civilization. Not the Brits, or the Dutch or anyone else.

U.S. of A.

I hate to tell you but FDR dragged the USA, kicking and screaming, to help Great Britain (pre Pearl Harbor) mainly on the strength of his relationship with Churchill. I despise many of the things that Churchill stood for, but I don't let my dislike of his class, and station, and the time period, to hide either his greatness as a leader and skill as a writer.

Let us not forget:

“A lady came up to me one day and said 'Sir! You are drunk', to which I replied 'I am drunk today madam, and tomorrow I shall be sober but you will still be ugly.”

“He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

“I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend ... if you have one."
— George Bernard Shaw, playwright (to Winston Churchill)
"Cannot possibly attend first night; will attend second, if there is one."
— Churchill's response”

“An old battleax of a woman said to Winston Churchill, "If you were my husband I would put poison in your tea." Churchill's response, "Ma'am if you were my wife I would drink it.”