# Was Winston Churchill a catastrophe?



## Thunderbird

Though Winston Churchill has been piled with praise by the established order, I think Churchill was a catastrophe - a barbaric war-loving incompetent.

His "achievements":


He helped push the UK into WW I.  Without UK involvement the war would have ended quickly.
He bears responsibility for the Gallipoli disaster.
He instituted the hunger blockade of Germany which killed 100s of 1000s.
He supported gas attacks on Iraqi civilians.
His stupid decision to return the UK to the gold standard helped bring about the Great Depression.
He supported the foolish war guarantee to Poland.  Poland was not saved, only Stalin benefited.
He is responsible for the debacle of the Norway invasion.
His policy of terror bombing in WW II led to additional 100s of 1000s of deaths.
Churchill's forced repatriation of refugees after WW II condemned millions to servitude and death.
Churchill also deserves blame for the Bengal famine which killed 1-3 million.

*Rethinking Churchill*

*Churchill Spurred the Decline of the West*


----------



## percysunshine

The astonishing interactive map that show EVERY bomb dropped on London during the Blitz | Mail Online


----------



## Staidhup

Absolutely a stunning piece of crap. Nothing more than another revisionist extrapolating and professing without due consideration given to the facts and reality of the time period in which the events occurred. My hunch, correct me if I am wrong, is that you are of German descent.


----------



## slackjawed

Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future.

  Winston Churchill  * Speech in the House of Commons, June 18, 1940


----------



## Thunderbird

quote: But the *great war crime which will be forever linked to Churchill's name is the terror-bombing of the cities of Germany that in the end cost the lives of around 600,000 civilians and left some 800,000 seriously injured. (Compare this to the roughly 70,000 British lives lost to German air attacks. *In fact, there were nearly as many Frenchmen killed by Allied air attacks as there were Englishmen killed by Germans.) The plan was conceived mainly by Churchill's friend and scientific advisor, Professor Lindemann, and carried out by the head of Bomber Command, Arthur Harris ("Bomber Harris"). Harris stated: "In Bomber Command we have always worked on the assumption that bombing anything in Germany is better than bombing nothing." Harris and other British airforce leaders boasted that Britain had been the pioneer in the massive use of strategic bombing. J.M. Spaight, former Principal Assistant Secretary of the Air Ministry, noted that while the Germans (and the French) looked on air power as largely an extension of artillery, a support to the armies in the field, the British understood its capacity to destroy the enemy's home-base. They built their bombers and established Bomber Command accordingly.

LINK


----------



## Thunderbird

Staidhup said:


> Absolutely a stunning piece of crap. Nothing more than another revisionist extrapolating and professing without due consideration given to the facts and reality of the time period in which the events occurred.


Have you finished with your rant?  Can you refute any statements I made?  Please be specific.


----------



## Sallow

Churchill was the right man at the right time.


----------



## percysunshine

Thunderbird said:


> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely a stunning piece of crap. Nothing more than another revisionist extrapolating and professing without due consideration given to the facts and reality of the time period in which the events occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you finished with your rant?  Can you refute any statements I made?  Please be specific.
Click to expand...


Can you support any statement you made. Please be specific.


----------



## Thunderbird

percysunshine said:


> Can you support any statement you made. Please be specific.


I provided links.

What's the problem?  Too much reading?  Too many big words?

Which of my statements do you disagree with?


----------



## Thunderbird

Here's George Kennan: &#8220;the British guaranty to Poland [in 1939] was neither necessary nor wise,&#8221;

How can anyone disagree?


----------



## gipper

Thunderbird said:


> Though Winston Churchill has been piled with praise by the established order, I think Churchill was a catastrophe - a barbaric war-loving incompetent.
> 
> His "achievements":
> 
> 
> He helped push the UK into WW I.  Without UK involvement the war would have ended quickly.
> He bears responsibility for the Gallipoli disaster.
> He instituted the hunger blockade of Germany which killed 100s of 1000s.
> He supported gas attacks on Iraqi civilians.
> His stupid decision to return the UK to the gold standard helped bring about the Great Depression.
> He supported the foolish war guarantee to Poland.  Poland was not saved, only Stalin benefited.
> He is responsible for the debacle of the Norway invasion.
> His policy of terror bombing in WW II led to additional 100s of 1000s of deaths.
> Churchill's forced repatriation of refugees after WW II condemned millions to servitude and death.
> Churchill also deserves blame for the Bengal famine which killed 1-3 million.
> 
> *Rethinking Churchill*
> 
> *Churchill Spurred the Decline of the West*



Yes Olde Winston made amazingly catastrophic mistakes in WWII.  But he was not alone.  Most of the Brit and American elite desired to destroy Germany, while ignoring the commie threat, even aligning with the commies, thus allowing the most heinous ideology and horrific mass murderer, to become a superpower.  Winston was instrumental in causing the Cold War and enslaving millions to tyrannical Soviet communism...just as FDR was.  

To go to war over Poland, was completely idiotic.  And then after the war, to allow the Commies to enslave Poland (and all of E. Europe), which they went to war to liberate, is even greater idiocy.

Yes the Nazis were equally bad, but I don't think aligning with either was the solution.  The US and UK should have let the Nazis and Commies annihilate each other and saved the lives of young Americans and Brits.


----------



## Bill Angel

gipper said:


> The US and UK should have let the Nazis and Commies annihilate each other and saved the lives of young Americans and Brits.


If the UK and the USA had managed to stay out of the war in Europe, then Western Europe would have been subjugated under either Nazi totalitarian rule or Communist totalitarian rule. And what about the oil in the Middle East? Under who's control would that have ended up?


----------



## Thunderbird

Churchill escalated the violence.

quote: Churchill was an ardent proponent of this view, and when he became prime minister he immediately instituted a policy of civilian bombing. Baker aptly cites the British Air Ministry official James Spaight as acknowledging that *England, not Germany, began this grossly immoral policy*, memorably condemned during the war by the courageous Bishop George Bell.

It was the second night of Churchill's prime ministership&#8230; "We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland." 

LINK


----------



## Thunderbird

Bill Angel said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US and UK should have let the Nazis and Commies annihilate each other and saved the lives of young Americans and Brits.
> 
> 
> 
> If the UK and the USA had managed to stay out of the war in Europe, then Western Europe would have been subjugated under either Nazi totalitarian rule or Communist totalitarian rule.
Click to expand...

Or there would have been a stalemate.  Or the Germans or Russians would have overthrown their respective dictators.


----------



## Thunderbird

If the British had not foolishly sided with their traditional enemies (Russia and France) during WW I, Europe only would have suffered a brief _War of 1914_ rather than a cataclysmic civilization-destroying World War.  WW I also birthed the barbaric Soviet regime and WW II.


----------



## Katzndogz

Churchill is an enemy of liberals who firmly believe that a quick surrender is the way to world peace.


----------



## gipper

Thunderbird said:


> Churchill escalated the violence.
> 
> quote: Churchill was an ardent proponent of this view, and when he became prime minister he immediately instituted a policy of civilian bombing. Baker aptly cites the British Air Ministry official James Spaight as acknowledging that *England, not Germany, began this grossly immoral policy*, memorably condemned during the war by the courageous Bishop George Bell.
> 
> It was the second night of Churchill's prime ministership&#8230; "We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland."
> 
> LINK



He believed in total war.  Destroying German civilians with the massive bombing raids was deplorable, inhumane, and barbaric.  Why destroy German civilians?  They were not responsible for the heinous actions of their political leadership.  

If I recall correctly, several German officers sought help from the Allies to oust Hitler on multiple occasions.  The Allies purposely chose to ignore them.

Churchill feared Germany more than he feared the Soviets.  He, like most Brits of his time, thought Britannia should rule the world and he believed Germany threatened their hegemony.  

Destroying German was dumb.  Doing so removed a check on Soviet imperialism.  It merely opened up Europe to conquest by the stinking commies.

The fact that FDR was Stalin's Stooge and his administration completely overrun with Soviet spies, which FDR was warned about repeatedly and chose to ignore, makes one conclude FDR a traitor.  His son in-law thought so...



> the observations of the son-in-law of President Roosevelt, Colonel Curtis Dall, as relayed by Henry Makow, might shed some useful light:
> 
> Dall maintained a family loyalty but could not avoid several disheartening conclusions in his book [FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law, 1970]. He portrays the legendary president not as a leader but as a &#8220;quarterback&#8221; with little actual power. The &#8220;coaching staff&#8221; consisted of a coterie of handlers (&#8220;advisers&#8221; like Louis Howe, Bernard Baruch and Harry Hopkins) who represented the international banking cartel. *For Dall, FDR ultimately was a traitor manipulated by &#8220;World Money&#8221; and motivated by conceit and personal ambition.*
> http://www.dcdave.com/article5/060409.htm


----------



## mememe

Churchill was a true statesman who miscalculated its biggest game -- WW2, his miscalculation cost Europe dear, and it cost Britain its empire.


----------



## Thunderbird

gipper said:


> The fact that FDR was Stalin's Stooge and his administration completely overrun with Soviet spies, which FDR was warned about repeatedly and chose to ignore,


Examples include: Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Harry Hopkins, Maurice Halperin, Lauchlin Currie, and Nathan Gregory Silvermaster.


----------



## ThirdTerm

It is oft repeated that Churchill "ordered" the firebombing of Dresden as a "vicious payback" for the German bombing of Coventry. Churchill did not think well of area bombing but began to believe it could be a grim necessity after (1) he watched devastating German air attacks on Warsaw, Rotterdam, and other places full of noncombatants; and (2) he could see precious few ideas for hitting back. In the ever lengthening build-up to Normandy, the bomber offensive was about the best he had to hurt the Germans and their industrial war effort. Later, when he saw France liberated, Germany's defensive lines being pierced, and the war being won, he quickly lost taste for it. Churchill's head of Bomber Command, Air Marshal Harris, seemed to think German morale might still be broken by bombing, but Churchill rebuked him after Dresden, and again, just as strongly for bombing Potsdam shortly thereafter. His mind had already turned to how the Allies would govern and occupy Germany; the time for destroying it was passing.

Churchill bombed Dresden as payback for Coventry


----------



## mememe

gipper said:


> The fact that FDR was Stalin's Stooge



The fact that you spout complete nonsense speaks only of your substandard mental capacity.

If you want to use the word "stooge", re-construct your sentence: FDR was Rockfeller's stooge.


----------



## gipper

mememe said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that FDR was Stalin's Stooge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you spout complete nonsense speaks only of your substandard mental capacity.
> 
> If you want to use the word "stooge", re-construct your sentence: FDR was Rockfeller's stooge.
Click to expand...


The fact that you do not know what "stooge" means, proves your lack of understanding.  FDR did Stalin's bidding because he surrounded himself with Stalin's spies.  Soviet spies operated in the highest levels of FDR's administration. FDR was repeatedly warned about Hiss and others, but he ignored those warnings and allowed Hiss and others complete access to the most sensitive information including all negotiations prior to and during Yalta. Research the following Soviet spies who were all close to FDR -- FDR was Stalin's stooge:
Harry Dexter White
Harry Lloyd Hopkins
Donald Hiss
Lauchlin Currie
Harold Glasser
Gregory Silvermaster
Judith Coplon
Duncan Lee
Owen Lattimore
Joseph Davies
Harold Ickes

But, I can agree that FDR was ALSO Rockefeller's and the financial elite's stooge, as indicated in my previous post....which apparently you missed....his own son-in-law said as much.


----------



## mememe

gipper said:


> FDR did Stalin's bidding because he surrounded himself with Stalin's spies.



You are a complete and utter idiot. 
In exchange for American help to BRITAIN, FDR demanded British finances (Rothschild) out of USA (Rockfeller) , SA had to be given to US, and British Empire -- dismantled. All these measures gave US dollar a chance to become what it is now, and US to become world largest empire. 
Do you think, FDR was doing it on Stalin's request?

PS
look up the word "think" in a dictionary.


----------



## Thunderbird

ThirdTerm said:


> It is oft repeated that Churchill "ordered" the firebombing of Dresden as a "vicious payback" for the German bombing of Coventry.


The British were at least as responsible for the escalation to terror bombing of civilians.



> Churchill did not think well of area bombing but began to believe it could be a grim necessity


This from _The Churchill Centre and Museum_, maybe not the most neutral source. lol



> In the ever lengthening build-up to Normandy, the bomber offensive was about the best he had to hurt the Germans and their industrial war effort. Later, when he saw France liberated, Germany's defensive lines being pierced, and the war being won, he quickly lost taste for it.


The bombing of many cities, Dresden included, happened *after *D-day.  WW II era bombing was completely inaccurate, civilians were as likely to be hit as munitions factories.


----------



## Meathead

Churchill's predecessor and successor, Chamberlin and Attlee were the catastrohes.


----------



## Thunderbird

History not so black and white: *Hamburg suffers a firestorm*


----------



## Thunderbird

I've just been reading about Churchill's close advisor Frederick Lindemann.

What a monster!  He seemed eager to kill off those he considered inferior.


----------



## Meathead

Thunderbird said:


> I've just been reading about Churchill's close advisor Frederick Lindemann.
> 
> What a monster!  He seemed eager to kill off those he considered inferior.


With hindsight, Lindemann was wrong about the V2. However, hindsight is a funny thing. Lindemann's theories, like many others' which have fallen in the dustbin of history, may yet be borne out.

Someday, the sanctimonious tendencies of our age may be viewed in very much the same way many view Lindemann's.


----------



## Thunderbird

Meathead said:


> Lindemann's theories, like many others' which have fallen in the dustbin of history, may yet be borne out.
> 
> Someday, the sanctimonious tendencies of our age may be viewed in very much the same way many view Lindemann's.


What do you think Lindemann was right about?


----------



## Meathead

Thunderbird said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lindemann's theories, like many others' which have fallen in the dustbin of history, may yet be borne out.
> 
> Someday, the sanctimonious tendencies of our age may be viewed in very much the same way many view Lindemann's.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think Lindemann was right about?
Click to expand...

I did not say he was right about anything. What I did say is that we tend to pass judgment on ideas from the perspective of our time who yet may be seen as prophets by future generations.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Meathead said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lindemann's theories, like many others' which have fallen in the dustbin of history, may yet be borne out.
> 
> Someday, the sanctimonious tendencies of our age may be viewed in very much the same way many view Lindemann's.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think Lindemann was right about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not say he was right about anything. What I did say is that we tend to pass judgment on ideas from the perspective of our time who yet may be seen as prophets by future generations.
Click to expand...


Yes, our 'present-ism' is our greatest fault when evaluating the past by our times and values and perspectives.


----------



## gipper

mememe said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR did Stalin's bidding because he surrounded himself with Stalin's spies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a complete and utter idiot.
> In exchange for American help to BRITAIN, FDR demanded British finances (Rothschild) out of USA (Rockfeller) , SA had to be given to US, and British Empire -- dismantled. All these measures gave US dollar a chance to become what it is now, and US to become world largest empire.
> Do you think, FDR was doing it on Stalin's request?
> 
> PS
> look up the word "think" in a dictionary.
Click to expand...


You aren't very bright are you?  You might get a history book on the subject, but then, you probably are incapable of comprehending the written word.

FDR took us to war to keep the power elite in place, after his epic failures in dealing with the Great Depression.  He also aligned with Stalin allowing the USSR to become a superpower, while destroying Germany thus preventing the Germans from checking Soviet power.  Many very intelligent experts, like myself, know this.  But, a fool like you will not be able to understand it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

gipper said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR did Stalin's bidding because he surrounded himself with Stalin's spies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a complete and utter idiot.
> In exchange for American help to BRITAIN, FDR demanded British finances (Rothschild) out of USA (Rockfeller) , SA had to be given to US, and British Empire -- dismantled. All these measures gave US dollar a chance to become what it is now, and US to become world largest empire.
> Do you think, FDR was doing it on Stalin's request?
> 
> PS
> look up the word "think" in a dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't very bright are you?  You might get a history book on the subject, but then, you probably are incapable of comprehending the written word.
> 
> FDR took us to war to keep the power elite in place, after his epic failures in dealing with the Great Depression.  He also aligned with Stalin allowing the USSR to become a superpower, while destroying Germany thus preventing the Germans from checking Soviet power.  Many very intelligent experts, like myself, know this.  But, a fool like you will not be able to understand it.
Click to expand...


That is a fail by a very unintelligent person, you.


----------



## gipper

mememe said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't very bright are you?
> 
> You might get a history book on the subject,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, darling. Compared to you I am like a spotlight in an underground cave.
> 
> So I can be as dim as you are? Thank you, but no; read your "history books" yourself.
Click to expand...


Let me see if I can get down to your low level of intelligence.....Hey dumbass get your head out of your ass...get the shit out of your ears...and pay attention.  

I think I failed in trying to get waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down to your level of ignorance.  I just can't do it.  Sorry.

You need to change your screen name from mememe to dumbdumbdumb.


----------



## JakeStarkey

gipper describes above his abysmal grasp of history.


----------



## regent

Churchill was a great speaker and England needed him during the war but the people dumped Churchill at war's end. Churchill as noted made a number of bad decisions, and one involved Munich. While we blame Chamberlain for peace in our time, in no way could the English had done anything to resist Hitler's taking of the Sudentland. Churchill had voted with others at the end of WWI England's for the rule of ten. England was not prepared because of that rule. As I think of other mistakes, the soft underbelly and so forth, I say again, Churchill was a great speaker.


----------



## jwoodie

Churchill was a great mascot.


----------



## Thunderbird

mememe said:


> 2. Feeding Hitler Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland had one aim: to strengthen German military might and bring Germany onto the Russian/USSR borders.


Then why did the UK declare war after the German invasion of Poland?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The anti-Churchill brigade members here are very uninformed.


----------



## Thunderbird

JakeStarkey said:


> The anti-Churchill brigade members here are very uninformed.


Which statement in the OP do you object to?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-Churchill brigade members here are very uninformed.
> 
> 
> 
> Which statement in the OP do you object to?
Click to expand...


In fact, Churchill was a voice in the wilderness crying out against Nazis and Communists.

In fact, Churchill thought appeasement at Munich with Hitler by Chamberlain guaranteed war with Hitler.

For starters.


----------



## Thunderbird

JakeStarkey said:


> In fact, Churchill was a voice in the wilderness crying out against Nazis and Communists.


Given the massacres of civilians he is responsible for, was Churchill so much better?


> In fact, Churchill thought appeasement at Munich with Hitler by Chamberlain guaranteed war with Hitler.


Was the war guarantee to Poland a wise move?  Poland was not saved.  Stalin was happy to see Britain & France fighting with Germany.  Don't you see how the Communists benefited?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thunderbird said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, Churchill was a voice in the wilderness crying out against Nazis and Communists.
> 
> 
> 
> Given the massacres of civilians he is responsible for, was Churchill so much better?
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, Churchill thought appeasement at Munich with Hitler by Chamberlain guaranteed war with Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the war guarantee to Poland a wise move?  Poland was not saved.  Stalin was happy to see Britain & France fighting with Germany.  Don't you see how the Communists benefited?
Click to expand...


Are you in fifth form, Thunderbird, that act such uninformed, naïve questions?

More than fifty million died, at least, with a quarter billion displaced.

And you want to blame that on Churchill?  Really?


----------



## JakeStarkey

mememe said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Feeding Hitler Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland had one aim: to strengthen German military might and bring Germany onto the Russian/USSR borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did the UK declare war after the German invasion of Poland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> After all, by then Britain and Germany divided their spheres of influence: the East was after Germans, West -- after British...
> 
> Declaring war on Germany was a tacit deterrent. Britain did not trust Hitler (it was a big game!) and was conducting small operations around their territories and waters. But it did not interfere with Hitler's advance Eastwards.
Click to expand...


Revision of history without new facts, merely an uninformed hashing of old facts.  D minus, maybe.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"by large", no, the British elite were not for the Nazis.

The country went to war before Churchill, as Chamberlain reached for unity, became First Sea Lord.

Where are you learning history?  Are you not reading and reading and reading?


----------



## JakeStarkey

mememe said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> After all, by then Britain and Germany divided their spheres of influence: the East was after Germans, West -- after British...
> 
> Declaring war on Germany was a tacit deterrent. Britain did not trust Hitler (it was a big game!) and was conducting small operations around their territories and waters. But it did not interfere with Hitler's advance Eastwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revision of history without new facts, merely an uninformed hashing of old facts.  D minus, maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a revision of HISTORY, it is a revision of what was passing for "history" in the West since the Cold War.
> 
> Are you going to tell me there was no agreement between Britain and Germany regarding division of spheres of power just before Hitler's invasion of Poland?!
> Or, maybe there was no phony war of 1939-1940?
Click to expand...


It is YOUR revision of history with no new facts.  England did not sanction Germany's invasion of Poland.  In fact, when Germany absorbed the remainder of Czechoslovakia in early 1939, France and Germany began preparing for war.

You are making conclusions unwarranted by the facts.


----------



## editec

mememe said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churchill was a great speaker and England needed him during the war but the people dumped Churchill at war's end. Churchill as noted made a number of bad decisions, and one involved Munich. While we blame Chamberlain for peace in our time, in no way could the English had done anything to resist Hitler's taking of the Sudentland. Churchill had voted with others at the end of WWI England's for the rule of ten. England was not prepared because of that rule. As I think of other mistakes, the soft underbelly and so forth, I say again, Churchill was a great speaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter BOLOX!
> 
> 1. Feeding German Nazi machine was a DELIBERATE policy of UK and France. They intended to conclude the problem of both Germany and Russia by making sure one will destroy the other in war, and Britain and France will finish off the victor.
> 
> 2. Feeding Hitler Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland had one aim: to strengthen German military might and bring Germany onto the Russian/USSR borders.
> 
> 3. Only after Hitler attacked France instead of USSR, contrary to agreement with Britain, did UK enter the war in earnest; because British elites realised that Hitler is not going to be their chimp and that they may be next.
Click to expand...


That is a perceptive (and possibly correct) observation, Mememe.

I note that it is only a "possible" interpretation because fathoming MOTIVE is impossible unless the subject comes out and says what his or her motive is, and EVEN THEN you have to take into account that people (especially leaders of nations) lie about their motives.

But one must wonder why both France and England did NOTHING, when Germany began breaking the terms of the treaty of Versaille.

And even after RUSSIA AND GERMANY invaded Poland very little was done then, either.  Basically they left Poland on its own.

The period after Germany and Russia invaded poland and England and France declared war was, after all, called the PHONY WAR.


----------



## JakeStarkey

This is the basic false assumption of this discussion: "Feeding German Nazi machine was a DELIBERATE policy of UK and France. They intended to conclude the problem of both Germany and Russia by making sure one will destroy the other in war, and Britain and France will finish off the victor."

Show conclusive evidence that such was the agreed upon foreign policy jointly by Britain and France.


----------



## Toronado3800

Thunderbird said:


> Here's George Kennan: the British guaranty to Poland [in 1939] was neither necessary nor wise,
> 
> How can anyone disagree?



Sir, my theory is the time for appeasement was over.  This accomplished little but while Charles Lindburgh was fighting for letting Hitler do whatever at least the British and French were starting to yell.

Would you have just watched Hitler take 2/3 of Poland and then France?  What is your idea?


----------



## Sulphuric

As an Englishman, he was a great war time leader, but when he was PM again in the early 50s he was a disaster and had learned nothing from the election of 1945 when his Conservative Party were defeated.


----------



## Meathead

mememe said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> And even after RUSSIA AND GERMANY invaded Poland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USSR did not invade Poland.
> 
> Poland was over by the 17-th of September; its government surrendered its powers to London and was sitting on Romanian border waiting evacuation.
> 
> Only then the Soviet Union moved into the RUSSIAN territories occupied by Poland in 1922 -- territories of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus.
Click to expand...

Your such an ass. The USSR invaded Poland as per the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact following the German invasion of the Poland's western lands. Where the hell do you get this nonsense you post. I thought the Soviet Union stopped issuing directives to the party faithful when it collapsed.

*Stalin did not instantly interpret the protocol as permitting the Soviet Union to grab territory. Stalin was waiting to see whether the Germans would halt within the agreed area, and also the Soviet Union needed to secure the frontier in the Far East.[108] On 17 September the Red Army invaded Poland, violating the 1932 SovietPolish Non-Aggression Pact, and occupied the Polish territory assigned to it by the MolotovRibbentrop Pact. This was followed by co-ordination with German forces in Poland*

Molotov?Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toronado3800

mememe said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the basic false assumption of this discussion: "Feeding German Nazi machine was a DELIBERATE policy of UK and France. They intended to conclude the problem of both Germany and Russia by making sure one will destroy the other in war, and Britain and France will finish off the victor."
> 
> Show conclusive evidence that such was the agreed upon foreign policy jointly by Britain and France.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already gave PRIME sources on that in some other thread of this forum (twice!).
Click to expand...


Sir, I am very happy to agree with you that many in America and probably the UK looked forward to a strong Germany invading Communist Russia.  Roosevelt had a heck of a time fighting them and the folks who were tired from the horrors of the last war just 20 years previous.

Still though you must question the accuracy of any source that stretches logic to claim the U.S.S.R. did not invade Poland.


----------



## Toronado3800

mememe said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your such an ass. The USSR invaded Poland as per the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact following the German invasion of the Poland's western lands. Where the hell do you get this nonsense you post. I thought the Soviet Union stopped issuing directives to the party faithful when it collapsed.
> 
> *Stalin did not instantly interpret the protocol as permitting the Soviet Union to grab territory. Stalin was waiting to see whether the Germans would halt within the agreed area, and also the Soviet Union needed to secure the frontier in the Far East.[108] On 17 September the Red Army invaded Poland, violating the 1932 SovietPolish Non-Aggression Pact, and occupied the Polish territory assigned to it by the MolotovRibbentrop Pact. This was followed by co-ordination with German forces in Poland*
> 
> Molotov?Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You want to see an ass -- look in a mirror.
> 
> 2. Have you read that non-aggression pact? No, you haven't. There, edumacate yourself. And after you will read it, together with a secret protocol, point me in the direction of any JOINT invasion!
> The Avalon Project : Nazi-Soviet Relations 1939-1941: Treaty of Nonaggression Between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
> The Avalon Project : Nazi-Soviet Relations 1939-1941: Secret Additional Protocol
> 
> 3. Not even Polish command thought that the USSR invaded Poland: Polish military was given orders NOT to engage the Soviets, while continue fighting the Germans!
> 
> 4. You moron, I bet you did not even know that in 1922 Poland ANNEXED West Ukraine and West Belarus! That's the territories the USSR reclaimed after the collapse of Polish state as a result of German invasion.
> 
> Conclusion: you are a stupid twat.
Click to expand...


Nice source, but is the second link making the point against you?  Sounds like a plan to invade Poland right or wrong.

Think of it this way.  The U.S. got Texas from Mexico as result of some shady dealings.  If Mexico somehow got troops up to the Oklahoma border and reclaimed it we woukd all think of it as a war.

Don't listed to the folks who told you we were not at war in Korea or Vietnam.


----------



## Meathead

What was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? Poland had Lvov, which had been Polish since the 14th century. After WWII it was granted by Stalin to the Ukraine and the Poles that survived the war were sent within the territories of Poland  which were allotted by your beloved leader. Reclaimed, my ass. Do you know anything at all about history?


----------



## Toronado3800

gipper said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churchill escalated the violence.
> 
> quote: Churchill was an ardent proponent of this view, and when he became prime minister he immediately instituted a policy of civilian bombing. Baker aptly cites the British Air Ministry official James Spaight as acknowledging that *England, not Germany, began this grossly immoral policy*, memorably condemned during the war by the courageous Bishop George Bell.
> 
> It was the second night of Churchill's prime ministership "We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland."
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He believed in total war.  Destroying German civilians with the massive bombing raids was deplorable, inhumane, and barbaric.  Why destroy German civilians?  They were not responsible for the heinous actions of their political leadership.
> 
> If I recall correctly, several German officers sought help from the Allies to oust Hitler on multiple occasions.  The Allies purposely chose to ignore them.
> 
> Churchill feared Germany more than he feared the Soviets.  He, like most Brits of his time, thought Britannia should rule the world and he believed Germany threatened their hegemony.
> 
> Destroying German was dumb.  Doing so removed a check on Soviet imperialism.  It merely opened up Europe to conquest by the stinking commies.
> 
> The fact that FDR was Stalin's Stooge and his administration completely overrun with Soviet spies, which FDR was warned about repeatedly and chose to ignore, makes one conclude FDR a traitor.  His son in-law thought so...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the observations of the son-in-law of President Roosevelt, Colonel Curtis Dall, as relayed by Henry Makow, might shed some useful light:
> 
> Dall maintained a family loyalty but could not avoid several disheartening conclusions in his book [FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law, 1970]. He portrays the legendary president not as a leader but as a quarterback with little actual power. The coaching staff consisted of a coterie of handlers (advisers like Louis Howe, Bernard Baruch and Harry Hopkins) who represented the international banking cartel. *For Dall, FDR ultimately was a traitor manipulated by World Money and motivated by conceit and personal ambition.*
> http://www.dcdave.com/article5/060409.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I know and am happy the idea of total war sounds barbaric.  This was not a war of occupation like Vietnam or our most recent two.  Don't let the bleeding hearts lie to you.  

The air war was necessary to bleed German airpower.  It was necessary to disrupt production.  

It was bloody.  It was as terrible as using the A bomb as a warning to Stalin.  Probably necessary though.  Don't let them peace lovin stoned hippies tell ya otherwise.


----------



## Toronado3800

mememe said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already gave PRIME sources on that in some other thread of this forum (twice!).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sir, I am very happy to agree with you that many in America and probably the UK looked forward to a strong Germany invading Communist Russia.  Roosevelt had a heck of a time fighting them and the folks who were tired from the horrors of the last war just 20 years previous.
> 
> Still though you must question the accuracy of any source that stretches logic to claim the U.S.S.R. did not invade Poland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more:
> 
> 1. By the time the Red army entered the territories of West Ukraine and West Belarus formerly occupied by Poland, Poland as a state was finished: its government delegated its powers to London and was waiting evacuation on Romanian border. Poland became a "property" of Germany.
> 
> 2. In 1922 Poland ANNEXED territories of West Ukraine and West Belarus. These were the territories the USSR RECLAIMED AFTER the collapse of the Polish state.
> 
> 3. Even Polish command did not consider Soviet retake of Ukrainian and Belorussian lands as an invasion; thus its ORDERS to Polish military NOT to engage the Red Army.
Click to expand...


You opinion of the definition of invasion is very unique indeed then so much so I think you should no longer converse in English but use a translator.


----------



## Meathead

Once again, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an agreement to divide Poland. Stalin was stupid enough to discard what could have been a buffer state in order to expand Soviet influence and think that Hitler did not have designs of the USSR. Your beloved leader seriously miscalculated, causing an incredible amount of suffering and death, more among his own people than anyone else. It is hard to believe that in this day and age anyone would defend Stalin. Most Russians don't want to talk about, or even be reminded of him.

Stalin is up there with Tamerlane, Genghis Khan and Pol Pot in the cesspool of history. Churchill, on the other hand is undoubtedly one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century and among those of all time.


----------



## Toronado3800

Thunderbird said:


> Though Winston Churchill has been piled with praise by the established order, I think Churchill was a catastrophe - a barbaric war-loving incompetent.
> 
> His "achievements":
> 
> 
> He helped push the UK into WW I.  Without UK involvement the war would have ended quickly.
> He bears responsibility for the Gallipoli disaster.
> He instituted the hunger blockade of Germany which killed 100s of 1000s.
> He supported gas attacks on Iraqi civilians.
> His stupid decision to return the UK to the gold standard helped bring about the Great Depression.
> He supported the foolish war guarantee to Poland.  Poland was not saved, only Stalin benefited.
> He is responsible for the debacle of the Norway invasion.
> His policy of terror bombing in WW II led to additional 100s of 1000s of deaths.
> Churchill's forced repatriation of refugees after WW II condemned millions to servitude and death.
> Churchill also deserves blame for the Bengal famine which killed 1-3 million.
> 
> *Rethinking Churchill*
> 
> *Churchill Spurred the Decline of the West*



I can not claim Churchill did not make mistakes militarily.

About your WWI point, you would have preferred the UK have stayed out of it? What is your idea of the map of Europe if the UK was neutral? And would that have been your desired outcome?


----------



## JakeStarkey

mememe said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the basic false assumption of this discussion: "Feeding German Nazi machine was a DELIBERATE policy of UK and France. They intended to conclude the problem of both Germany and Russia by making sure one will destroy the other in war, and Britain and France will finish off the victor."
> 
> Show conclusive evidence that such was the agreed upon foreign policy jointly by Britain and France.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already gave PRIME sources on that in some other thread of this forum (twice!).
Click to expand...


That does not make the conclusion true, though.  I can give you a primary source that someone thinks the moon is made of cheese.

Your revisionism is not well based.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mememe said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your such an ass. The USSR invaded Poland as per the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact following the German invasion of the Poland's western lands. Where the hell do you get this nonsense you post. I thought the Soviet Union stopped issuing directives to the party faithful when it collapsed.
> 
> *Stalin did not instantly interpret the protocol as permitting the Soviet Union to grab territory. Stalin was waiting to see whether the Germans would halt within the agreed area, and also the Soviet Union needed to secure the frontier in the Far East.[108] On 17 September the Red Army invaded Poland, violating the 1932 SovietPolish Non-Aggression Pact, and occupied the Polish territory assigned to it by the MolotovRibbentrop Pact. This was followed by co-ordination with German forces in Poland*
> 
> Molotov?Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You want to see an ass -- look in a mirror.
> 
> 2. Have you read that non-aggression pact? No, you haven't. There, edumacate yourself. And after you will read it, together with a secret protocol, point me in the direction of any JOINT invasion!
> The Avalon Project : Nazi-Soviet Relations 1939-1941: Treaty of Nonaggression Between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
> The Avalon Project : Nazi-Soviet Relations 1939-1941: Secret Additional Protocol
> 
> 3. Not even Polish command thought that the USSR invaded Poland: Polish military was given orders NOT to engage the Soviets, while continue fighting the Germans!
> 
> 4. You moron, I bet you did not even know that in 1922 Poland ANNEXED West Ukraine and West Belarus! That's the territories the USSR reclaimed after the collapse of Polish state as a result of German invasion.
> 
> Conclusion: you are a stupid twat.
Click to expand...


Your case study would be a superior example of false revisionism.

You receive an F for this silly attempt.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mememe said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your revisionism is not well based.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the West should not have revised the history during the Cold War.
Click to expand...


The failing student criticizes his betters here is all you are doing.


----------



## Thunderbird

mememe said:


> The USSR did not invade Poland.


Only a lying Stalinist stooge would pretend Stalin didn't cooperate with his ally Hitler to carve up Poland.

The two dictators divided up the stolen territory: *The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact *

The Poles, though outnumbered, bravely resisted the invaders:*Battle of Szack*


----------



## Meathead

mememe said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin is up there with Tamerlane, Genghis Khan and Pol Pot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares where AMERICANS place whom on the list of their "history"?
> 
> Americans -- the nation that massacred more people than Hitler, Tamerlane, Genghis Khan and Pol Pot put together, and continue doing so!
Click to expand...

PolesYear	Poles	 %	Total
1921     	112,000  51	219,400

1989	            9,500        1.2	790,908
2001     	6,400	    0.9	725,200


*Many Poles moved to Lviv after the city was conquered by King Casimir in 1349. It became a major Polish cultural centre and this continued after the partitions of Poland.

Lviv was depolonised mainly through Soviet-arranged population exchange from 194446. [69] Those that remained found themselves having lost their state status and becoming an ethnic minority. By 1959 Poles made up only 4% of the population after Ukrainians, Russians and Jews.[69] The Polish population underwent significant assimilation; in 1989 40% considered Ukrainian as their mother tongue, 15% Russian.[69] During Soviet times two Polish schools continued to function: &#8470; 10 (with 8 grades) and &#8470; 24 (with 10 grades).[69]

In the 1980s the process of uniting groups into ethnic associations was allowed. In 1988 a Polish language newspaper was allowed («Gazeta Lwowska»).[70] The Polish population of the city continues to use the dialect of the Polish language known as Lwów dialect (Polish: gwara lwowska).[70]*

Lviv - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stalin's record for mass murder is secure. Genghis Khan may have come close, but only in relative terms as there were far fewer people then.

Bite me.


----------



## JakeStarkey

1.  Yup, because the Russians got their asses kicked (immaterial).
2.  Yup, and some of Romania.  (immaterial)
3.  Russia invaded Poland, and the collapse had nothing to do with it, because the Germans and Russians had agreed to divide Poland.
4.  Such orders were local and given by defeatists.

Your revisionist Russki "history" is fun to play with.


----------



## Thunderbird

Toronado3800 said:


> I can not claim Churchill did not make mistakes militarily.
> 
> About your WWI point, you would have preferred the UK have stayed out of it? What is your idea of the map of Europe if the UK was neutral? And would that have been your desired outcome?


If the British had stayed out Germany would have prevailed in under a year.  Europe would have been spared the disaster of WW I.  Germany vs. Russia & France would have kept the balance on the continent.  Russia would have lost some territory, but Russian potential was enormous.  It could clearly have served as a counterweight to Germany.

A limited War of 1914 instead of the cataclysmic WW I
No WW II
No mass-murdering Soviet dictatorship
No Holocaust


----------



## Meathead

mememe said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> PolesYear	Poles	 %	Total
> 1921     	112,000  51	219,400
> 
> 1989	            9,500        1.2	790,908
> 2001     	6,400	    0.9	725,200
> 
> 
> *Many Poles moved to Lviv after the city was conquered by King Casimir in 1349. It became a major Polish cultural centre and this continued after the partitions of Poland.
> 
> Lviv was depolonised mainly through Soviet-arranged population exchange from 194446. [69] Those that remained found themselves having lost their state status and becoming an ethnic minority. *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Are you telling me it was normal for a city built by Galitchians to be almost 100% Polish and Jewish with less than 10% of its population the indigenous people?!
> 
> Yes, between 1944 and 1950-s there were few VOLUNTARY EXCHANGES of the population: Ukrainians were leaving Poland and returning to Ukraine, while Poles were leaving West Ukraine and returning to Poland.
> 
> You know why?
> 
> Because the indigenous population of West Ukraine hated Polish invaders so much, it organised genocide of Poles between 1941 and 1944! And Armia Krayova was doing the same regarding Ukrainians.
> 
> Under the circumstances, the best was to allow the two to choose where they wanted to live, in Poland or in Ukraine. What is your problem with that decision?*
Click to expand...

*I am simply telling you that you have a very weak and a very dogmatic grasp of history. I would add two more things: 

1) It boggles the mind that anyone, even the most insane among us, would defend someone as indefensible as Josef Stalin. He stands with Hitler in the annals of infamy.

2) When you feel pressure, stop pushing in the Q-tip.*


----------



## Thunderbird

mememe said:


> 1. Did Poland annex West Ukraine and West Belarus in 1921-1922?


Did Russian imperialists steal that territory from Poland in the first place?  Why do you assert the Russians have the right to that territory?



> 3. Did Polish government collapse on the 17-s of September 1939?


Did the Polish people fight the invaders?

*Battle of Wytyczno*

*Battle of Grodno (1939)*

Note the mass-murder committed by your fellow Communists after the battle.


----------



## Toronado3800

mememe said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You opinion of the definition of invasion is very unique indeed then so much so I think you should no longer converse in English but use a translator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "my opinion".
> 
> Unless, you think that Poland had a God given right to annex other nations' lands and territories once annexed by Poland belong to it forever, even after it ceased to exist?
> 
> Then remember that bits of Poland itself belonged to various countries for few centuries.
Click to expand...


In the larger sense Rome may have owned France at one point but if Italian troops marched into Paris to "retake" it, right or wrong that would be an invasion.

Remember this is primarily a U.S. based message board.  One of the beautiful things about this country is we don't care is the Croats or Serbs think they are different people or if great x 8 grandpa slav once had an acre of land stolen from him.  So....invasion means sending troops someplace to take something over or back over.  You can launch an invasion to retake land bjt it is still am invasion.

Sorry for the cell phone lack of politeness and elequence.


----------



## Toronado3800

Thunderbird said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can not claim Churchill did not make mistakes militarily.
> 
> About your WWI point, you would have preferred the UK have stayed out of it? What is your idea of the map of Europe if the UK was neutral? And would that have been your desired outcome?
> 
> 
> 
> If the British had stayed out Germany would have prevailed in under a year.  Europe would have been spared the disaster of WW I.  Germany vs. Russia & France would have kept the balance on the continent.  Russia would have lost some territory, but Russian potential was enormous.  It could clearly have served as a counterweight to Germany.
> 
> A limited War of 1914 instead of the cataclysmic WW I
> No WW II
> No mass-murdering Soviet dictatorship
> No Holocaust
Click to expand...


If the British had stayed out of WWI do you think the world with Germany stretching from  Spain to the Urals would have been a better place?

My bias is VERY anti Germany.  Two world wars, 20 years.  In August of 45 I may have bombed Frankfurt to make my point to Stalin and the Japanese.  The white folks there who can spot a Jew from a mile away symbolize what is wrong with humanity.


----------



## Toronado3800

mememe said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Did Poland annex West Ukraine and West Belarus in 1921-1922?
> 
> 
> 
> Did Russian imperialists steal that territory from Poland in the first place?  Why do you assert the Russians have the right to that territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Did Polish government collapse on the 17-s of September 1939?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did the Polish people fight the invaders?
> 
> *Battle of Wytyczno*
> 
> *Battle of Grodno (1939)*
> 
> Note the mass-murder committed by your fellow Communists after the battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No. It was part of Rus (Russia), and even under Poles it retained its original name Chervona Rus until the 16-s century. So, using your terminology, it was Polish-lithuanian Empire that "stole" them territories from Russia in the 14-s century.
> 
> 2. Poland as a STATE annexed the territories; Poland as a STATE signed the agreements; Poland as a STATE ceased to exist and became part of a German Rich -- a completely different STATE. It means, that the USSR was no longer under any obligation to stick to border agreements it had with Poland -- a STATE that DISAPPEARED.
Click to expand...


That point 2 sir is a very fine line.  Are you a lawyer?  If the intent to divide Poland existed before the German invasion would that satisfy you?  

Your whole line of reasoning seems like it would have he potential to be very self serving.  Never buy anything from me on ebay.


----------



## Meathead

mememe said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am simply telling you that you have a very weak and a very dogmatic grasp of history. I would add two more things:
> 
> 1) It boggles the mind that anyone, even the most insane among us, would defend someone as indefensible as Josef Stalin. He stands with Hitler in the annals of infamy.
> 
> 2) When you feel pressure, stop pushing in the Q-tip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I simply put facts before you.
> 
> You have nothing to rebut them, so you resort to repeating twaddle inserted into your brains by Cold War propagandists, and make indignant noises that that twaddle does not coinside with the facts.
> 
> What is it that you disagree with:
> 
> 1. That Lvov as well as the whole of Galitchina was part of Russia prior to Poles invading it in the 14-s century?
> 
> 2. That it is not normal when indigenous people are forbidden to live in cities they erected in a first place?
> 
> 3. That West Ukrainians committed genocide of Poles between 1941 and 1944 because they hated Poles so much?
> 
> 4. That Poles displayed outstanding acts of cruelty towards indigenous population of Galitchina between 1922 and 1939 for which they became so hated?
> 
> 5. That repatriation of both Ukrainians and Poles was voluntary and dictated by necessity to save them from each other?
Click to expand...

Once again, you are showing your woefully weak grasp of history and your hatred of Poles for the role they played in the downfall of the Soviet Union. Lvov was founded by the Lendians, a Western Slavic peoples who were essentially Poles, and certainly not Eastern Slavs. The territory around Lvov was taken over by various powers over the years, but it's population remained majority Polish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lendians

Twaddle, as you put it, is denial that the USSR invaded Poland in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Twaddle is also imagining that Lvov was historically anything but a Polish dominated area until the aftermath of WW II. I suppose that would make revisionist communist history twaddle. I thought that had been abandoned by just about everyone, but I suppose that there are still some pathologically damaged people willing to delude themselves for the sake of outdated dogma. 

Oh well, you are certainly unique. I don't doubt that there are a scattering of those that cannot except that the earth is not flat, That is perhaps the kindest thing I can say.


----------



## Toronado3800

mememe said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In the larger sense Rome may have owned France at one point but if Italian troops marched into Paris to "retake" it, right or wrong that would be an invasion.
> 
> One of the beautiful things about this country is we don't care is the Croats or Serbs think they are different people or if great x 8 grandpa slav once had an acre of land stolen from him.  So....invasion means sending troops someplace to take something over or back over.  You can launch an invasion to retake land bjt it is still am invasion.
> 
> Sorry for the cell phone lack of politeness and elequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Precisely the point: just because Poland annexed West Ukraine and West Belarus in 1922, doesn't mean it has rights over these territories forever.
> 
> 2. The beautiful thing about Americans is that you don't give a shit about any historic complexities of nations and states you can't even find on a map, yet you keep sending your troops there in ignorant notion that you know best.
> 
> O, and for your information, when Germany took over half the Europe, it became part of the Third Reich. So, on liberating Europe from Germans the allies had to INVADE the Third Reich (according to your definition). Do you advocate to return it all to Germany? Answer this.
Click to expand...


For 2, correct.  It is a liability sometimes but a blissfully youthful and optimistic one.  Imagine if in the Middle East they forgot why their ancestors hated eachother.

Darn right we invaded Third Reich Germany and no I wouldn't give any land back to them.  That is an obtuse European inbread family warefare notion. Germany did something terrible enough to warrant us going to war with them and mercifully Germany lost.  I would have given East Germany to the Russians (I wish Poles) and West Germany to England and divided Italy up among the French and Balkin nations.  They screwed up that bad.

Would it be the most humane thing to do?  No.   But I believe in punishments for stupid adults as well.

You?


----------



## Meathead

mememe said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lvov was founded by the Lendians, a Western Slavic peoples who were essentially Poles, and certainly not Eastern Slavs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking idiot, you can't even read what is written before you:
> 
> "... *in the area* of present-day Lviv..."
> 
> in pre-historic times!
> 
> There from your Wiki: "Lviv was founded by King Daniel of Galicia in the Ruthenian principality of Halych-Volhynia and named in honour of his son Lev."
> 
> Do you know who was Daniel of Galicia?
> There: son of Roman Mstyslavich -- a Grand Prince of Kiev.
> Do you know what Kiev was at the time?
> There: Kiev was the capital city of Rus!
> 
> 
> That's it, Meathead, I had enough of trying to converse with mentally challenged.
Click to expand...

You have an abysmal grasp of history. I would be fascinated to find out what or where this "Galitchina" is or if you're also dyslexic and meant Gatchina, an adminstrative region far to the north near Saint Petersburg, which you probably still refer to as Leningrad.

The entire quote that you provided is thus:

_Archeologists have demonstrated that the Lviv area was settled by the 5th century.[7] This fact places this settlement within the territory of once powerful state of White Chroatia. From the ninth century in the area of present-day Lviv, between Castle Hill and the river Poltva, there existed a *Lendian* settlement  in the tenth century the Lendians established a fortified settlement on Castle Hill.[8] In 1977 it was discovered that the Orthodox church of St. Nicholas had been built on a previously functioning cemetery.[9]* In 981, the Cherven Towns area was captured by Vladimir I and fell under the rule of Kievan Rus.*
[edit]
Halych-Volyn Principality

Lviv was founded by King Daniel of Galicia in the Ruthenian principality of Halych-Volhynia and named in honour of his son Lev.
_

Just because people all you on your obvious bull shit, that is no reason to become classless. You are all to obviously very misinformed and of limited intellect, but I will neither call you a fucking idiot nor mention mental defects. I really don't need to.


----------



## Toronado3800

mememe said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For 2, correct.  It is a liability sometimes but a blissfully youthful and optimistic one.  Imagine if in the Middle East they forgot why their ancestors hated eachother.
> 
> Darn right we invaded Third Reich Germany and no I wouldn't give any land back to them.  That is an obtuse European inbread family warefare notion. Germany did something terrible enough to warrant us going to war with them and mercifully Germany lost.  I would have given East Germany to the Russians (I wish Poles) and West Germany to England and divided Italy up among the French and Balkin nations.  They screwed up that bad.
> 
> Would it be the most humane thing to do?  No.   But I believe in punishments for stupid adults as well.
> 
> You?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do I think about what you just posted? I think Americans should stick to what they understand.
Click to expand...


Don't be mad at America.  A bit if geographic isolation and a large amount of Europeans fleeing the old intolerant way of doing things have served us well.  

Sure we have our own problems as our Irish and Poles and Italians can no longer tell a Croaat fron a Serb they move on to discriminating against Africans.  

But we can dream of a day when no one goes to war any longer over land Richard III or the Turks Muslims Romans or Egyptians Persians or Greeks may have claim to.


----------



## Toronado3800

mememe said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That point 2 sir is a very fine line.  Are you a lawyer?  If the intent to divide Poland existed before the German invasion would that satisfy you?
> 
> Your whole line of reasoning seems like it would have he potential to be very self serving.  Never buy anything from me on ebay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lawyer? Whose "lawyer", American, British, Saudi Arabian, Turkish? Then again, "lawyer" of the 17-s century, 19-s century, current time? "Lawyer" in what, in criminal law, in industrial law? Or does the word "lawyer" have a magic effect on you? Or, maybe, you have an idea of how border agreements can be carried out between an existing and NON-EXISTING states?
> 
> Did you read the Pact? Where did you see an INTENT? There was a PROVISION in case of an invasion. That Germany will invade Poland was not a binome de Newton.
> 
> Besides, if you are all for an invader to keep the territories it invaded, why did US take part in liberating Europe? After all, what was the difference between Hitler annexing half the Europe and Poland annexing West Ukraine, West Belarus and part of Czechoslovakia?
Click to expand...


Lawyer in the Biblical sense : someone who tries very hard to justify what is wrong.

On your topic of keeping territories:
The U.S. invaded Nazi Europe and liberated it.  Were the Germans the rightful owners as the closestish inheritors of the Western Roman Empire?  Who cares.  The Nazis seemed like the bad guys at the time.  Apparently Roosevelt and Churchill were the good guys.

Pretty nifty of American boys to die liberating France huh?

The bad guys in the case were the Germans who I said I would have punished considerably worse.  Not the most moral of decisions or necessarily right but boy folks would have been scared of screwing up like Hitler.

But once.again Churchill.and Roosevelt played the good guys and more or less restored Germany and the other countries they could.  Saint hood type stuff huh.  

Perhaps they figures occupation would have cost too much.  Perhaps after staring at evil that closely at Potsdam they were fearful of touchig the dark side.  

Who knows.  Anyways I said I would have divided up Germany and Italy among the victors.  That was Germany's second strike.


----------



## Toronado3800

mememe said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be mad at America.
> 
> But we can dream of a day when no one goes to war any longer over land Richard III or the Turks Muslims Romans or Egyptians Persians or Greeks may have claim to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After what it did to my country?! Sorry, I can't be but angry, very angry with Americans.
> 
> You can dream of whatever you like, but confine your dreams to your own borders. Because your dreams not grounded in reality bring nothing but death and destruction wherever you go.
Click to expand...


What is your country?  

I will admit it when America screws uo.  It happens.  Hell look at the uninspired genocide we pulled off 150 years ago.

But yeah, where are you from and my apologies for my bluntness but I am not a politician.


----------



## Meathead

mememe said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking idiot, you can't even read what is written before you:
> 
> "... *in the area* of present-day Lviv..."
> 
> in pre-historic times!
> 
> There from your Wiki: "Lviv was founded by King Daniel of Galicia in the Ruthenian principality of Halych-Volhynia and named in honour of his son Lev."
> 
> Do you know who was Daniel of Galicia?
> There: son of Roman Mstyslavich -- a Grand Prince of Kiev.
> Do you know what Kiev was at the time?
> There: Kiev was the capital city of Rus!
> 
> 
> That's it, Meathead, I had enough of trying to converse with mentally challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be fascinated to find out what or where this "Galitchina" is or if you're also dyslexic and meant Gatchina, an adminstrative region far to the north near Saint Petersburg, which you probably still refer to as Leningrad.
> 
> The entire quote that you provided is thus:
> 
> _Archeologists have demonstrated that the Lviv area was settled by the 5th century.[7] This fact places this settlement within the territory of once powerful state of White Chroatia. From the ninth century in the area of present-day Lviv, between Castle Hill and the river Poltva, there existed a *Lendian* settlement &#8211; in the tenth century the Lendians established a fortified settlement on Castle Hill.[8] In 1977 it was discovered that the Orthodox church of St. Nicholas had been built on a previously functioning cemetery.[9]* In 981, the Cherven Towns area was captured by Vladimir I and fell under the rule of Kievan Rus.*
> [edit]
> Halych-Volyn Principality
> 
> Lviv was founded by King Daniel of Galicia in the Ruthenian principality of Halych-Volhynia and named in honour of his son Lev.
> _
> 
> Just because people all you on your obvious bull shit, that is no reason to become classless. You are all to obviously very misinformed and of limited intellect, but I will neither call you a fucking idiot nor mention mental defects. I really don't need to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want the proper name? Have it &#1043;&#1072;&#1083;&#1080;&#1095;&#1080;&#1085;&#1072;. Do you know that there is no such city in Russia as "Moscow"? There is &#1052;&#1086;&#1089;&#1082;&#1074;&#1072;!
> 
> You are so infinitely stupid that you don't even take into account that transcriptions and transliterations of names onto other languages can never be 100% adequate!
> 
> What else do you object to? That &#1044;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1080;&#1083; &#1043;&#1072;&#1083;&#1080;&#1094;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081; (that would be Daniel of Galicia in English) was a son of a Grand Duke of &#1050;&#1080;&#1077;&#1074; (that would be Kiev in English)? Or that Kiev was a capital city of &#1056;&#1091;&#1089;&#1100; (That would be Rus in English)?
> 
> Did you look up what "the Cherven Towns area" means? In your Wiki article it's a way to avoid its name -- Chervonaya RUS!!! Rus means just that -- Rus! Not "Poland", Not "Hungary", but Rus! There was one Rus, and at the time its capital was Kiev hence the TERM "Kievan Rus".
> "Kievan Rus" is NOT a name of a country, it's a historic term coined by historians in the 19-s century
Click to expand...

It's Red Ruthenia asshole. Cerny means red and Western Ruthenia was inhabited by Western Slavs, not the inferior Eastern Slavs. I imagine that you are a loser from East Ukraine or Russia where there are pockets of unreformed Stalinists, the most backward Europeans with the possible exception of Albanians. Communism collapsed because it simply could not compete. Get over it!


----------



## MaryL

Everyone has so far has made a valid point or two. Churchill was deeply flawed. But I can't imagine any other leader who opposed tyranny so much and so well fit the zeitgeist of the era. Would you folks find Hitler or Mussolini a more tolerable persona?


----------



## Meathead

mememe said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Red Ruthenia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *&#1056;&#1091;&#1089;*&#1080;&#1085;&#1099; -- *&#1056;&#1091;&#1089;*&#1100;.  That's RUSSIAN, you ignorant twat!
> 
> Piss off, idiot.
Click to expand...

We have a lot of Ukrainians and Russians in Prague. They are only slightly better regarded than Roma. I've seen many Eastern Slavs and met more than a few. They tend to have slopping foreheads and be criminally inclined. It is a small wonder that communism collapsed with that caliber of citizenry. I understand. Good night you Stalinist dingbat.


----------



## Toronado3800

mememe said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On your topic of keeping territories:
> The U.S. invaded Nazi Europe and liberated it.  Were the Germans the rightful owners as the closestish inheritors of the Western Roman Empire?  Who cares.  The Nazis seemed like the bad guys at the time.  Apparently Roosevelt and Churchill were the good guys.
> 
> Pretty nifty of American boys to die liberating France huh?
> 
> The bad guys in the case were the Germans who I said I would have punished considerably worse.  Not the most moral of decisions or necessarily right but boy folks would have been scared of screwing up like Hitler.
> 
> But once.again Churchill.and Roosevelt played the good guys and more or less restored Germany and the other countries they could.  Saint hood type stuff huh.
> 
> Perhaps they figures occupation would have cost too much.  Perhaps after staring at evil that closely at Potsdam they were fearful of touchig the dark side.
> 
> Who knows.  Anyways I said I would have divided up Germany and Italy among the victors.  That was Germany's second strike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the "Germans" (I presume, German Nazis) were the bad guys? Where does it put US that on one hand was sending its citizens to fight Nazis, and on the other hand was supporting Nazis until 1944; and after the war was over took on the bulk of Nazis and Nazi collaborators to work in US CIA and setting up US Cold War propaganda?
Click to expand...



The fact Charles Lindburgh was a sympathizer was already stated by me and all companies which found some legal or illegal way around embargos should have had the proper INDIVIDUALS tried and sentenced.  Individuals as in responsible CEOs.

Far as the NAZIs taken in... That is a tough one.  The cold war against Communism seemed plenty desperate at the time and I am not ready to hang the right wingers who saw a stray German or 1,000 as less of a threat than the monster Stalin who might have had the best land army in '45.  I may have executed a few NAZI scientists despite setting back our whatever programs.  But I understand the delima so I ride the fence.

The case for the U.S. taking soo long to get into the war because of Nazi sympathizers is very interesting.  You bring up a valid point that not all Americans were good but I guess enough were to convince the boys to go die in Normandy and Anzio to liberate Europe or stop Hitler from coming across the ocean if you are very cynical.


----------



## Toronado3800

mememe said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> After what it did to my country?! Sorry, I can't be but angry, very angry with Americans.
> 
> You can dream of whatever you like, but confine your dreams to your own borders. Because your dreams not grounded in reality bring nothing but death and destruction wherever you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your country?
> 
> I will admit it when America screws uo.  It happens.  Hell look at the uninspired genocide we pulled off 150 years ago.
> 
> But yeah, where are you from and my apologies for my bluntness but I am not a politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with ordinary Americans is that you honestly believe the US to be a shining beacon of goodness that brings people freedom and democracy. And based on that belief you support the evil your power elites (politicians are just clowns on strings) carry to the nations of the world!
> 
> How can you be so blind and ignorant?!
Click to expand...


I can agree witb your statement about ordinary Americans.  Blissfully ignorant once again lol.  We have some woefully under educated folks voting.

My unique pro & anti American stances are difficult to word or understand on message boards.  As it no doubt is not what many expect I understand the round about nature of our conversation better now.

At the very least I hope my typing has been intersting for you!


----------



## JakeStarkey

mememe is a plant for modern revival of fascism


----------



## Thunderbird

Toronado3800 said:


> If the British had stayed out of WWI do you think the world with Germany stretching from  Spain to the Urals would have been a better place?


After WW I?!


----------



## Meathead

mememe said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a lot of Ukrainians and Russians in Prague. They are only slightly better regarded than Roma. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By whom? By the likes of you?
> 
> That's it, have you finished your little excursion into the world of unknown? Now, go back to discussing your latest McDonald's meal. That's about your limit.
Click to expand...

Nope, not me as much as the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles and Hungarians. I cannot speak for your other neighbors like Romanians, Moldavians and Bulgarians although I happen to know that in the Baltic states, Eastern Slavs are also 2nd class citizens. But again, they are not as despised as the Roma, but close.


----------



## Thunderbird

mememe said:


> Where does it put US that on one hand was sending its citizens to fight Nazis, and on the other hand was supporting Nazis until 1944;


?????  Supporting the Nazis by bombing them?   Really enjoying your looney conspiracy theory.  Keep posting!



> Nazis and Nazi collaborators to work in US CIA and setting up US Cold War propaganda?


What was that?

*How Castro recruited former members of the Nazi SS to train troops during Cuban Missile Crisis*


----------



## Thunderbird

mememe said:


> But Stalin was a REAL enemy:


Stalin and Hitler had so much in common.  No wonder they fell in love.








> he re-built the Russian Empire,


Now you are a Russian imperialist?



> and he established the rule of WORKING PEOPLE,


Ha ha ha good one.  lol Oh wait you are serious.

Communists have been good at murdering working people, not representing them.

*The Black Book of Communism*


----------



## JakeStarkey

mememe is a voice for the Slavic proletariat, nothing more.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mememe the comrade proletarian blabs on.


----------



## Toronado3800

mememe said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis and Nazi collaborators to work in US CIA and setting up US Cold War propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> What was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not know that US employed Nazis????!!!!!!!!!
> 
> O, Lord!... Just how inadequate you, people, are...
Click to expand...


Oh yeah!  We actively imported NAZIs.  Folks should just know that.  Its not a bragging point but not hidden either.  (earlier we discussed that I dont know what decisions I would have made with that or was uneasy with it but understanding)

Hey back to Stalin murdering people.  Naturally we hear Joe was a monster second to Hitler.  What do you hear or what do you think the truth is?


----------



## JakeStarkey

mememe said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> mememe the comrade proletarian blabs on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you even here?
> What is it you contributed apart from "mlar..."?
> 
> Go to some "Big Brother-2", or any Mexican soap opera discussion -- that would be your level.
Click to expand...


You are offering pro-Stalin revisionism that is out of touch with historical reality, comrade.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mememe said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are offering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a) I am not your comrade.
> b) the only thing I am offering to you is an advice to piss off to the topics that are in line with your mental capabilities: soap operas, last night's piss-up, etc.
Click to expand...


Can't slice and dice a comment to set up an out of context remark.  So reported.

Now . . . to you.

Comrade, you are engaged in the failure of Stalinist revisionism.  He along with Mao and Hitler and Pol Pot are among the very worst of humanity in the 20th century.

If you don't like the truth, no one cares, Comrade.


----------



## Toronado3800

mememe said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naturally we hear Joe was a monster second to Hitler.
> 
> What do you hear or what do you think the truth is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naturally! What else do you expect to hear from your propaganda merchants?!
> 
> I already posted the official data, but here we go again:
> 
> At the peak of "repressions" -- 1937 the whole system of GULAG contained 1.196.369 people. Out of that number 87% were "ordinary" criminals (murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.). The remaining %% were there for commiting counter-revolutionary crimes: acts of terrorism, sabotage, anti-Soviet agitation, treason.
> 
> In 1947 GULAG contained 1.7 million inmates, out of that number -- 40% criminals, the rest were former Nazi police, trators, Nazi agents, OUN/UPA, Vlasovtsy, Forest Brothers and other "inocent" creatures.
> 
> The maximum number GULAG ever had was in 1950 -- 2 561 351; out of that number 77% were "ordinary" criminals, the rest: see paragraph above.
> 
> 
> Between 1921 (before the USSR was formed! before the civil war was over!) and 1964 (10 years after Stalin's death!) for counter-revolutionary crimes (acts of terrorism, sabotage, anti-Soviet agitation, treason) were sentenced to death 642 980 people!
> 
> Now, compare it to present day US prison population -- just under 3 million.
Click to expand...


So at some times Stalin had about half a million political prisioners?

How about death squads and executions?

My Stalin knowledge is built around this WWII fascination.  

On a side note you can set Americans and Brits on looking up our own unit histories from the Russian civil war where we bith had troops fighting against the Communists.  HMS Erebus comes to mind as it came up in a wargame discussion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

American North Russia Expeditionary Force (ANREF), 1918-1919, were relieved by  8,000 volunteer members of the British North Russian Relief Force in the north of Russia.


----------



## Meathead

mememe said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis and Nazi collaborators to work in US CIA and setting up US Cold War propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> What was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not know that US employed Nazis????!!!!!!!!!
> 
> O, Lord!... Just how inadequate you, people, are...
Click to expand...

There was a grab for German scientists after WW II and most (like von Braun) were able to make it to make it to the west and out of Russian hands. Anyway, the real tragedy is that FDR did not green-light Patton and spare Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungry the indignities of Stalin. Had it been Churchill's call, the Iron Curtain would have been limited to the inferior Eastern Slavs.


----------



## Toronado3800

Meathead said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was that?
> 
> 
> 
> You did not know that US employed Nazis????!!!!!!!!!
> 
> O, Lord!... Just how inadequate you, people, are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was a grab for German scientists after WW II and most (like von Braun) were able to make it to make it to the west and out of Russian hands. Anyway, the real tragedy is that FDR did not green-light Patton and spare Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungry the indignities of Stalin. Had it been Churchill's call, the Iron Curtain would have been limited to the inferior Eastern Slavs.
Click to expand...


Inferior?

You use that term geographically of genetically?  

I am alarmed but want to give you a chance to orove I mis understood.


----------



## Toronado3800

And about Patton going East, I am not sure that was a realistic possibility.  Sure we could have gotten a few dozen more miles of land here or there but engaging the Red Army was probably a bad idea.  Our inferior 1943 Shermans were going to have troubkes with the 1941 design T-34s and the air superiority we enjoyed against Germany would disappear against the Red Army.  

Now wait until 46 when our naval air power could be brought to bear and it gets interesting.

Overall I don't think we could have sold that war to our public and won.


----------



## Meathead

Toronado3800 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not know that US employed Nazis????!!!!!!!!!
> 
> O, Lord!... Just how inadequate you, people, are...
> 
> 
> 
> There was a grab for German scientists after WW II and most (like von Braun) were able to make it to make it to the west and out of Russian hands. Anyway, the real tragedy is that FDR did not green-light Patton and spare Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungry the indignities of Stalin. Had it been Churchill's call, the Iron Curtain would have been limited to the inferior Eastern Slavs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inferior?
> 
> You use that term geographically of genetically?
> 
> I am alarmed but want to give you a chance to orove I mis understood.
Click to expand...

I don't need the chance to "orove (you) mis understood" or even prove you misunderstood. Thanks anyway. 

I don't agree with you about Patton. His army was situated to take Prague and could have done so easily. Would it have instigated an all out war? I very much doubt it given the exhaustion of the Red Army and its resources at that point and the fact they were still fighting in Germany, but we shall never know.


----------



## Toronado3800

My concern is you may look like you think a person who lived on the other side of some mountain range is genetically inferior.  Do you?

If you do at least man up and say it.

If you do not then I and maybe some others misunderstood.


----------



## Meathead

I have nothing against Ukrainians or Russians. I am not Czech but I have lived here for 16 years and speak the language (and a damned difficult one at that). I am well-aware that Czechs, Slovaks and Poles view their eastern cousins as a bit inferior, and I was channeling that mostly to get under mememe's skin. Try not to concern yourself with such things. You'll live longer.


----------



## mememe

Toronado3800 said:


> So at some times Stalin had about half a million political prisioners?
> 
> How about death squads and executions?
> 
> My Stalin knowledge is built around this WWII fascination.
> 
> On a side note you can set Americans and Brits on looking up our own unit histories from the Russian civil war where we bith had troops fighting against the Communists.  HMS Erebus comes to mind as it came up in a wargame discussion.



If you refer to terrorism, sabotage, treason as "political"... Tell me, what do people get in US for such activities?

There were no "death squads". And I already gave a figure of executed from 1921 (when there was civil war going on, and before the USSR was formed) to 1964 (a decade after Stalin's death) -- 642 980 people.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Comrade, you are engaged in the failure of Stalinist revisionism. He along with Mao and Hitler and Pol Pot are among the very worst of humanity in the 20th century.

If you don't like the truth, no one cares, Comrade.


----------



## mememe

Meathead said:


> I have nothing against Ukrainians or Russians. I am not Czech but I have lived here for 16 years and speak the language (and a damned difficult one at that). I am well-aware that Czechs, Slovaks and Poles view their eastern cousins as a bit inferior, and I was channeling that mostly to get under mememe's skin. Try not to concern yourself with such things. You'll live longer.



And Slovaks can't stand Poles; Czechs hate Poles; Poles think of Czechs as sub-human, etc.

LOL!

Generally speaking, such people are called bigots. 
You, on the other hand are simply an idiot.


----------



## Meathead

mememe said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing against Ukrainians or Russians. I am not Czech but I have lived here for 16 years and speak the language (and a damned difficult one at that). I am well-aware that Czechs, Slovaks and Poles view their eastern cousins as a bit inferior, and I was channeling that mostly to get under mememe's skin. Try not to concern yourself with such things. You'll live longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Slovaks can't stand Poles; Czechs hate Poles; Poles think of Czechs as sub-human, etc.
Click to expand...

I can assure you that their opinion of Eastern Slavs is far lower than their opinions of each other. This, thanks in large part to the Soviet legacy.


----------



## mememe

Meathead said:


> I can assure you .



You already "assured" me of one thing: you are a complete moron. I had sandwiches more intelligent than you. That is it. To converse with you is the same as to converse with mentally challenged.


----------



## Meathead

mememe said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can assure you .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already "assured" me of one thing: you are a complete moron. I had sandwiches more intelligent than you. That is it. To converse with you is the same as to converse with mentally challenged.
Click to expand...

I'm a moron. I'm not the one who idolizes Stalin.

 Besides, I'm not an Eastern Slav. Hell, I'm not even Slavic.


----------



## mememe

Meathead said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can assure you .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already "assured" me of one thing: you are a complete moron. I had sandwiches more intelligent than you. That is it. To converse with you is the same as to converse with mentally challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a moron.
Click to expand...


LOL!

That'a what I said. I am glad we are in agreement!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Stalin idolaters are morons.


----------



## Thunderbird

mememe said:


> In the realms of the Cold War propaganda.


So you still serve a dictator, Stalin, who murdered millions of your fellow Soviets?  Isn't that sort of twisted?

*Stalin's Forced Famine *

Considering that the Stalinists were defeated in the USSR and Communism fell in the USSR and the Stalinists lost in China, does it suck to be you?

Perhaps only one Stalinist paradise left, North Korea.  Are you planning on moving?  Maybe you would enjoy kissing Kim Jong-Un's fat ass?


----------



## Sallow

Thunderbird said:


> If the British had not foolishly sided with their traditional enemies (Russia and France) during WW I, Europe only would have suffered a brief _War of 1914_ rather than a cataclysmic civilization-destroying World War.  WW I also birthed the barbaric Soviet regime and WW II.





This is laughable at best.


----------



## Sallow

JakeStarkey said:


> Stalin idolaters are morons.



As are people that afix some sort of demonic affinity to Stalin.

He was a ruthless dictator. That's fine.

But he did not participate in genocide. Russia went through a civil war and basically won the European theater of WWII.

Lots of people died..and it wasn't by design.


----------



## Sallow

mememe said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already "assured" me of one thing: you are a complete moron. I had sandwiches more intelligent than you. That is it. To converse with you is the same as to converse with mentally challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> That'a what I said. I am glad we are in agreement!
Click to expand...


You really should stop editing people's posts.

You look like more of an idiot..as if that were possible.


----------



## Sallow

JakeStarkey said:


> Comrade, you are engaged in the failure of Stalinist revisionism. He along with Mao and Hitler and Pol Pot are among the very worst of humanity in the 20th century.
> 
> If you don't like the truth, no one cares, Comrade.



You talk about revisionism and throw Mao in with Pol Pot and Hitler?

Really?


----------



## mememe

Thunderbird said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the realms of the Cold War propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> So you still serve a dictator, Stalin, who murdered millions of your fellow Soviets?
Click to expand...


In the numbers I provided, point me these "murdered millions".


----------



## mememe

Thunderbird said:


> *Stalin's Forced Famine *



Let's try to switch on your brain:

1. In the Russian Empire famine was a regular thing. Was it Stalin who was "forcing it"?

2. During 1930-s famine was rife in the USSR, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Germany, Romania, Britain and USA. Was it Stalin who was "forcing it" there?

Please, answer my questions.

O, and something else for your edumacation:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc..._IH4AQ&usg=AFQjCNFC8voMPNntnaguIZz_k37H2qZnmA


----------



## mememe

Sallow said:


> You really should stop editing people's posts.
> 
> You look like more of an idiot..as if that were possible.



An opinion of an American counts only within the area of its natural habitation.

As British say: "Americans are dumber than pets".


----------



## Sallow

mememe said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should stop editing people's posts.
> 
> You look like more of an idiot..as if that were possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An opinion of an American counts only within the area of its natural habitation.
> 
> As British say: "Americans are dumber than pets".
Click to expand...


They say that after we kicked their asses in the Revolutionary war?

Or after we saved their asses in WWII?


----------



## mememe

Sallow said:


> Or after we saved their asses in WWII?



The only thing you "saved" as a result of WW2 was your economy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sallow said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comrade, you are engaged in the failure of Stalinist revisionism. He along with Mao and Hitler and Pol Pot are among the very worst of humanity in the 20th century.
> 
> If you don't like the truth, no one cares, Comrade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk about revisionism and throw Mao in with Pol Pot and Hitler?
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...


Really.


----------



## Thunderbird

mememe said:


> In the numbers I provided, point me these "murdered millions".



If your literacy level ever improves you'll be able to comprehend this: In Moscow, Stalin responded to their unyielding defiance by *dictating a policy that would deliberately cause mass starvation and result in the deaths of millions. *

From the link provided earlier.

Communists *destroyed* Russia. 


Decimated the Russian people.  Abortion rates were extremely high.

Robbed people of their self-respect.

Murdered millions of Soviet citizens.

Destroyed the Russian economy.  By the 1980's Russian technology was a joke.

Devastated Russian science.
*Trofim Lysenko *

Demolished Russian culture.

Wrecked the Russian environment.

Alienated the Ukrainians which eventually led to break-up.
Communism left Russia a shrinking backward nation of alcoholics hated by their neighbors.  And yet mememe can't stop himself from posting feeble excuses for Communist atrocities.  Extraordinary.


----------



## Thunderbird

Sallow said:


> You talk about revisionism and throw Mao in with Pol Pot and Hitler?
> 
> Really?


Really.

*Mao's Great Leap to Famine *


----------



## Thunderbird

mememe said:


> O, and something else for your edumacation:


You'll always find a few nuts devoted to Holocaust denial and Holodomor denial.  This book by non-historian trade union activist Douglas Tottle is an example.

Check this out: *International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932&#8211;33 Famine in Ukraine. The Final Report *

quote: Nevertheless, the International Commission of Inquiry did make a thorough study of the organizational background behind this *government-inflicted genocide, that killed not less than 7,5 million direct victims* according to the Commission's best estimate, in order to arrive at a conclusion as to responsibility. The organization could be followed through a paper trail that included orders, decrees and indeed legislation, and it was also possible to look at the parallel Party organization behind this statutory facade.


----------



## Indofred

Staidhup said:


> Absolutely a stunning piece of crap. Nothing more than another revisionist extrapolating and professing without due consideration given to the facts and reality of the time period in which the events occurred. My hunch, correct me if I am wrong, is that you are of German descent.



I believe you made a mistake. Your post should read:

Absolutely a stunning piece of crap. Nothing more than another revisionist extrapolating and professing without due consideration given to the facts and reality of the time period in which the events occurred. My hunch, correct me if I am wrong, is that you are a moron.

Am I correct or did I misunderstand you?


----------



## mememe

Thunderbird said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the numbers I provided, point me these "murdered millions".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your literacy level ever improves .
Click to expand...


I gave you OFFICIAL DATA.

And you want me to disregard it in favour of some emotive essay.

That's the reason you, Westerners, and especially Americans are so ignorant of the reality around you:

your official propaganda machine finances "historic" opuses of particular flavour needed for propaganda purposes;

the authors produce these opuses;

your official propaganda machine takes them and presents before you as "historical findings";

you swallow it and feel indignant when the reality does not conform to the matrix of your propaganda indoctrination. 

---------------------------------

You want to continue to be viewed as stupid? Carry on.


----------



## mememe

Thunderbird said:


> Check this out: *International Commission of Inquiry Into the 193233 Famine in Ukraine. The Final Report *
> 
> .



Financed by US. Need I say more...

Please, answer my questions:

If Stalin created famine in the Ukraine, who created it in the rest of the USSR?

If Stalin created famine in the USSR, who created famine in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Germany, Romania, UK and USA?


----------



## mememe

Thunderbird said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the numbers I provided, point me these "murdered millions".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communists *destroyed* Russia.
> 
> 
> Decimated the Russian people.
> 
> Abortion rates were extremely high.
Click to expand...




Just to illustrate how idiotic you are to blindly believe your propaganda twaddle.

1. The population of the Russian Empire in 1897 was 125 640 021 people. Estimated number of people in the Russian Empire prior to WW1 was around 170 - 180 million.

Population of the USSR in 1927 (after WW1, revolution, civil war and loss of West Ukraine, West Belarus, Polish territories, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland) was 147 028 000 people.

In 1937 it was 162 500 000; in 1941 -- 196 716 000.

Where do you see "decimation"?

2. In 1926 it was prohibited to terminate first pregnancy; and between 1936 and 1955 all abortions were prohibited.

The rest is even more surreal! Especially about "destruction of Russian culture and self-respect"; and this one takes the biscuit: "By the 1980's Russian technology was a joke" -- so much of a joke that the US is going to continue paying Russia until at least 2020 to take US cargo to US space stations! And Russia still uses Soviet space technology!
LOL!

--------------------------------

You do consider yourself intelligent, do you? Then how do you explain your absolute inability to reference information fed to you ???!!!!!


----------



## Thunderbird

mememe said:


> Population of the USSR in 1927 (after WW1, revolution, civil war and loss of West Ukraine, West Belarus, Polish territories, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland) was 147 028 000 people.


Yea genius I said Russia, not the whole USSR.  Russian fertilty rates plunged under Communism.  In the 60s, 70s, 80s Russia had some of highest abortion rates and lowest fertility rates in the world.



> 2. In 1926 it was prohibited to terminate first pregnancy;


Proof?  In 1920 the USSR became the first country to allow abortion in all circumstances.



> And Russia still uses Soviet space technology!


Russia had some good military technology, but what good did it do them?  Russia got their ass kicked in Afghanistan and then they *lost* the Cold War.



> The rest is even more surreal! Especially about "destruction of Russian culture and self-respect";


The only great writers produced under the Soviet Union were critics of the regime.


----------



## Meathead

Thunderbird said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Population of the USSR in 1927 (after WW1, revolution, civil war and loss of West Ukraine, West Belarus, Polish territories, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland) was 147 028 000 people.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea genius I said Russia, not the whole USSR.  Russian fertilty rates plunged under Communism.  In the 60s, 70s, 80s Russia had some of highest abortion rates and lowest fertility rates in the world.
Click to expand...

Clearly, it is a shame that they didn't have just one more. It would have any effect on abortion rates, but would have spared this thread a great deal of stupidity.


----------



## mememe

Thunderbird said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Population of the USSR in 1927 (after WW1, revolution, civil war and loss of West Ukraine, West Belarus, Polish territories, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland) was 147 028 000 people.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea genius I said Russia, not the whole USSR.
> 
> Russian fertilty rates plunged under Communism.
> 
> In the 60s, 70s, 80s Russia had some of highest abortion rates and lowest fertility rates in the world.
Click to expand...


First of all, there were no "communism" in the Soviet Union, there was SOCIALISM. Only Westerners referred to socialist countries as "communist" because you don't understand the meaning of the words you use. 

Yeah, genius, "Russia" is a short for "Russian Empire"; and the USSR was just a little bit smaller. And there is no statistics for "Russia" outside of Russian Empire or the USSR.

LOL!!!
USA fertility rates plunge under capitalism!!!!!  In 1970-s US fertility rate was 1.7 while in the USSR fertility rate was 1.9; in 1989 US fertility rate was 2.0 while in the USSR fertility rate was 1.9; LOL!!!

As we can clearly see, even with high abortion rates starting 1960-s and by 1990 on decline, the fertility rates were pretty much the same for US and the USSR.
And why do you need abortions with 6% pederasts + God knows how many necrophiliacs, zoophiliacs and other non-reproductive "minorities"; add to it the rate at which you murder your already born kids in school shootings -- and you have it: Capitalism decimates USA!!!!  LOL!


----------



## mememe

Thunderbird said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. In 1926 it was prohibited to terminate first pregnancy;
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?  In 1920 the USSR became the first country to allow abortion in all circumstances.
Click to expand...


Use the fucking SEARCH ENGINE, you "in all circumstances" twat!


----------



## mememe

Thunderbird said:


> Russia had some good military technology, but what good did it do them?  Russia got their ass kicked in Afghanistan and then they *lost* the Cold War.
> 
> .



The Soviet Union got its ass kicked in Afghanistan when it was fighting alone against Afghan mugaheds with US and UK financing, arming and training them.

And USA + UK and the rest of NATO are getting their asses kicked for over 10 years now; and that is without Russia or anyone else helping the locals!
So, shut your pie-hole about "ass kicking". In fact, the only war won by US was its war against Grenada where US military went against some 400 Cuban construction workers! 

Yes, the USSR lost the Cold War. The US lost PEACE! USA managed to destroy its own world standing without anyone contributing to it!


----------



## mememe

Thunderbird said:


> The only great writers produced under the Soviet Union were critics of the regime.





They are the only "writers" you are allowed to read! Probably, because they were writing on US grants!  

And incidentally, within the USSR and now  Russia, Ukraine and Belarus those "writers" were always looked upon as talentless scribblers on US payroll.


----------



## Thunderbird

Churchill wanted the U.S. in WW I by any means necessary.

 quote: Churchill's policies made the sinking very likely. The Lusitania was a passenger liner loaded with munitions of war; Churchill had given orders to the captains of merchant ships, including liners, to ram German submarines if they encountered them, and the Germans were aware of this. And, as Churchill stressed in his memoirs of World War I, embroiling neutral countries in hostilities with the enemy was a crucial part of warfare: "There are many kinds of maneuvres in war, some only of which take place on the battlefield. . . . The maneuvre which brings an ally into the field is as serviceable as that which wins a great battle."

LINK


----------



## bendog

Amazing thread.  LOL


----------



## HenryBHough

Thunderbird said:


> Though Winston Churchill has been piled with praise by the established order, I think Churchill was a catastrophe - a barbaric war-loving incompetent.http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2009/09/04/churchill-spurred-the-decline-of-the-west/



Without Churchill Europe wouldn't be a budding Socialist Paradise; just an Aryan one.  I think you are unsuited even to emptying Churchill's chamber pot.  Our opinions are likely of equal weight.  

Except mine is more reflective of outcomes.


----------



## Thunderbird

HenryBHough said:


> I think you are unsuited even to emptying Churchill's chamber pot.


And you are well suited for the job.


----------



## Thunderbird

This video exposes some of the awful decision-making by Churchill (and others):


----------



## regent

Churchill's goals in WWII were to save Britain, save British lives and keep the British empire  intact.


----------



## Thunderbird

regent said:


> Churchill's goals in WWII were to save Britain, save British lives and keep the British empire  intact.


Then he failed.  Britain made enormous sacrifices, yet WWII crippled the British Empire.  The Empire never recovered.  The war mostly benefited Communist dictators.


----------



## HenryBHough

Thunderbird said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Churchill's goals in WWII were to save Britain, save British lives and keep the British empire  intact.
> 
> 
> 
> Then he failed.  Britain made enormous sacrifices, yet WWII crippled the British Empire.  The Empire never recovered.  The war mostly benefited Communist dictators.
Click to expand...


And what fault could a liberal find with THAT?


----------



## whitehall

Thunderbird said:


> Though Winston Churchill has been piled with praise by the established order, I think Churchill was a catastrophe - a barbaric war-loving incompetent.
> 
> His "achievements":
> 
> 
> He helped push the UK into WW I.  Without UK involvement the war would have ended quickly.
> He bears responsibility for the Gallipoli disaster.
> He instituted the hunger blockade of Germany which killed 100s of 1000s.
> He supported gas attacks on Iraqi civilians.
> His stupid decision to return the UK to the gold standard helped bring about the Great Depression.
> He supported the foolish war guarantee to Poland.  Poland was not saved, only Stalin benefited.
> He is responsible for the debacle of the Norway invasion.
> His policy of terror bombing in WW II led to additional 100s of 1000s of deaths.
> Churchill's forced repatriation of refugees after WW II condemned millions to servitude and death.
> Churchill also deserves blame for the Bengal famine which killed 1-3 million.
> 
> *Rethinking Churchill*
> 
> *Churchill Spurred the Decline of the West*


How could Churchill be blamed for the UK's involvement in WW1 when he wasn't even a member of the British government? The standard of military strategy in WW2 centered around "terror bombing". Look up the freaking Atomic Bomb if you want the ultimate example of terror bombing.


----------



## regent

I wonder how many of us know of the "Rule of Ten" that was backed by Churchill and in a way led to the Munich agreement.


----------



## Indofred

Thunderbird said:


> This video exposes some of the awful decision-making by Churchill (and others):



That film shows a lot more American fuck ups than anyone else's fuck ups.


----------



## Thunderbird

Indofred said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> This video exposes some of the awful decision-making by Churchill (and others):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That film shows a lot more American fuck ups than anyone else's fuck ups.
Click to expand...

The British mistakes seem to be more significant, however.


----------



## Thunderbird

whitehall said:


> How could Churchill be blamed for the UK's involvement in WW1 when he wasn't even a member of the British government?


He was First Lord of the Admiralty under Asquith.


----------



## Indofred

Thunderbird said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> This video exposes some of the awful decision-making by Churchill (and others):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That film shows a lot more American fuck ups than anyone else's fuck ups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British mistakes seem to be more significant, however.
Click to expand...


Given Germany wouldn't have stopped, it was the timing that was in error, not the war against Germany.
The Vietnam and Iraq wars were both total fuck ups, right down to the core reasons for the murderous wars against countries with no record of violence against America.
That and you were megafucked in both wars, making you look fucking stupid.


----------



## Thunderbird

Indofred said:


> The Vietnam and Iraq wars were both total fuck ups, right down to the core reasons for the murderous wars against countries with no record of violence against America.
> That and you were megafucked in both wars, making you look fucking stupid.


I seem to remember the British were also involved in the Iraq War.

And speaking of stupid:
*Gallipoli Campaign*

Here's stupid and cowardly:
*Battle of Singapore*


----------



## indiajo

Staidhup said:


> Absolutely a stunning piece of crap. Nothing more than another revisionist extrapolating and professing without due consideration given to the facts and reality of the time period in which the events occurred. My hunch, correct me if I am wrong, is that you are of German descent.



No, I am.
And he is right, Churchill was more than an asshole, an absolute disaster. Even if I would support the allied case, i had to remember them of how many unnecessary deaths in the allied forces he was responsible for due to his absolute dickhead military stupidity in WWI as in WWII.

And never forget: the Brits never fought for freedom or fantasy stuff like that. The british intentions were always and only to prevent a continantal power that could endanger their own robbed together empire. That is why they changed their allies the past centuries like others their underwear. 
But Karma is a bitch, they lost it anyway.


----------



## Asclepias

Thunderbird said:


> Though Winston Churchill has been piled with praise by the established order, I think Churchill was a catastrophe - a barbaric war-loving incompetent.
> 
> His "achievements":
> 
> 
> He helped push the UK into WW I.  Without UK involvement the war would have ended quickly.
> He bears responsibility for the Gallipoli disaster.
> He instituted the hunger blockade of Germany which killed 100s of 1000s.
> He supported gas attacks on Iraqi civilians.
> His stupid decision to return the UK to the gold standard helped bring about the Great Depression.
> He supported the foolish war guarantee to Poland.  Poland was not saved, only Stalin benefited.
> He is responsible for the debacle of the Norway invasion.
> His policy of terror bombing in WW II led to additional 100s of 1000s of deaths.
> Churchill's forced repatriation of refugees after WW II condemned millions to servitude and death.
> Churchill also deserves blame for the Bengal famine which killed 1-3 million.
> 
> *Rethinking Churchill*
> 
> *Churchill Spurred the Decline of the West*


We do know he was a racist white supremacist. This is why the current POTUS returned the bust of churchill that Bush had in his office.

Winston Churchill was a racist and white supremacist claims Labour candidate Daily Mail Online

"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race has come in and taken their place."
-Winston Churchill

"The huge area contains many differences of climate and conditions, and these have produced peculiar and diverse breeds of men.  The Soudanese [sic] are of many tribes, but two main races can be clearly distinguished:  the aboriginal natives, and the Arab settlers.  The indigenous inhabitants of the country were negroes as black as coal.  Strong, virile, and simple-minded savages, they lived as we may imagine prehistoric men - hunting, fighting, marrying, and dying, with no ideas beyond the gratification of their physical desires, and no fears save those engendered by ghosts, witchcraft, the worship of ancestors, and other forms of superstition common among peoples of low development.   They displayed the virtues of barbarism.  They were brave and honest.  The smallness of their intelligence excused the degradation of their habits.  Their ignorance secured their innocence.  Yet their eulogy must be short, for though their customs, language, and appearance vary...the history of all is a confused legend of strife and misery, their natures are uniformly cruel and thriftless, and their condition is one of equal squalor and want."
-Winston Churchill


----------

