Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

‘Putin clearly won’: Pundits say meeting was ‘bad for Americans’

Featured Replies

5 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

You can make an argument that there are good wars and there are bad wars.

 

Indeed the same war can start out as a good war and turn into a bad war, like when Germany attempted to reconstitute its territorial integrity in 1939 after Poland annexed German territory when Germany lay defeated after WW1. Clearly that was a good just war. However, when Germany then was tempted to turn a war that was just into a colonial war in Russia, it became a bad war and Karma was swift and harsh for Germany.

  • Replies 371
  • Views 15.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Another anti Trump thread, based on less than all the others    ... "Both leaders suggested progress had been made on talks about the future of the war in Ukraine but neither disclosed detai

  • The more Trump attempts to "play" the role as a kingpin the more he makes an ass of himself.  

  • The results were as expected.  Putin continues to make a fool of Trump.

Posted Images

7 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Is that truly and honestly the best defense that you can muster up for Putin, and for the way that Trump is currently treating Putin? 

 

Putin is not using extra-judicial powers to rule Russia. He is not atttempting to put in place a new legal order. He's just an elected president.

 

I don't think Putin needs any defense from the false accusation of "Dictator". He's an elected president. Legitimate to the core.

 

People say that repressing political opponents and imprisoning makes him a dictator. But Germany did the exact same thing with Horst Mahler. The Brits are doing the same thing now with the Palestine protestors. 

 

Imprisoning political opponents does not a dictator make.

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Putin is not using extra-judicial powers to rule Russia. He is not atttempting to put in place a new legal order. He's just an elected president.

 

I don't think Putin needs any defense from the false accusation of "Dictator". He's an elected president. Legitimate to the core.

 

People say that repressing political opponents and imprisoning makes him a dictator. But Germany did the exact same thing with Horst Mahler. The Brits are doing the same thing now with the Palestine protestors. 

 

Imprisoning political opponents does not a dictator make.

Well, that might be true, but assassinating political opponents does make one a serial killing super freak, if not a dictator. The same can be said of his horrendous and genocidal actions in Ukraine. 

Just now, spidermike007 said:

Well, that might be true, but assassinating political opponents does make one a serial killing super freak, if not a dictator. The same can be said of his horrendous and genocidal actions in Ukraine. 

 

Didn't Obama send a killing team to murder Osama ben Laden? Didn't Bush have many of his political opponents killed and imprisoned?

 

They're all serial killers, I think , and have to be freaks, because who would go to those extremes?

 

As for the war crimes in Ukraine, bad, but the British did worse in Germany, the Americans did worse in Japan. I don't see how the West can jump on any high horse regarding killing civilians.

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Didn't Obama send a killing team to murder Osama ben Laden? Didn't Bush have many of his political opponents killed and imprisoned?

 

They're all serial killers, I think , and have to be freaks, because who would go to those extremes?

 

As for the war crimes in Ukraine, bad, but the British did worse in Germany, the Americans did worse in Japan. I don't see how the West can jump on any high horse regarding killing civilians.

Wow. That is a very strange brand of moral equivalency and some extremely twisted logic.

 

Did the British choose to be in Germany? Did they start the war? Did the Americans choose to be in Japan? Please explain to us how they instigated World War II? 

  • Popular Post
10 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Didn't Obama send a killing team to murder Osama ben Laden? Didn't Bush have many of his political opponents killed and imprisoned?

 

They're all serial killers, I think , and have to be freaks, because who would go to those extremes?

 

As for the war crimes in Ukraine, bad, but the British did worse in Germany, the Americans did worse in Japan. I don't see how the West can jump on any high horse regarding killing civilians.

What aboutism doesn't work.

And it doesn't compare, Germany was invading sovereign countries in 1939, Ukraine has invaded nowhere, in fact the opposite 

6 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Did the British choose to be in Germany? Did they start the war?

 

Yes, they did actually, much like Boris Johnson flew in to warn Zelensky that if he didn't fight Russia the West would not support him, back in the day the British egged on Poland to refuse any sensible peace deal about the territories they stole from Germany after the latter lay defeated and helpless after WW1.

 

In fact the Brits had the option to sign a peace deal in 1940. But Churchill rejected the offer.

 

Some historians now are arguing that Britain started WWII.

 

And of course the Americans slapped an oil embargo on Japan prior to Pearl Harbour and left Japan almost no choice but to go to war.

 

7 minutes ago, bannork said:

What aboutism doesn't work.

And it doesn't compare, Germany was invading sovereign countries in 1939, Ukraine has invaded nowhere, in fact the opposite 

 

So did Poland invade sovereign Germany post 1918 and annexed German territory, it was purely a defensive war by Germany to reconstitute its territorial integrity.

 

Ukraine actually invaded those parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empre in Galicia which it later incorporated. As part of the Polish-Lithuanian reign of terror earlier it could be said that Ukraine too is partly culpable in the offensive wars that entity started.

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Yes, they did actually, much like Boris Johnson flew in to warn Zelensky that if he didn't fight Russia the West would not support him, back in the day the British egged on Poland to refuse any sensible peace deal about the territories they stole from Germany after the latter lay defeated and helpless after WW1.

 

In fact the Brits had the option to sign a peace deal in 1940. But Churchill rejected the offer.

 

Some historians now are arguing that Britain started WWII.

 

And of course the Americans slapped an oil embargo on Japan prior to Pearl Harbour and left Japan almost no choice but to go to war.

 

 

So did Poland invade sovereign Germany post 1918 and annexed German territory, it was purely a defensive war by Germany to reconstitute its territorial integrity.

 

Ukraine actually invaded those parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empre in Galicia which it later incorporated. As part of the Polish-Lithuanian reign of terror earlier it could be said that Ukraine too is partly culpable in the offensive wars that entity started.

Hitler had made it clear in his speeches and writings since the early 1930s that Germany needed to expand eastwards as it was overcrowded and needed the territory of Slavic nations that were genetically inferior to the master Aryan race.

He was insane and had to be stopped.

8 minutes ago, bannork said:

Hitler had made it clear in his speeches and writings since the early 1930s that Germany needed to expand eastwards as it was overcrowded and needed the territory of Slavic nations that were genetically inferior to the master Aryan race.

He was insane and had to be stopped.

I guess that because Russians descended from the Mongols, that would make them Mongol idiots. Makes sense to me. Hardly a master race.

27 minutes ago, bannork said:

Hitler had made it clear in his speeches and writings since the early 1930s that Germany needed to expand eastwards as it was overcrowded and needed the territory of Slavic nations that were genetically inferior to the master Aryan race.

He was insane and had to be stopped.

 

That only became apparent after the fact, and if you look at Stalin he was even more insane. Truman's decision to okay the murder of 140,000 Japanese civilians in Hiroshima in one day, about 100,000 more than died in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in the entire 6 years of the war, was arguably also the decision of an insane mind. The same for Churchill's decision to kill workers, men, women children and the elderly with area bombing.

 

Putin is of positively sound mind compared to this cabinet of lunatics.

Trump has been brain washed and completely changed his approach to helping Ukraine, the guy is a disaster when it comes to Putin, no cojones, what surprised me the most that Trump didn't lower his pants. He wants Ukraine to give up territory without thinking about the consequences and the people involved, wonder what he would do with the people (Ukrainians) currently living in the areas he wants to give away, they are Ukraine citizens holding Ukraine ID documents, kids going to Ukrainian schools, they have friends and family there and all of a sudden all of that changes and they become Russian citizens, that's a heck of a proposal fro Trump, wonder if he would do the same to some of his relatives/friends or even better, since his wife is from the Eastern Europe maybe she or her friends/relatives  could be affected by something like that, who in a normal state of mind would propose such a life destruction. Did Trump ask the people living there if they want to leave, pack their life saving belongings and settle God knows where because he thought that would easier for him to win the so much desired Nobel Peace Prize

Trump Piles Pressure On Zelenskyy To End The War Putin Started In Bizarre Truth Social Rant

https://au.news.yahoo.com/trump-piles-pressure-zelenskyy-end-064133025.html

 

and because Trump could fulfill his promise of making a deal to end the war in 24 hours now is doing anything and everything to turn things around, how convenient that is, he said if Putin didn't accepted the cease fire he would impose drastic sanctions to Russia and to the countries buying Russian oil and gas, guess what, it was just the usual blablabla, there is a reporter at MSN that made negative comments about his approach to the meeting with Putin, now is threatening her and asked her boss to fire her, that's how he deals with criticism, since the Putin meeting was a total fiasco and the media is reporting that, he's going after the media now, it's a melt down, a tantrum comparable to a reaction from a kid who didn't got the candy he wanted, that's sad, very sad and the majority of his supporters here at AN became quiet, barely posting anything related to the meeting because deep inside they know their master screw up royally 

 

Trump Melts Down Over Negative Coverage of Putin Summit Flop

https://au.news.yahoo.com/trump-melts-down-over-negative-152927691.html

 

 

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

That only became apparent after the fact, and if you look at Stalin he was even more insane. Truman's decision to okay the murder of 140,000 Japanese civilians in Hiroshima in one day, about 100,000 more than died in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in the entire 6 years of the war, was arguably also the decision of an insane mind. The same for Churchill's decision to kill workers, men, women children and the elderly with area bombing.

 

Putin is of positively sound mind compared to this cabinet of lunatics.

We live in the present and Putin suffers from delusions of grandeur comparing himself to centuries past Russian heroes.

Like Hitler, an early death could have saved so many lives.

2 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

and because Trump could fulfill his promise of making a deal to end the war in 24 hours now is doing anything and everything to turn things around, how convenient that is, he said if Putin didn't accepted the cease fire he would impose drastic sanctions to Russia and to the countries buying Russian oil and gas, guess what, it was just the usual blablabla, there is a reporter at MSN that made negative comments about his approach to the meeting with Putin, now is threatening her and asked her boss to fire her, that's how he deals with criticism, since the Putin meeting was a total fiasco and the media is reporting that, he's going after the media now, it's a melt down, a tantrum comparable to a reaction from a kid who didn't got the candy he wanted, that's sad, very sad and the majority of his supporters here at AN became quiet, barely posting anything related to the meeting because deep inside they know their master screw up royally 

 

Trump Melts Down Over Negative Coverage of Putin Summit Flop

https://au.news.yahoo.com/trump-melts-down-over-negative-152927691.html

 

 

Trump is a five year old child in an ageing man's body. The sooner he is off the world stage and in a care home, the better.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Yes, they did actually, much like Boris Johnson flew in to warn Zelensky that if he didn't fight Russia the West would not support him, back in the day the British egged on Poland to refuse any sensible peace deal about the territories they stole from Germany after the latter lay defeated and helpless after WW1.

 

In fact the Brits had the option to sign a peace deal in 1940. But Churchill rejected the offer.

 

Some historians now are arguing that Britain started WWII.

 

And of course the Americans slapped an oil embargo on Japan prior to Pearl Harbour and left Japan almost no choice but to go to war.

 

 

So did Poland invade sovereign Germany post 1918 and annexed German territory, it was purely a defensive war by Germany to reconstitute its territorial integrity.

 

Ukraine actually invaded those parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empre in Galicia which it later incorporated. As part of the Polish-Lithuanian reign of terror earlier it could be said that Ukraine too is partly culpable in the offensive wars that entity started.

That is cute. And you honestly think Hitler would have honored the terms of a peace deal, and the Holocaust would not have happened, or perhaps even on a much larger scale? 

 

A piece deal with Hitler that's about 50 times less likely than a peace deal with Putin. They're both maniacs, it's just that Hitler was 1000x worse. 

4 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

And you honestly think Hitler would have honored the terms of a peace deal, and the Holocaust would not have happened, or perhaps even on a much larger scale? 

 

Neither we, nor Churchill, are in a position to know that. Churchill decided not to accept the peace offer. And that was that.

 

 

I'll tell you what's cute. Ukraine expecting the USA to force the return of Crimea. 

 

I've said this numerous times - not a single member of this forum would accept the price to be paid if the USA entered into a war to achieve Ukraine's fantasy wishlist. 

 

Not one of you. Not a single one. 

  • Popular Post
3 minutes ago, theblether said:

I'll tell you what's cute. Ukraine expecting the USA to force the return of Crimea. 

 

I've said this numerous times - not a single member of this forum would accept the price to be paid if the USA entered into a war to achieve Ukraine's fantasy wishlist. 

 

Not one of you. Not a single one. 

Their overwhelming priority is that Trump fails. If that causes the death of every Ukrainian male and then Russia takes all of Ukraine, that is FAR preferable to having Trump negotiate peace and an end to the bloodshed. You are not dealing with rational folk with cohesive arguments just a cult with covered ears and eyes yelling nonsense.

BBC reporting right now - 

 

Trump says that Crimea was seized without a single shot being fired. BBC? "Well, ackshually, two Ukrainians were shot in Crimea." 

 

Not exactly the spirit of the Alamo. eh? 

On 8/15/2025 at 11:54 PM, transam said:

Trump's after the meeting news briefing just shows how incompetent he is, embarrassing.......🙄

 

Thousands dead and they are all chummy........🤢

 

 

That is a tough one.

What can be said at the end of a meeting, that did not provided the desired outcome for Trump.

Perhaps Trump learned from Islam, and lied in order to retreat and come back in strength. Perhaps.

I want to wait and see. Trump is known to act decisively in difficult situations.. Something that his predecessor did not possess as a quality....

I hope that Trump just ended with a diplomatic response. Hope that we will know soon what his real thought were... 

32 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Neither we, nor Churchill, are in a position to know that. Churchill decided not to accept the peace offer. And that was that.

 

 

 

Factually wrong - Churchill knew and was warning for years about trusting Hitler - 

 

Here’s a timeline of Churchill’s key warnings about Hitler before 1940, showing how he repeatedly insisted the Nazi regime could not be trusted:


1933 – Hitler Comes to Power

  • Churchill, though out of government, warns privately and in writing that Hitler’s rise and Nazi ideology must be taken seriously.

  • Quote (Evening Standard, 1935): “Germany is arming furiously and secretly. Herr Hitler declares his peaceful intentions, but behind him marches the Prussian military spirit with its record of violence and treachery.”


1934–1935 – Early Nazi Militarization

  • Churchill uses newspaper articles and speeches to argue that Germany is rearming in violation of Versailles.

  • He warns Britain must not let its guard down, as Hitler’s promises of peace cannot be relied upon.


November 12, 1936 – House of Commons Speech

  • Churchill directly challenges the government’s complacency:

    “Germany is arming fast, and no one is going to stop her. Herr Hitler’s intentions are no longer a mystery… To suppose that the Nazi dictatorship, with its hatreds and ambitions, will remain content within its present boundaries is a dangerous delusion.”


March 1938 – Anschluss (Austria)

  • After Hitler annexes Austria, Churchill criticizes the inaction of Britain and France:

    “The gravity of the events which have occurred cannot be exaggerated. Herr Hitler’s counsels of violence and treachery are moving forward with ever-greater momentum… Do not suppose this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning.”


September 1938 – Czechoslovakia Crisis (Pre-Munich)

  • As Chamberlain prepares to negotiate with Hitler, Churchill warns:

    “Czechoslovakia is to be destroyed. Do not delude yourselves. Do not suppose that this is the end. Hitler will not stop. He cannot stop. He does not mean to stop.”


October 5, 1938 – After Munich Agreement

  • Chamberlain returns claiming “peace for our time.” Churchill responds in Parliament:

    “We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning, the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup…”


1939 – After Hitler Seizes the Rest of Czechoslovakia (March)

  • Churchill seizes on Hitler’s betrayal of the Munich promises:

    “All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness. She has suffered in every respect by her association with France and England. … We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude.”


September 1939 – War Begins

  • Britain declares war after Hitler invades Poland.

  • Churchill is brought back into government as First Lord of the Admiralty, vindicated after years of warning that Hitler could never be trusted.


Summary

From 1933 onward, Churchill consistently warned that Hitler’s word was worthless, that Nazi Germany was rearming at breakneck speed, and that appeasement would only embolden aggression. His phrases — “dangerous delusion,” “beginning of the reckoning,” “total and unmitigated defeat” — captured his lonely but accurate stance in the wilderness years.

12 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

Factually wrong - Churchill knew and was warning for years about trusting Hitler - 

 

Here’s a timeline of Churchill’s key warnings about Hitler before 1940, showing how he repeatedly insisted the Nazi regime could not be trusted:


1933 – Hitler Comes to Power

  • Churchill, though out of government, warns privately and in writing that Hitler’s rise and Nazi ideology must be taken seriously.

  • Quote (Evening Standard, 1935): “Germany is arming furiously and secretly. Herr Hitler declares his peaceful intentions, but behind him marches the Prussian military spirit with its record of violence and treachery.”


1934–1935 – Early Nazi Militarization

  • Churchill uses newspaper articles and speeches to argue that Germany is rearming in violation of Versailles.

  • He warns Britain must not let its guard down, as Hitler’s promises of peace cannot be relied upon.


November 12, 1936 – House of Commons Speech

  • Churchill directly challenges the government’s complacency:

    “Germany is arming fast, and no one is going to stop her. Herr Hitler’s intentions are no longer a mystery… To suppose that the Nazi dictatorship, with its hatreds and ambitions, will remain content within its present boundaries is a dangerous delusion.”


March 1938 – Anschluss (Austria)

  • After Hitler annexes Austria, Churchill criticizes the inaction of Britain and France:

    “The gravity of the events which have occurred cannot be exaggerated. Herr Hitler’s counsels of violence and treachery are moving forward with ever-greater momentum… Do not suppose this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning.”


September 1938 – Czechoslovakia Crisis (Pre-Munich)

  • As Chamberlain prepares to negotiate with Hitler, Churchill warns:

    “Czechoslovakia is to be destroyed. Do not delude yourselves. Do not suppose that this is the end. Hitler will not stop. He cannot stop. He does not mean to stop.”


October 5, 1938 – After Munich Agreement

  • Chamberlain returns claiming “peace for our time.” Churchill responds in Parliament:

    “We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning, the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup…”


1939 – After Hitler Seizes the Rest of Czechoslovakia (March)

  • Churchill seizes on Hitler’s betrayal of the Munich promises:

    “All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness. She has suffered in every respect by her association with France and England. … We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude.”


September 1939 – War Begins

  • Britain declares war after Hitler invades Poland.

  • Churchill is brought back into government as First Lord of the Admiralty, vindicated after years of warning that Hitler could never be trusted.


Summary

From 1933 onward, Churchill consistently warned that Hitler’s word was worthless, that Nazi Germany was rearming at breakneck speed, and that appeasement would only embolden aggression. His phrases — “dangerous delusion,” “beginning of the reckoning,” “total and unmitigated defeat” — captured his lonely but accurate stance in the wilderness years.

 

Your whole long posts contains within it its own refutation. For if Churchill was right, and Britain and France could not be trusted for betraying Czechoslovkia and not standing by the security guarantees they gave her, and if future acts are solely predicated on past behaviour, then by the logic of your own post Britain and France would never have declared war because of Poland. However Britain did declare war on Germany because of Poland. Past behaviour was not an indicator of future action. So neither would Hitler's past behaviour necessarily have been an indicator of future action.

  • Popular Post
41 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Their overwhelming priority is that Trump fails. If that causes the death of every Ukrainian male and then Russia takes all of Ukraine, that is FAR preferable to having Trump negotiate peace and an end to the bloodshed. You are not dealing with rational folk with cohesive arguments just a cult with covered ears and eyes yelling nonsense.

Negotiating peace would be great.

Arranging a SURRENDER is disgusting. 

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Negotiating peace would be great.

Arranging a SURRENDER is disgusting. 

 

Nobody's talking about "surrendering". Putin said he only wants the Donbas, not all of Ukraine.

 

A very reasonable demand.

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Your whole long posts contains within it its own refutation. For if Churchill was right, and Britain and France could not be trusted for betraying Czechoslovkia and not standing by the security guarantees they gave her, and if future acts are solely predicated on past behaviour, then by the logic of your own post Britain and France would never have declared war because of Poland. However Britain did declare war on Germany because of Poland. Past behaviour was not an indicator of future action. So neither would Hitler's past behaviour necessarily have been an indicator of future action.

 

Utter nonsense. You said Churchill could not have known. I posted that he continually warned against doing deals with Hitler. 

 

Churchill was not in government when the Brits gave Poland a territorial guarantee. 

6 minutes ago, theblether said:

You said Churchill could not have known. I posted that he continually warned against doing deals with Hitler. 

 

Except Churchill said the exact opposite as well of course. 

 

"In fact, according to Jacobin Magazine In 1935, Churchill expressed his “admiration” for Hitler and “the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to . . . overcome all the . . . resistances which barred his path.” Winston Churchill famously wrote, in the same year, “Great Contemporaries”. According to the International Churchhill Society, one of the most controversial chapters in Great Contemporaries (And in the opinion of scholars the one least like the rest) is “Hitler and his choice.” Some critics maintain that the essay implies approval of Hitler, rendering Churchill a hypocrite."

 

https://www.historyonthenet.com/winston-churchill-and-hitler-what-did-churchill-think

 

Which makes Churchill a bit of a hypocrite. Of course if you play both sides, you can't fail but be right eventually. Churchill was in no more of a position to predict the future events than anyone else.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Except Churchill said the exact opposite as well of course. 

 

"In fact, according to Jacobin Magazine In 1935, Churchill expressed his “admiration” for Hitler and “the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to . . . overcome all the . . . resistances which barred his path.” Winston Churchill famously wrote, in the same year, “Great Contemporaries”. According to the International Churchhill Society, one of the most controversial chapters in Great Contemporaries (And in the opinion of scholars the one least like the rest) is “Hitler and his choice.” Some critics maintain that the essay implies approval of Hitler, rendering Churchill a hypocrite."

 

https://www.historyonthenet.com/winston-churchill-and-hitler-what-did-churchill-think

 

Which makes Churchill a bit of a hypocrite. Of course if you play both sides, you can't fail but be right eventually. Churchill was in no more of a position to predict the future events than anyone else.

 

 

 

Here we go again - yet another member trying to treat me like an idiot - here's the relevant quote from the essay - 

 

“If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations. … But it is not necessary that Hitler should be the sworn foe of mankind. … If he had been called by Fate to guide the German people through a period of peace, he might have been regarded as a man who had risen to a very great height, and indeed might have taken his place among the greatest figures of history.”

 

lets boil it down again - "If he had been called by Fate to guide the German people through a period of peace, he might have been regarded as a man who had risen to a very great height, and indeed might have taken his place among the greatest figures of history.”

 

The Internet is full of weasels selective quoting, it's a disgrace. 

9 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

Here we go again - yet another member trying to treat me like an idiot - here's the relevant quote from the essay - 

 

“If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations. … But it is not necessary that Hitler should be the sworn foe of mankind. … If he had been called by Fate to guide the German people through a period of peace, he might have been regarded as a man who had risen to a very great height, and indeed might have taken his place among the greatest figures of history.”

 

lets boil it down again - "If he had been called by Fate to guide the German people through a period of peace, he might have been regarded as a man who had risen to a very great height, and indeed might have taken his place among the greatest figures of history.”

 

The Internet is full of weasels selective quoting, it's a disgrace. 

 

No. That's not the relevant quote at all. The relevant quote is in the link I provided above:

 

 

"In it, Churchill wrote: “Those who have met Herr Hitler face to face,” […], “have found a highly competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a disarming smile, and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism.” Hitler and his Nazis had surely shown “their patriotic ardor and love of country.”

 

https://www.historyonthenet.com/winston-churchill-and-hitler-what-did-churchill-think

 

Churchill was an imperial warmonger, but he was also one of Hitler's bootlickers, so let's not pretend he had 20/20 vision. He didn't. He could no more foresee the future than anyone else.

 

 

 

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

No. That's the relevant quote at all. The relevant quote is in the link I provided above:

 

 

"In it, Churchill wrote: “Those who have met Herr Hitler face to face,” […], “have found a highly competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a disarming smile, and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism.” Hitler and his Nazis had surely shown “their patriotic ardor and love of country.”

 

https://www.historyonthenet.com/winston-churchill-and-hitler-what-did-churchill-think

 

Churchill was an imperial warmonger, but he was also one of Hitler's bootlickers, so let's not pretend he had 20/20 vision. He didn't. He could no more foresee the future than anyone else.

 

 

 

 

First - this is irrelevant to this thread -

 

Second - Churchill made it clear that Hitler could have been a great leader if he had chosen the path of peace. 

 

This was after the Rhineland and before Kristallnacht - Churchill was heckled as a warmonger and alarmist in the Commons during 1937 and further when he warned of the danger post-Rhineland. The level of abuse he took was a national disgrace. 

 

And here, 90 years later - we have you trying to make out that Churchill was a Hitler lover - utter filth and total disgrace. 

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Except Churchill said the exact opposite as well of course. 

 

"In fact, according to Jacobin Magazine In 1935, Churchill expressed his “admiration” for Hitler and “the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to . . . overcome all the . . . resistances which barred his path.” Winston Churchill famously wrote, in the same year, “Great Contemporaries”. According to the International Churchhill Society, one of the most controversial chapters in Great Contemporaries (And in the opinion of scholars the one least like the rest) is “Hitler and his choice.” Some critics maintain that the essay implies approval of Hitler, rendering Churchill a hypocrite."

 

https://www.historyonthenet.com/winston-churchill-and-hitler-what-did-churchill-think

 

Which makes Churchill a bit of a hypocrite. Of course if you play both sides, you can't fail but be right eventually. Churchill was in no more of a position to predict the future events than anyone else.

 

 

A good soldier never underestimate their enemy, you would know if you read some real history about great leaders and leadership 

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.