No it’s not subjective, it’s blatantly obvious…
Paul
Churchill was a hard man. Had to be: hard times, hard choices. Apart from his misguided obsession with the “soft underbelly of Europe” (which led him into the Dardanelles in WWI), he was fortunate to have a CIGS (Alan Brooke) who could steer him away from his sillier schemes. Churchill recognised the talents of his advisors. What they had to do, was to stand up to his bullying and present a realistically-argued alternative. None of the contemporary British politicians could’ve operated as Churchill did; most were stained with the yellow dye of appeasement at Munich in 1938. As for revisionist historians: it is possible to pull a selection of quotations from WSC’s voluminous writings and speeches, which - taken out of their true context - would paint a picture of a monstrous individual. But it wouldn’t be a comprehensive portrayal of the man. I still think his best quote was this reply to a female heckler who accused him of being drunk: “Madam, you are ugly … and I shall be sober tomorrow.”
Cheers,
Cliff
I wouldn’t call him a monstrous person, but I also don’t agree that his tough and often illegal actions can all be excused by the “Harsh times needed harsh actions” that Apologists like to use to defend him.
With the same argument, one could also excuse many war crimes the Germans committed, such as the hanging of anybody suspicious to scare partisans. Harsh times required harsh counter-measures.
But that would be absurd! These were crimes obviously committed by the soldiers, no matter whether they considered them as necessary or not.
The same way one shouldn’t try to deny or excuse Churchill’s racism and his brutal actions against the German civil population, which were without a doubt marked by his valiantly anti-German sentiment.
I understand that Brits love him, simply because he was their leader during one of the hardest times in the recent British history, but you should keep in mind that almost all he did was pull other nations, mainly the US, into his wars and make patriotic speeches.
The war was won by the Allied Generals and soldiers, not by an overweight politician sitting in his beautiful office.
Nor was it not won by Rosevelt fighting or Adolf taking up arms… your point is?
It seems you built in knee-jerk hatred of Churchill stems form the fact he beat the SH** out of Hitler. You lost-get over it.
Only a fool can defend the Nazis and to even suggest they had any good points is insane.
Cheers,
Cliff
I never declined that the Allied defeated the Axis, nor did I defend Hitler. Where the fuck did you get that from?
Do you think Hitler’s Holocaust would’ve happened if it was solely Hitler running through Eastern European forests with a pistol in his hand, shooting whatever Jew he could find?
I also don’t recall that England won the war thanks to a Churchill who ran rambo-like through the German lines, lit up every German city his path, broke through towards Berlin and shot Hitler in the face.
What I said was that it is wrong to praise or condemn solely individuals, be it Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill or Mussolini for whatever happened. They can only go so far. It is the people - ranging from the common soldier fighting and dying on the battlefield, over the officers planning and executing strategies, to the factory worker creating the weapons and resources for the armies, who really win or lose a war.
Funny enough, I can’t remember when Churchill
beat the SH** out of Hitler
… their hand to hand battle must’ve gotten remarkably little press coverage, since I’ve never read a single article about it, nor have I seen a single image of these two politicians in a ring, pitted against each other.
What I do remember, though, is the Allied armies decisively defeating the Axis armies, so if that’s what you meant… well, we’re not in kindergarden, so express yourself in a decent manner and don’t snap like a fucking loser at people with different opinions.
And in the end, winning a war should not excuse any flaws a person had, even if it is your beloved Churchill.
You mean a decent manner using four letter swear words (which I censor for you)in your post?
The ‘loser’ would be the one with sneaking sympathy for The German Army even though it was a tool of mass murder and complicite in most of the crimes.
And in the end, winning a war should not excuse any flaws a person had, even if it is your beloved Churchill.
Seeing as I am Irish I wonder how Churchill became my ‘beloved’.
What I see here is another Churchill kicking thread where the main beef seems to be he was the main mover in the destruction of Hitler and his cohorts.
I actually thought about removing the swearwords, but I liked the way they fit into the sentence :mrgreen:
I disagree. I do have a sympathy for the Wehrmacht, but I don’t consider it an embarrassing thing. The German Army fought bravely against overwhelming forces, and if you brushed up your history, you’d know that even though War Crimes were committed by it (as well as by the UK Forces, Americans, Russians, etc), they were not part of the Holocaust. There was a Nazi controlled group called SS who did that. Look it up, or maybe you can let somebody give you the gist of it, if that part of History is too complicated for you.
Seeing as I am Irish I wonder how Churchill became my ‘beloved’.
I am sorry, I mistook you for a British.
What I see here is another Churchill kicking thread […]
Is this a Churchill kicking thread? Yeah. Is it 100% wrong? No. While ‘defeating’ Hitler and his Nazi Germany has to be taken to his credit, I refer to my earlier points about criticizing him.
[…]where the main beef seems to be he was the main mover in the destruction of Hitler and his cohorts.
I am sure there are probably people for whom this is the motivation (Hi stevey14/88), this surely isn’t mine. I can guarantee you that I have a strong dislike for the Nazi philosophy, and my dislike for Churchill is not based on that.
PS: Notice how I abstained from swearwords? You’re welcome.
While I also have respect for the Wehrmacht and their capabilities, they were up to their asses in War crimes to a far greater extent that were the Western Allies typical soldiers. The whole “The SS-did-it!” excuse doesn’t wash. There was in fact a photo-exhibit in Berlin that was very controversial because it featured pics of regular German soldiers executing civilians in reprisal killings and it was far more common than most would like to believe or even consider…
And please bare in mind that it was just as likely to have been a German Ostheer soldier tossing a Russian family --after robbing them of much of their cold-weather clothing-- into the subzero winters of 1941 & 1942…
**** Mod Note ****
Keep this thread on topic and polite guys, or I’ll lock it!
I was wondering when this was going to pop up…:mrgreen:
Hey, if people are actually having an intelligent discussion I try to run things with a very loose rein. This is going over the top though.
Well, I’m not defending the War Crimes they committed, and I’m not saying that they committed less than the Western allies. I just say that I am not ashamed to say I have sympathy for the soldiers that fought against later on incredible odds and died for what they believed in - whether I believe in their cause or not.
An army tends to commit more war crimes against a population that dislikes them (as with the Wehrmacht, who were obvious aggressors) opposed to a population that welcomes them (as with the allies, who were liberators).
This theory is probably more accurate on the western front than the eastern front, but still, I think it has a very true core.
And to get to your “the SS did it” - I said this in relation to the Holocaust. I count unjustified reprisal killings of civilians into the without a doubt horrible war crimes they committed. But guess what other army did that in a famous war in the 1970s… you’re not going to go around and call the entire US Army murderers, are you?
And to do pdf a favor and return on topic:
Many people like to call negative assessments of Churchill “revisionist” history, whereas the “revisionist” seems to be used as a depreciation. This is ridiculous, as I believe modern historians to be much more capable of getting the history of WW2 right, with new archives being opened and a certain distance to the events which allows for less bias. If you don’t like a new, possibly more neutral and realistic assessment of things, and can’t accept it just because you’re happy with the way you see things right now, I cannot help you.
And if I’ve noticed one thing in my studies of early modern English history (believe it or not, I actually like England), than that if you want a realistic and neutral perspective of English history, don’t use English historians. The Duke of Marlborough is the perfect example.
Because I know the fewest of you are actually interested in him, and I want to spare pdf from a ‘off-topic post’ caused mental breakdown, I’ll only tell you about him on PM request.
The same German army was resposible for a war that devestaed Europe and killed some 50 million people. I do not share your rose-tinted view of this Army that brought the camps and into being. If the soldier hadn’t fought FOR Hitler then no killings would have been possible. You lie with dogs you get fleas…
if you brushed up your history, you’d know that even though War Crimes were committed by it (as well as by the UK Forces, Americans, Russians, etc), they were not part of the Holocaust.
Strangely enough I do know a bit about WW2 and I suggest you remove the blinkers and do a bit of Googling. Even that basic function will bring many results showing how the ‘ordinary’ German was just as willing as the SS.
You are aware of the Commisar Order?
The Russian campaign began 22 June 1941. The 269th Infantry Division reported on 9 July to the XLI Corps that 34 Politruks were liquidated. On the same day the XLI Corps reported to Panzer Group 4 a total of 97 Politruks had been executed in the corps area up to 8 July. The balance of 63 liquidated commissars doubtless are chargeable to the three remaining divisions of the corps, the 1st and 6th Panzer Divisions, and the 36th Motorized Division. On 10 July 1941, Panzer Group 4 reported to Army Group North that up to 8 July 1941, 101 commissars had been liquidated. Out of a total of 101 executed Politruks, 97 were liquidated by Reinhardt’s XLI Corps, and the balance of 4 by the LVI AK of Panzer Group 4. At the time of the report, Panzer Group 4 consisted only of the XLI AK and the LVI AK. Thereafter, 71 commissars were executed by the 19th of July by Panzer Group 4
The exemption granted to the German Army for crimes they comitted in Rissia?
The Commando Order?
There was a Nazi controlled group called SS who did that. Look it up, or maybe you can let somebody give you the gist of it, if that part of History is too complicated for you.
It’s a tired old excuse much beloved of the fan-boy. It is also not true that it was the SS alone that did the killings.
You must get over assuming everyone who has a view that differs from yours does not know their history.
Try this thread
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23393
So I an Englishman should take all ‘Foriegn’ Histories as accurate & discount ‘English’??? (Surely you mean British) Historians as useless. I think not!
I see you have a gripe about Marlborough, I won’t press you on this as this isn’t the the place. If you want an argument on that subject, let me know where and I will be only too happy to cross swords with you.
If WSC was a war criminal then so were all the heads of the allied countries that fought against the NAZI-German state of butchery.
On last thing, Where is your evidence that WSC hated the Germans?
Paul
Even if the murder of 2.5 million Soviets POW’s while under the care of the Heer, and the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children killed under the guise of anti-patisan activities isn’t enough of a holocaust for you, it is also a fact that the Heer aided the SS in its genocide of the Jews.
Ok, to start it off, I am not saying all British historians are useless - they can make some remarkable history about other countries. But I have found British historians to be rather… biased when talking about their own history. The same accounts for French, Italians, and Germans. To go back to Marlborough - compare his reputation with British historians, who hailed him, to many foreign historians, who harshly criticize him, and certainly have more material to prove his lack of strategic skill compared to those who try to defend it.
And for the War Crimes - I refer you to the article at the very beginning of the thread. It might go to far in some aspects, but things like the blockade aimed against the civil population, his racism and suggestion of gassing Iraqis and hate for Germany, no matter if it was the Empire, Weimar or Reich and (oh oh, powder keg) Dresden bombings are all true.
Of course any good Briton can see past these… small miststeps and doesn’t understand what all the fuzz is about.
Of course it was an army of aggression, but so was the Roman, Napoleonic and British colonial. It is not the first time that a nation was naive enough to try to conquer the world. I do not approve of the German aggression in WW2 - but I do dislike this “Army of Butchers” idea that you seem to have of the Germans. And the Wehrmacht built the KZs? That’s news to me.
Strangely enough I do know a bit about WW2 and I suggest you remove the blinkers and do a bit of Googling. Even that basic function will bring many results showing how the ‘ordinary’ German was just as willing as the SS.
Google. What a great source. I doubt you’d even be able to differ a WH soldier or Paratrooper from a Waffen SS soldier. Try looking things up in a library, you know those big buildings with books.
I won’t even comment on your insult that every German is a Nazi.
You are aware of the Commisar Order?
The Russian campaign began 22 June 1941. The 269th Infantry Division reported on 9 July to the XLI Corps that 34 Politruks were liquidated. On the same day the XLI Corps reported to Panzer Group 4 a total of 97 Politruks had been executed in the corps area up to 8 July. The balance of 63 liquidated commissars doubtless are chargeable to the three remaining divisions of the corps, the 1st and 6th Panzer Divisions, and the 36th Motorized Division. On 10 July 1941, Panzer Group 4 reported to Army Group North that up to 8 July 1941, 101 commissars had been liquidated. Out of a total of 101 executed Politruks, 97 were liquidated by Reinhardt’s XLI Corps, and the balance of 4 by the LVI AK of Panzer Group 4. At the time of the report, Panzer Group 4 consisted only of the XLI AK and the LVI AK. Thereafter, 71 commissars were executed by the 19th of July by Panzer Group 4
The exemption granted to the German Army for crimes they comitted in Rissia?
The Commando Order?
Well, thanks for finally proving to me that you are incapable of distinguishing between common soldiers, who I try to defend, and the Nazi High Command.
The Commando Order ordered Allied commandos to be killed and not taken prisoner if they surrendered. This is of course legally tricky as Commandos tended not to wear uniform and were therefore not protected under the Geneva Convention. German commandos would have the same fate if captured. The difference between the Commando order compared to the Allied actions was that the same fate awaited Commandos in uniform - clearly illegal. Officers who followed this order ended up being punished at the Nuremberg Trials, and deserved it.
The exemption granted to German Army personnel for crimes they committed in Russia was given by - whoopsie - the Nazi Government, not the Generals, and even less the common soldier. And in the end, it didn’t help them anyway.
And finally we get to the Commissar Order, which ordered any political soldier/Commissar to be shot and not taken prisoner. First of all, this was another interesting policy ordered by the Nazi Government, and many Generals and officers ordered their soldiers not to obey it, even though that of course didn’t include everyone.
What you’ve proven so far, is that the Nazis were bastards. Great. We agree. This doesn’t translate to every soldier, though, which is exactly my point.
It’s a tired old excuse much beloved of the fan-boy. It is also not true that it was the SS alone that did the killings.
You must get over assuming everyone who has a view that differs from yours does not know their history.
Try this thread
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23393
I do not assume everyone who has a different view doesn’t know their history. If they can give me evidence to prove me wrong, I am happy to be corrected. But as it is, you’ve given me none of those, all you’ve tried to do so far is make Germans appear a people of butchers, and don’t accept MY view, that not every German soldier was automatically a criminal mass murderer.
And as I’ve stated in my earlier post, there is absolutely no doubt that the Eastern Front was brutal and inhumane, with not little of the inhumanities having been started by the Germans and their “Untermensch” ideology. This, however doesn’t condemn every soldier who fought there.
And again, just to make sure this comes across right: I do believe the Allies fought a just war - as in for a just reason. The German aggression was unprovoked and the Nazi Governments policies were despicable. My entire argument is that just because the soldiers were used for the wrong cause, doesn’t mean they automatically all were bad people.
The same way I am proud of some of the achievements of the German Army, I am ashamed of the war crimes they committed.
Oh, and my on-topic argument: Churchill was far from the great person some people like to consider him to be, and the fact that “he” won the war shouldn’t make up for his deficiencies.
The Germansy Army was the force that laid the conditions that allowed the camps to be built. They captured those people who ended up being murdered. The SS could never have done it alone.
Google. What a great source. I doubt you’d even be able to differ a WH soldier or Paratrooper from a Waffen SS soldier.
Oh I can teel the difference. Your arrogance is amazing. Several times now you have claimed superior understanding even though you know nothing about me. Keep digging.
There are a number of primary sources online that one can find -if they are interested. Are you saying the War Crimes Transcripts suffer because of this availability?
Try looking things up in a library, you know those big buildings with books.
As a matter of interest how many books do you have?
I have been doing this for 38 years and now have a considerable number of my own books-6000.
Care to try another tack?
Try this link to see how I use first hand documentation:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=147849
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=58445
Well, thanks for finally proving to me that you are incapable of distinguishing between common soldiers, who I try to defend, and the Nazi High Command.
You are a typical apologist. They always try and blame it all on the nasty SS.
The Commando Order ordered Allied commandos to be killed and not taken prisoner if they surrendered. This is of course legally tricky as
…blah, blah, blah.
Look its a simple case of murder by decree. Yet again you trot out excuses to protect the good name of German Army.
The exemption granted to German Army personnel for crimes they committed in Russia was given by - whoopsie - the Nazi Government, not the Generals, and even less the common soldier.
The ‘we vos only following orders’ defence?
And finally we get to the Commissar Order, which ordered any political soldier/Commissar to be shot and not taken prisoner. First of all, this was another interesting policy ordered by the Nazi Government, and many Generals and officers ordered their soldiers not to obey it, even though that of course didn’t include everyone.
Carried out by 'ordinary’German Soldiers.
What you’ve proven so far, is that the Nazis were bastards. Great. We agree. This doesn’t translate to every soldier, though, which is exactly my point.
Great. A mob are trying to kill you but it’s ok because a few of the mob don’t really agree with what is going on. A great comfort to you as you depart this life.
that not every German soldier was automatically a criminal mass murderer.
Maybe but every German soldier, by his actions, paved the way for those murderers to carry it all out. They were all in it together.
And as I’ve stated in my earlier post, there is absolutely no doubt that the Eastern Front was brutal and inhumane, with not little of the inhumanities having been started by the Germans and their “Untermensch” ideology. This, however doesn’t condemn every soldier who fought there.
'Not a little? I think the 20 million + dead Soviets v 4 Million dead Germans give the lie to that one.
As an independent observer of this thread, albeit one who has his own axe to grind with Churchill over his attitude and conduct towards Australia and its forces in WWII but who nonetheless recognises Churchill’s greatness, if some of Schuultz’s opponents calmed down a bit and read what he is actually saying instead of what they think he is saying there is nothing in it that is sufficiently controversial to warrant the heated and harsh responses.
He does not deny Nazi, or German, war crimes and crimes against humanity but makes a fair distinction between the Heer and other organs of the Nazi state and their relative complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity as instruments of Nazi policy.
There is nothing wrong with Schuultz respecting the quality and deeds of the common German soldier in WWII, and indeed many Allied veterans did and do so, any more than there is with respecting the quality and deeds of American soldiers in Iraq or Vietnam although one can argue that these were as much ‘illegal’ military operations as were Nazi ones and also tainted by war crimes and crimes against humanity. Unless, of course, one takes the absolutist view of Bertrand Russell that no good can come out of a bad enterprise and that it is morally indefensible to recognise such things in soldiers engaged in a bad cause.
As the discussion on the war crimes etc aspect is just degenerating into a slanging match, consider this as advice from a mod, to both sides of the debate, to return to the topic of Churchill and to discuss it in a civil and rational manner. Or, as pdf27 has previously indicated, this thread will be locked and nobody will be able to discuss a worthwhile topic.