The enduring, dangerous legacy of Winston Churchill

The Club Water Cooler - Discussion of just about anything on your mind not Merkur related.

Post Reply
Merkur Club web site
Father Adam
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 2:32 pm
Location: Merry Old England
Contact:

The enduring, dangerous legacy of Winston Churchill

Post by Father Adam »

Winston Churchill, Britain’s premier during World War II, is honoured for his stubborn “bull dog” hostility toward Hitler and Nazism, and his important role in ultimately destroying Third Reich Germany. He pressed for war against Hitler’s Germany “at all costs,” repeatedly rejecting opportunities for peace. His policies brought death and destruction on a mass scale, Soviet domination of central and eastern Europe, a shattered British empire, and Britain itself exhausted and bankrupt. The iconic, well-polished image of Churchill as a courageous and principled defender of freedom is based on a deceitful and ultimately dangerous narrative of twentieth-century history. In our own era, the enduring Churchill “cult” encourages policies that are as harmful as they are short-sighted.
http://www.ihr.org/mwreport/2012-02-08
1989 Ford Granada Scorpio

http://adamsgranadablog.weebly.com/

Image
DAReese
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1391
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:36 pm
Location: North Canton, Ohio

Re: The enduring, dangerous legacy of Winston Churchill

Post by DAReese »

Interesting idea.

If Churchill had signed a treaty with Germany, the Soviet Union would have probably been destroyed. But, the Nazis were just as bad, had a head start over the Allies in technology, and might have proven harder to defeat in the end. Or they might have collapsed when Hitler was assassinated, died or just finally outed for simply being nuts.

Stalin actually killed more people than Hitler, but while he doesn't get a free pass, it tends to be overlooked.

With England out of the war, would Japan still bombed Pearl Harbor? They had to know they would be facing 100% of the US military at that point.

After the Soviets were defeated, would Germany have perfected ICBMs? Long range bombers? Would they have defeated England at that point, or left them alone? At some point would they have pursued a war with the US? Or just been happy in Fortress Europe?

Unless you believe in the Multi-verse theory, we'll never know for sure. But all of these would make excellent alternate history stories.

Mark Weber either needs a better connection, or needs some lessons in speaking. He sounds like he is having some issues reading his speech.
David Reese

88 XR4Ti - mono white T5, someday to be bi wing
89 Scorpio - waiting on some parts before it hits the road again
88 XR4Ti - mono red C3, parts car
used to own 86 dark blue traded in on a min van, what was I thinking?
duncan1437
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:47 pm
Location: ancaster, ontario
Contact:

Re: The enduring, dangerous legacy of Winston Churchill

Post by duncan1437 »

not exactly the most credible of sources...

'The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is an American antisemitic pseudo-scholarly organization with links to neo-Nazi organizations. Its primary purpose is to disseminate views denying key facts of Nazism and the genocide of Jews and other victims. It is considered by many scholars as the world's leading Holocaust denial organization. The Institute published the non-peer-reviewed Journal of Historical Review until 2002, but now disseminates its materials through its website and via email....'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_ ... cal_Review
Father Adam
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 2:32 pm
Location: Merry Old England
Contact:

Re: The enduring, dangerous legacy of Winston Churchill

Post by Father Adam »

DAReese wrote:Interesting idea.

If Churchill had signed a treaty with Germany, the Soviet Union would have probably been destroyed. But, the Nazis were just as bad, had a head start over the Allies in technology, and might have proven harder to defeat in the end. Or they might have collapsed when Hitler was assassinated, died or just finally outed for simply being nuts.

Stalin actually killed more people than Hitler, but while he doesn't get a free pass, it tends to be overlooked.

With England out of the war, would Japan still bombed Pearl Harbor? They had to know they would be facing 100% of the US military at that point.

After the Soviets were defeated, would Germany have perfected ICBMs? Long range bombers? Would they have defeated England at that point, or left them alone? At some point would they have pursued a war with the US? Or just been happy in Fortress Europe?

Unless you believe in the Multi-verse theory, we'll never know for sure. But all of these would make excellent alternate history stories.

Mark Weber either needs a better connection, or needs some lessons in speaking. He sounds like he is having some issues reading his speech.
A complicated topic for sure, with lots of misinformation to decipher, what most people tend to rely on is word of mouth, newspaper articles and Wikipedia; all hardly credible sources of information. Most people think you either believe the same as everybody else, believe the standard version of what happened, or you're an anti-semitic nazi sympathiser :roll: and you get abuse hurled at you.

What we're discussing is history, and what you should do with any subject like this is to go right back to the source, however much you don't like it, you can't argue with the facts, regardless whether they suit your beliefs and what you've been told over the years.

Anyway, It's hard to say David how different things would have been for the world if the people involved had listened to one another and worked together.

I know that Communism was a far greater threat than National Socialism and that without them Europe would have been engulfed by the Soviets.

I know that Adolf Hitler greatly admired the British Empire and it was with a heavy heart that he had to bomb us.

I know that Churchill was in the pockets of a group of people called 'The Focus':

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p498_Okeefe.html

Pearl Harbour is another interesting one:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p119_Stolley.html

It is a fascinating topic for me, full of 'what if's' and 'if only's', but to think that all those men, women and children died for what we have today, can only make you bitter.
1989 Ford Granada Scorpio

http://adamsgranadablog.weebly.com/

Image
DAReese
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1391
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:36 pm
Location: North Canton, Ohio

Re: The enduring, dangerous legacy of Winston Churchill

Post by DAReese »

I don't know if the pre-WWII Soviet Union had much ability to do anything. This is the same country that a still emerging Japan had kicked in the teeth a few years earlier, and was still recovering from a civil war. Most of the Soviet expansion came as a result of WWII, not as a cause of it.

I agree Hitler seemed to feel a certain kinship to England, for whatever reason. The mere fact he didn't take over all of France certainly indicates he might have spared them had they given the land back from WWI. You can't really argue with the fact he became increasingly erratic as the war progressed. Some historians believe the doctors who took care of him were quacks and were inadvertently poisoning him, causing his degradation.

Choosing Nazi Germany over the Soviets seems today to still be a logical course. Most of the advancements in Soviet weaponry came from stealing information from the US and kidnapping scientists from a collapsing Germany. Both of these things happened after the war. Germany had the knowledge that, had Hitler been more focused, could have easily delayed victory by the Allies if not defeated them. I believe once the US entered the war, it was only a matter of time for Germany's defeat. England still being around as a base of operations helped, but was not necessary to victory.

There can be no debate that the Final Solution happened. My Grandfather witnessed these camps. Anyone who denies the existence of them is being very naive. The Nazis were evil people. The SS were ruthless, and void of much in the way of human decency. The Gestapo? I think the SS was afraid of them. Enough said right there.

I understand the reasons Hitler came to power, but that doesn't make him less evil. In fact, I see many similarities with Obama and Hitler, basically with the cult of personality, speeches that incite and erosion of civil liberties. Of course, there are several Republicans I feel are more dangerous than Obama, but fortunately, none of them can give a good speech.

Listening to one another? That only happens int he movies. With the continued erosion of our moral center, and by that I mean true Judeo-Christian beliefs, not necessarily a church doctrine, or people who think are quick to be judge and jury for others, but the willingness to tolerate and embrace our differences. In the end, when you look at the different religions, there are probably more similarities than differences.

Communism being worse than fascism? In theory, I have to disagree. I think it is better to work for what is best for the people than what is best for the state. In reality, both are bad. With the Soviets, you had people who are more interested in the trappings and excesses of power than they are in true communism. With the Nazis, you had the worship of a man, and a crazy one at that, over what is best for the country and its citizens. With the Soviets, you had a lot of people in the army. That was their biggest asset. Sheer size. With Stalin in charge, any well-thought out and executed plan would have defeated them. It wasn't until it became necessary for Stalin's survival that the Soviet war machine was able to produce anything in significant numbers to stem the tide of Nazi Germany. After the war, the Soviets would have faced a two or three front war (if China were to throw off her masters). Unlike WWII, the factories in the western USSR would not have been safe from US bombers. They might have had 4 million men in the army, bought they would have fought with sticks immediately after WWII and the loss of material from the US combined with the loss of manufacturing facilities after theoretical US bombing. Plus, at that time, only the US had nuclear weapons. That would take care of a standing defenseless army very quickly.

Pearl Harbor? (Since it is ours, no "u"). I do find it a little hard to believe that no one noticed a fleet steaming towards Hawaii, but not impossible. The ocean is big and technology 70+ years ago did not give you satellite views of a big ass fleet heading our way. But this quote I find to be unbelievable:

"The Japanese will attack at (the approximate time). Do not prepare retaliatory forces. We need the full support of the American nation in a wartime effort by an unprovoked attack upon the nation in order to obtain a declaration of war."

I can't fathom a military order worded like that. Maybe, just maybe, the first two sentences, but to me it loses all credibility with the last one. Plus, I also think that had the Japanese been defeated outside Pearl Harbor, Germany would still have been forced to declare war on the US, which is the only reason I've ever seen as to why FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked. Regardless of the outcome of Pearl Harbor, the fact would remain that the US was attacked. This would have been reason enough to declare war on Japan. Germany would have been forced to follow suit as it did in 1941.
David Reese

88 XR4Ti - mono white T5, someday to be bi wing
89 Scorpio - waiting on some parts before it hits the road again
88 XR4Ti - mono red C3, parts car
used to own 86 dark blue traded in on a min van, what was I thinking?
CV12Steve
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1473
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:57 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA area
Contact:

Re: The enduring, dangerous legacy of Winston Churchill

Post by CV12Steve »

Two points:
Our technology after WWII came from the same place as the Soviets - our Nazi scientist gave us both the moon landing and LSD experiments on US troops.
Pearl Harbor involved info not being shared, and what was not being stressed; Macarthur's lack of preparation in Manila definitely was court marshal-able.
Stephen
DAReese
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1391
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:36 pm
Location: North Canton, Ohio

Re: The enduring, dangerous legacy of Winston Churchill

Post by DAReese »

CV12Steve wrote:Two points:
Our technology after WWII came from the same place as the Soviets - our Nazi scientist gave us both the moon landing and LSD experiments on US troops.
Pearl Harbor involved info not being shared, and what was not being stressed; Macarthur's lack of preparation in Manila definitely was court marshal-able.
Yes and no. We had a pretty good stable of scientists on our own, but the German ones certainly pushed things along, especially in rocketry.

The LSD experiments were run by US born citizens for the most part. Van Murray Sim was in charge of them and he was a native of Washington. The list of Nazis I've seen that were hidden by the US during Operation Paperclip don't include anyone involved in this type of experimentation. Biological warfare, aviation related testing including putting people in a vacuum chamber, chemical warfare, but no LSD experiments. LSD wasn't invented until 1938 by a Swiss scientist. Tests done by the US didn't start until the 1950s.
David Reese

88 XR4Ti - mono white T5, someday to be bi wing
89 Scorpio - waiting on some parts before it hits the road again
88 XR4Ti - mono red C3, parts car
used to own 86 dark blue traded in on a min van, what was I thinking?
User avatar
milehighXR
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:17 pm
Location: Longmont, Co

Re: The enduring, dangerous legacy of Winston Churchill

Post by milehighXR »

DAReese wrote: Pearl Harbor? (Since it is ours, no "u"). I do find it a little hard to believe that no one noticed a fleet steaming towards Hawaii, but not impossible. The ocean is big and technology 70+ years ago did not give you satellite views of a big ass fleet heading our way.

IIRC We had advance warning from a radar site, however, the tech was so new at the time that the operators weren't fully sure of what they were looking at....

I do believe that if we had to fight a war similar to WW2 today that we would not fare as well, or outright lose. We don't have the same manufacturing abilities we had back then. I mean we went form building cars, and home appliances to building bombs, guns, tanks, and airplanes virtually overnight. I don't think we could pull that off today...
Johnny


1 86 XR aka Naomi- my first love, now daily driven project

DCLXVI
Father Adam
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 2:32 pm
Location: Merry Old England
Contact:

Re: The enduring, dangerous legacy of Winston Churchill

Post by Father Adam »

DAReese wrote:
I agree Hitler seemed to feel a certain kinship to England, for whatever reason. The mere fact he didn't take over all of France certainly indicates he might have spared them had they given the land back from WWI. You can't really argue with the fact he became increasingly erratic as the war progressed. Some historians believe the doctors who took care of him were quacks and were inadvertently poisoning him, causing his degradation.

The war with the west was forced on him, he never for a second thought that Britain would be so stupid as to go to war with Germany; they had too much to lose. Above all he wanted an alliance with Britain against the Soviets, to rid Europe of Communism and to take the fight all the way to Russia itself. They had all of the land back that was stolen from them in the Treaty of Versailles, apart from Prussia. The negotiations with Poland were going well by all accounts, the deal from the Germans was very reasonable, they wanted a 'Polish Corridor' to Prussia, reuniting the Countries yet again, the form of this corridor would have essentially been an Autobahn over polish land. But the British were secretly scuppering these negotiations, telling the Poles that they'd back them up and not to deal with Germany at all.

http://ihr.org/other/what-the-world-rejected.html

Dr. Morell, his personal physician administered a great deal of strange cocktails to his patient, including strychnine of all things; I'm yet to read David Irving's book on Dr. Morell, so can't comment further, but I have read that he did a great deal of good with his medicine. He increasingly suffered from the shakes and aged rapidly as the war progressed, but then so would anyone under that amount of strain. Interestingly though, after the attempt on his life, with the bomb in the briefcase, his tremors subsided and it seemed to sharpen his senses somewhat

From what I've read, he became more and more frustrated with his Generals for not following his orders in fact if you look at the orders he gave and what actually happened, you'll see that he was right most of the time with his military moves, if only his Generals had listened things might have turned out differently. Enigma was the single biggest reason the Third Reich lost though, plus the fact that protocols weren't followed when using the encryption machines didn't help, something else Hitler insisted upon which also wasn't followed.


Choosing Nazi Germany over the Soviets seems today to still be a logical course. Most of the advancements in Soviet weaponry came from stealing information from the US and kidnapping scientists from a collapsing Germany. Both of these things happened after the war. Germany had the knowledge that, had Hitler been more focused, could have easily delayed victory by the Allies if not defeated them. I believe once the US entered the war, it was only a matter of time for Germany's defeat. England still being around as a base of operations helped, but was not necessary to victory.

When Germany signed a pact with the Russians, they agreed to hand over many blueprints for weaponry as part of that deal, after the war as we know, the Allies plundered the German archives of their military secrets, as well as their top scientists.

Germany was at war with the U.S. in all but name, as the American military was bombing their U-Boats in the Atlantic and their pilots were flying British planes bombing the Germans. Adolf Hitlers speech declaring war against the U.S.A. states all of this:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html


There can be no debate that the Final Solution happened. My Grandfather witnessed these camps. Anyone who denies the existence of them is being very naive. The Nazis were evil people. The SS were ruthless, and void of much in the way of human decency. The Gestapo? I think the SS was afraid of them. Enough said right there.

I don't doubt that your Grandad saw many dead people at the camps, who was responsible for their deaths though? A systematic program of liquidation by the Germans or as a result of the Allies blockading the Country and them starving to death including dying of Typhus? Let's not forget that it wasn't just Jews that died in WWII, but millions of Germans perished too, many thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of German women were also raped by the Russian army. The Allies were no shrinking violets either when it came to it, after they invaded France there was an epidemic of black G.I's raping French women for example, the British were looting the towns and villages; as well as many many more atrocities that you just don't hear about. Contrast all of that to the behaviour of the German army who had occupied France for years, who behaved themselves extremely well, actually many French people took up arms against their so called liberators after D-Day...
There is no dispute over the fact that large numbers of Jews were deported to concentration camps and ghettos, or that many Jews died or were killed during World War II. Revisionist scholars have presented evidence, which "exterminationists" have not been able to refute, showing that there was no German program to exterminate Europe's Jews, and that the estimate of six million Jewish wartime dead is an irresponsible exaggeration.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p32_Otten.html

See also:

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/libcamps.shtml

I understand the reasons Hitler came to power, but that doesn't make him less evil. In fact, I see many similarities with Obama and Hitler, basically with the cult of personality, speeches that incite and erosion of civil liberties. Of course, there are several Republicans I feel are more dangerous than Obama, but fortunately, none of them can give a good speech.

I think to compare Adolf Hitler to Barry Soetoro, sorry President Obama is an insult to The Fuhrer :lol: Adolf Hitler, like him or loath him, was the real deal, he was certainly no-one's puppet, he certainly didn't erode his people's liberties, unlike the good President has and he certainly didn't take away their guns; Obama has more in common with Stalin in that respect ;)

Germany during the 1930's was apparently a wonderful place to be, many people from around the world visited there, among them Charles Lindbergh:

Lindbergh was so impressed with Hitler’s Germany that he seriously considered moving there with his family. “I did not feel real freedom until I came to Europe,” he remarked in 1939. “The strange thing is that of all the European countries, I found most personal freedom in Germany, with England next, and then France.” After a search for a suitable place to live, he found a property in a suburb of Berlin that he came close to buying. But as the threat of war grew in Europe, he abandoned those plans.
http://www.ihr.org/other/lindbergh2011.html

Listening to one another? That only happens int he movies. With the continued erosion of our moral center, and by that I mean true Judeo-Christian beliefs, not necessarily a church doctrine, or people who think are quick to be judge and jury for others, but the willingness to tolerate and embrace our differences. In the end, when you look at the different religions, there are probably more similarities than differences.


The continued decline of morals and decency is due to the mass media, the newspapers, magazines, television and the movie industry, and who owns all of those?? :lol:

Judaism and Christianity are vastly different and would take an entire thread to discuss separately.


Communism being worse than fascism? In theory, I have to disagree. I think it is better to work for what is best for the people than what is best for the state.

The really fundamental difference between National Socialism and Fascism lies in the role of the state and the race under each system:

In Mussolini's word's:

"The Fascist conception of the state is all-embracing: outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have any real worth. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist state--a synthesis and a unit of all values--interprets, develops and potentiates the whole life of a people...It is not the nation that generates the state...Rather it is the state which creates the nation, conferring volition and, therefore, real life on a people...In the Fascist conception, the state is an absolute before which individuals and groups are relative..."

In Adolf Hitler's words:

"The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually similar creatures... States which do not serve this purpose are misbegotten monstrosities in fact."

There are many important consequences of this basic difference in attitudes. For example, under Fascism anyone, regardless of racial background can be a citizen, as long as he accepts his responsibility to the state. National Socialism, on the other hand, membership in the racial community is the first requirement of citizenship.


With the Nazis, you had the worship of a man, and a crazy one at that, over what is best for the country and its citizens.

In what respect was Adolf Hitler 'crazy' David? Comparing him to, say, Roosevelt and the way each of them tackled the depression of the early 1930's for example. On the one hand you have a leader that saved his Country and put everybody back into work within four years and the other that got his Country into more debt and was nowhere near as successful... Out of the two, I would say President Roosevelt was the 'mad man'.

http://www.ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html

Pearl Harbor? (Since it is ours, no "u").

Sorry, it's just the way that Harbour is spelled over here ;)
:cheers
1989 Ford Granada Scorpio

http://adamsgranadablog.weebly.com/

Image
CV12Steve
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1473
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:57 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA area
Contact:

Re: The enduring, dangerous legacy of Winston Churchill

Post by CV12Steve »

Always thought France, Holland and Belgium were part of "the West".

"Adolf Hitler . . . certainly didn't erode his people's liberties . . ." - my Mom grew up in WWII Germany; you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The SS/Gestapo spied on everyone, controlled their movements, etc. This started well before England declared war.
Stephen
Father Adam
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 2:32 pm
Location: Merry Old England
Contact:

Re: The enduring, dangerous legacy of Winston Churchill

Post by Father Adam »

You're right, France, Holland and Belgium are part of Western Europe.

Perhaps you could enlighten me then instead of telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, using facts please :)
1989 Ford Granada Scorpio

http://adamsgranadablog.weebly.com/

Image
DAReese
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1391
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:36 pm
Location: North Canton, Ohio

Re: The enduring, dangerous legacy of Winston Churchill

Post by DAReese »

Adam,

Hitler got the people in Germany back to work by building the military complex of Germany up, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. If the US today was to start building up the military to the levels of WWII, our economy would be in overdrive.

Roosevelt's method was to build/improve the infrastructure here, building dams to control flooding on the Mississippi, (the TVA), starting many agencies in the federal government to protect the workers, consumers, banking, etc. Yes he is largely responsible for a much larger federal government, but it was a step needed in order to reign in the robber barons of that era. There are many that think that type of intervention is needed today in order to save the middle class in the US from extinction.

But I digress. Hitler thought the "Aryan race" was a race that was quite simply better than anyone else. That is just crazy talk. There is no inherent difference amongst the races, with the exception of some minor physical differences. I am sure there are some perceived differences based upon the culture, experiences and technology of different groups. To then modern English soldiers, I am sure the Zulu tribesman seemed stupid. They weren't, they just didn't have the technology of the English military.

But Hitler didn't think that way. He thought of the true, Aryan German as being superior to everyone else. He might as thought of the English as being close, but they were still inferior. Much more tolerable than the Slavic people or definitely the Bolsheviks, but still inferior.

As to Hitler's military genius, everything i have read indicates it was his lack of listening to the professional military leaders that caused his downfall. The opening of the Eastern front before England was out of the war, the delay in the start of the offensive there to take care of an uprising in the Baltic states, his infatuation with super weapons that weren't given time to develop before going on to the next one, his paranoia of the Jews, Gypsies, and even Germans seems to indicate someone who was increasingly losing touch with reality. Probably the poisoning talking, but nonetheless, still crazy talk.

He was backed into the corner when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. He had to support his ally. It seems he knew eventually there would be war with the US, but wanted the Russians out of the way first. Who wouldn't? The industrial might of the US was without question. We were sitting over here, protected by two oceans, while Europe was busy destroying each other. Us bombing a few U Boats was tolerable given the alternative of war with the US. But the speech you referenced? Of course the aggressor is going to justify the reason. It always happens. It most recently happened when the US invaded Iraq.

As to the responsibility of the death camps? I am sure a certain number were killed by Allied bombing. But there are far too many who survived with numbers on their arms to deny the existence of a "Final Solution" to the perceived threat from people different than the Aryans, be they resistance fighters, Gypsies or Jews. There were far too many bodies and witnesses for this to be a conspiracy to discredit Nazi Germany or make up the systematic murder of Jews. Finally, your reference source, the IHR, was founded on the premise the Holocaust never happened and their mission was to prove that. They lost their lawsuit against the providers of proof of the Holocaust and were ordered to pay the award for proving the Holocaust existence. Not exactly a truly academic source for truth and research.

The war between Russia and Germany was particularly brutal. Both sides committed atrocities against one another. To say there was a general dislike between the two former allies would be an understatement. Only one of them was going to survive. The French fighting against the Allies? Anyone who benefited from the German occupation certainly would want to continue to the status quo. Anyone who thought Vichy France was the legitimate government for France would see the Allies as invaders, which they were. This is interesting:http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/cgi/ ... ext=histhp

I have no doubt there were plenty of rapes, killings, etc committed by Allied troops against French, German and Italians. I am sure there were plenty of those in the US at the same time.

But in the end, one thing we must remember, the victors get to write the history. If Germany had won, most certainly we would have been recorded as goading both Japan and Germany into the war. There probably is some truth to that, but that doesn't negate the fact that both Germany and Japan were fanatical countries with charismatic leaders that convinced an entire population they were superior and were just taking their rightful place in the world order.
David Reese

88 XR4Ti - mono white T5, someday to be bi wing
89 Scorpio - waiting on some parts before it hits the road again
88 XR4Ti - mono red C3, parts car
used to own 86 dark blue traded in on a min van, what was I thinking?
Father Adam
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 2:32 pm
Location: Merry Old England
Contact:

Re: The enduring, dangerous legacy of Winston Churchill

Post by Father Adam »

I think we're going to have to leave this thread as it is now, we're both going round in circles aren't we? You believe that my findings are based on the IHR, which makes my arguments null and void because they lost a court case? Can you provide me with a link to your source please? as the only case I could find is the 1991 case against Mermelstein which they won:

http://ihr.org/news/oct1991mermelstein.html

According to the IHR:
The Institute for Historical Review is an independent educational research and publishing center that works to promote peace, understanding and justice through greater public awareness of the past, and especially socially-politically relevant aspects of twentieth-century history. We strive in particular to increase understanding of the causes, nature and consequences of war and conflict. We vigorously defend freedom of speech and freedom of historical inquiry.
http://www.ihr.org/main/about.shtml

If they talk a load of rubbish and are just a bunch of loons, then why have they been attacked so much, their offices burnt down and ransacked over the years? The same goes for Mr. Irving too, who's received the same treatment from the one's you shouldn't question...

I very much like the work of David Irving, he is someone that has been vilified for telling the truth, but the accuracy of his books, to me can't be argued with. He is probably the only historian that has used the original documents, as well as spoked to people from that era to base his books on; he uses FACTS.

My own research is based on many sources, I look at history like this, who's written it? have they got an agenda? have they looked at the original sources? Getting to the truth is hard to do, as like you say, the victors always write the history and in the case of WWII they did a fine job. I know I'm right and won't be deterred by misinformation and outright lies. I've been looking into (mostly WWII) and other conflicts, including the middle ages and British History for over two decades, I've spoken to many people over the years, both English and German ex-servicemen as well as the people that suffered as a result of WWII.

I'm not some, still-wet-behind-the-ears idiot, that has just googled WWII and looked at some YouTube videos David.
1989 Ford Granada Scorpio

http://adamsgranadablog.weebly.com/

Image
DAReese
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1391
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:36 pm
Location: North Canton, Ohio

Re: The enduring, dangerous legacy of Winston Churchill

Post by DAReese »

Thanks, now I have Billy Preston going through my head........

Will it go round in circles....

It could have been Nothing from nothing. Both are great examples of 70s music.

Hopefully, I am right, because if there is truly a conspiracy put there, there isn't much we could do about it anyway.

Now back to Billy.....
David Reese

88 XR4Ti - mono white T5, someday to be bi wing
89 Scorpio - waiting on some parts before it hits the road again
88 XR4Ti - mono red C3, parts car
used to own 86 dark blue traded in on a min van, what was I thinking?
Post Reply