Revisiting History: The Unlikely Campaign to Vilify Winston Churchill

[JoergADA]

I have always wondered how influential Tucker is in the  US, he says ZYN is not a sin, and ZYN takes off 

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

But if your position is that Britain should have accepted Hitler's terms, that would have allowed the Nazis to continue with their destruction of the Jews and other minorities. Whether Churchill knew about it or not. 

You're happy holding that position? 

 

No, it wouldn't just have been minorities. There would have been a massive genocide of the Slav majority in the East.

 

As it was we saw a genocide of Germans after the war with 12 to 14 million Germans being ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe and Central Europe, many killed in horrific abominal ways, some 1.7 million Germans. In addition there were about 900,000 Japanese civilian killed.

 

There were civilian deaths on many sides, and there would have been even if Britain and Germany had come to terms. However, I am talking purely from a geo political perspective. 

 

 

 

 

[RayC]

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are obfuscating and excusing the crimes of the Nazis

 

 

1 minute ago, CG1 Blue said:

But if your position is that Britain should have accepted Hitler's terms, that would have allowed the Nazis to continue with their destruction of the Jews and other minorities. Whether Churchill knew about it or not. 

You're happy holding that position? 

 

You are both spot on. 

 

While the 'Final Solution' may not have been developed until 1941, enough was known about Nazi aims and the treatment of Jews in 1940.

 

Irrespective of whether it would have in the UK's best interests to sign a peace treaty with Hitler (it wouldn't), Churchill was morally correct in his stance towards Germany.

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, JoergADA said:

I have always wondered how influential Tucker is in the  US, he says ZYN is not a sin, and ZYN takes off 

 

I was also amazed how influential Tucker is. Nobody had basically heard of Cooper before the interview. Now he's a household name and his podcast ist ranked higher than ever.

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

 

You are both spot on. 

 

While the 'Final Solution' may not have been developed until 1941, enough was known about Nazi aims and the treatment of Jews in 1940.

 

Irrespective of whether it would have in the UK's best interests to sign a peace treaty with Hitler (it wouldn't), Churchill was morally correct in his stance towards Germany.

 

You're imputing a moral dimension to Churchill's decision after the fact, which simply did not exist. That's pure fantasy. Churchill did not decide to refuse Hitler's peace offer because of his moral concern about the welfare of the jews. That's you putting wishful interpretations on history.

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Yes, he should have.  Had Churchill accepted the peace offer Germany made in 1940 the world would have been spared 20 million deaths and horrific suffering, not to mention cultural and economic destruction. 

 

Because then Germany wouldn't have attacked Russia and carried out in full its General Plan Ost? You know, the plan that called for the extermination of millions.

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Churchill of course wanted to save the British Empire. That was his whole purpose. However, by continuing the war Churchill lost the British Empire for Britain. Churchill was a loser of WWII just as he was in WWI.

 

His only hope to retain the British Empire was indeed to make peace in 1940. Hitler, whose book Mein Kampf Andrew Roberts mentions, had written in it admiringly of the British Empire. He had repeatedly declared that the British Empire was necessary as a bulwark against the Communist threat. 

 

Whilst everyone, even at the time, knew the Nazi Soviet pact was disingenous and just buying time for both sides, and it was a matter of time before the conflict erupted due to massive ideological antagonism (Nazism really came into being to combat the socialist threat). However, between Germany and Britain there was no ideological conflict and Hitler had said he would guarantee the existence of the Empire. 

It's a good thing that Germany wasn't allied with Japan which was waging war on the British Empire. Otherwise...oh wait a minute...

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You're imputing a moral dimension to Churchill's decision after the fact, which simply did not exist. That's pure fantasy. Churchill did not decide to refuse Hitler's peace offer because of his moral concern about the welfare of the jews. That's you putting wishful interpretations on history.

Please share with us  the proof that Hitler wasn't morally opposed to the Nazis?

Edited September 11 by placeholder

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because then Germany wouldn't have attacked Russia and carried out in full its General Plan Ost? You know, the plan that called for the extermination of millions.

 

They would have done that of course.

 

Generalplan Ost was several plans though, by several agencies, many competing with each other. So it's not clear which version would have prevailed.

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's a good thing that Germany wasn't allied with Japan which was waging war on the British Empire. Otherwise...oh wait a minute...

 

That was after Britain had already declared war on Germany. Of course that determined the later confrontation.

[placeholder]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

They would have done that of course.

 

Generalplan Ost was several plans though, by several agencies, many competing with each other. So it's not clear which version would have prevailed.

Not clear. The country that slaughtered 6 million jews, not ot mention Romani and gay people, was not going to engage in an even greater mass slaughter of Slavs?

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Please share with us  the proof that Hitler wasn't morally opposed to the Nazis?

I meant, Churchill, not Hitler.

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Not clear. The country that slaughtered 6 million jews, not ot mention Romani and gay people, was not going to engage in an even greater mass slaughter of Slavs?

 

Some of the plans called for resettlement of the Slavs in other parts of Eastern Europe. Deportations, rather than killings.

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

I meant, Churchill, not Hitler.

I thought you might have.

 

The proof is of course that Churchill was opposed to Nazi Germany as early as 1933. Long, long before he would have known anything about the holocaust.

[RayC]

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You're imputing a moral dimension to Churchill's decision after the fact, which simply did not exist. That's pure fantasy. Churchill did not decide to refuse Hitler's peace offer because of his moral concern about the welfare of the jews. That's you putting wishful interpretations on history.

 

I am but that is not the point. The point is that whether by luck, judgement or moral fortitude, Churchill made the correct decision in 1940. 

 

Before you object and say that hindsight is a wonderful thing, I really don't understand how - even allowing for the overwhelming desire of Europeans at the time to avoid another war so soon after WW1 - a British politician could ignore what was happening in Germany and think that a Nazi-led Europe would be in any way beneficial.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I thought you might have.

 

The proof is of course that Churchill was opposed to Nazi Germany as early as 1933. Long, long before he would have known anything about the holocaust.

And history demonstrates he was right to be opposed to the Nazis.

 

So what’s your excuse?

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I thought you might have.

 

The proof is of course that Churchill was opposed to Nazi Germany as early as 1933. Long, long before he would have known anything about the holocaust.

Really? Because the bigotry of the Nazis towards the Jews wasn't flagrantly apparent? Churchill was in Germany in 1932 doing some research on an ancestor of his. Someone offered to arrange for Churchill to meet Hitler. Churchill mentioned a few questions to ask Hitler in advance to prep for their meeting. I'll let Martin Gilbert take it from here...

"Among them was the following

question: “What is the sense of being against a man simply because of his birth? How can any man help how he is born?”

This may seem a simple sentiment to us now, but how many people, distinguished people from Britain, the United States and other countries, who met or might have met Hitler, raised that question with him? So surprised, and possibly angered, was Hitler by this question that he declined to come to the hotel and see Churchill.

FROM the moment that Hitler came to power, Churchill in his public speeches, and in his Parliamentary speeches, made it clear that the racial aspect of Nazism was a central concern. He always insisted on raising this issue, and pointing out the relevance to his listeners of the Nazi racial policies, and this he did again and again."

https://winstonchurchill.org/the-life-of-churchill/war-leader/churchill-and-the-holocaust-the-possible-and-impossible/

 

Edited September 11 by placeholder

[placeholder]

Here's a funny anecdote about Churchill related by Orson Welles to Dick Cavet. It goes a long way towards explaining why Churchill had so many friends.

 

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I am but that is not the point. The point is that whether by luck, judgement or moral fortitude, Churchill made the correct decision in 1940. 

 

Before you object and say that hindsight is a wonderful thing, I really don't understand how - even allowing for the overwhelming desire of Europeans at the time to avoid another war so soon after WW1 - a British politician could ignore what was happening in Germany and think that a Nazi-led Europe would be in any way beneficial.

 

Firstly, whether Churchill made the correct "moral" decision largely depends on perspective. If you are jewish or British then of course yes, but if you are Japanese, German, then not really, because after the war 1.7 million Germans died in the ethnic cleansing of 14 million Germans, 900000 Japanese civilians were murdered in carpet bombings. This just depends on perspective.

 

Indeed, it would have been a Nazi led Europe, but Britain would have retained her empire, and that would have been her only option to retain her empire. That's really what Churchill wanted. Had he been a more insightful politician he would have understood this, and that fighting Germany was precisely going to achieve the opposite of what he wanted, to save the Empire.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

900000 Japanese civilians were murdered in carpet bombings. This just depends on perspective.

Hogwash.

[Lacessit]

I read no further than "sat down with Tucker Carlson".

[Cameroni]

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Here's a funny anecdote about Churchill related by Orson Welles to Dick Cavet. It goes a long way towards explaining why Churchill had so many friends.

 

 

Yes, a very nice anecdote by none less than Orson Welles, thanks for posting that. Though I suspect being a member of the nobility, having a spanking hourse and title didn't hurt his chances to make friends.

 

Overall though Churchill did have an amazing life, he built walls, painted, wrote, went on adventures, engaged in journalism. I don't buy Cooper's take that he was weird and childish, even if he did play with tin soldiers. A remarkable man obviously.

 

 

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Firstly, whether Churchill made the correct "moral" decision largely depends on perspective. If you are jewish or British then of course yes, but if you are Japanese, German, then not really, because after the war 1.7 million Germans died in the ethnic cleansing of 14 million Germans, 900000 Japanese civilians were murdered in carpet bombings. This just depends on perspective.

 

Indeed, it would have been a Nazi led Europe, but Britain would have retained her empire, and that would have been her only option to retain her empire. That's really what Churchill wanted. Had he been a more insightful politician he would have understood this, and that fighting Germany was precisely going to achieve the opposite of what he wanted, to save the Empire.

 

We have a long written and spoken record of what Churchill wanted., Against that, we have, in you, an apparent mind reader. And not just an ordinary one, but a mind reader who read the minds of a person long dead.

[Cameroni]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hogwash.

 

No it's true. 

 

The civilian death toll in Japan from Allied bombing was between 330,000 and 900,000 with an additional 112,000 killed from the atomic bombs.

 

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.10.5.03.HTM#:~:text=The civilian death toll in,Air Force crewmen were killed.

[Chomper Higgot]

25 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No it's true. 

 

The civilian death toll in Japan from Allied bombing was between 330,000 and 900,000 with an additional 112,000 killed from the atomic bombs.

 

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.10.5.03.HTM#:~:text=The civilian death toll in,Air Force crewmen were killed.

Yes a lot of Japanese civilians died.

 

It wasn’t murder.

[Cameroni]

34 minutes ago, placeholder said:

We have a long written and spoken record of what Churchill wanted., Against that, we have, in you, an apparent mind reader. And not just an ordinary one, but a mind reader who read the minds of a person long dead.

I don't think it's "mind reading" that's required to say that Churchill wanted to retain the empire. That is indeed part of the written and spoken record.

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I don't think it's "mind reading" that's required to say that Churchill wanted to retain the empire. That is indeed part of the written and spoken record.

Here's what you wrote: 

Indeed, it would have been a Nazi led Europe, but Britain would have retained her empire, and that would have been her only option to retain her empire. That's really what Churchill wanted. 

In Churchill's mind, were the two mutually exclusive? That he preferred one outcome over the other? You know this how?

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Here's what you wrote: 

Indeed, it would have been a Nazi led Europe, but Britain would have retained her empire, and that would have been her only option to retain her empire. That's really what Churchill wanted. 

In Churchill's mind, were the two mutually exclusive? That he preferred one outcome over the other? You know this how?

 

I think you're trying to misrepresent my words and you're not succeeding very well. What I said was very clear, that Churchill wanted to retain the empire. Since he lost the emire by fighting Germany, his only real chance to retain it would have been to accept Germany's peace offer.

 

The two were linked, because the reason he opposed Germany so early on was that Churchill saw Germany as a threat to the empire.  The empire was his big love, and Germany was his big hate because it endangered the empire in his mind.

 

But he lost it fighting Germany. Had he accepted the peace offer, perhaps he would  have kept it for longer.

[RayC]

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I don't think it's "mind reading" that's required to say that Churchill wanted to retain the empire. That is indeed part of the written and spoken record.

 

I am struggling to know what point you are trying to make. 

 

Whatever it is, your argument appears to rest on the assumption that Churchill's prime objective was to maintain the Empire. Playing devil's advocate and accepting this assumption, there is enough evidence to suggest that Hitler could not be trusted and that entering into a peace treaty with him would not have ensured the security of the UK or the Empire.

[Cameroni]

Just now, RayC said:

 

I am struggling to know what point you are trying to make. 

 

Whatever it is, your argument appears to rest on the assumption that Churchill's prime objective was to maintain the Empire. Playing devil's advocate and accepting this assumption, there is enough evidence to suggest that Hitler could not be trusted and that entering into a peace treaty with him would not have ensured the security of the UK or the Empire.

I don't see why you would be struggling. The point made was very clear:

 

Churchill wanted to retain the Empire. Germany offered a peace that would have allowed him to keep it. However, Churchill decided not to take the offer and as a consequence lost the Empire.

 

Whether Hitler would have gone to war with Britain and the empire is another question, but looking at what Britain had to offer in terms of resources and living space, it's unlikely he would have invaded Britain. For what gain? He saw the Empire as a bulwark against Communism, that was Hitler's real fear. And Churchill too feared the communists.