The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (203 Viewers)

[martcov]

I will tell you exactly. Mart always attacks England. He is after seeing Churchill being seen as a war criminal. And as usual you arrive to defend him. And you also miss certain lines from me in defence of someone who acts an absolute twat because of Brexit?

So do you want Churchill seen as a war criminal because we bombed some cities in Germany? Most probably not. But let's ignore the innocent people murdered and aim it at Churchill because Mart says so.

It is absolutely disgusting to come out with crap like this. I thought this thread couldn't go lower. But I have been proven wrong. Then someone like you comes along to back him up with a comment. Well done.

You are really nuts and talking codswallop. There was a question as to whether Churchill would have been tried by the Nazis. Yes. They saw him as a war criminal.

That’s a fact. End of story for most people.

Now it’s me attacking England and ignoring German war crimes.

The question wasn’t about German war crimes.

From their point of view he was a war criminal. Why dispute it? We won and they got tried for their crimes. A lot of people were also unhappy about us targeting civilians.

Even today people don’t like targeting civilians and see it as a war crime.

Do you Dispute this in your crazy World?

 

---

[Grendel]

Absolute bollocks. Someone asked a question specifically about Germany and the Nazis. Has nothing to do with defending present day Germany. As for having a go at the UK, the second question was why would they try Churchill. Because of the bombing of civilians by the RAF, especially Dresden. Loads of people in the UK didn’t agree with that, and the Queen was even at the reconsecration of the Frauenkirche along with some RAF aircrew who took part. It was a gesture of reconciliation. Are you saying the Queen should not have gone as it looks like people are having a go at the UK?

At the time who didn’t agree with it? Why keep saying it was the RAF as if the UK acted alone?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

At the time who didn’t agree with it? Why keep saying it was the RAF as if the UK acted alone?

Senior Allied officials questioned the merit in bombing places to smithereens for little or no tactical value, particularly near the war's end. It's also clear from the man himself that Harris wanted Germany completely annihilated with little thought for the subsequent rebuilding effort or logistics for invading forces.

 

[Grendel]

Senior Allied officials questioned the merit in bombing places to smithereens for little or no tactical value, particularly near the war's end. It's also clear from the man himself that Harris wanted Germany completely annihilated with little thought for the subsequent rebuilding effort or logistics for invading forces.

Was it just the RAF?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I’ve strung together an argument.

I think anyone who makes a statement that the Nazis would have tried Churchill for a war crime for a collective strategy from all the western allies without seeing the irony of that statement is clearly someone who is more interested in the logic of German analysts and not British ones - especially when he then suggests the Nuremberg trials were rigged and therefore illegitimate.

I also constantly asked what question was asked on question time and why as no one can answer it. The why is significant. There was no defending of internment camps (they were not camps where a single race were moved for extermination) but a sensible historic perspective. The point again is the question initially raised in its correct context was nothing to do with concentration camps. It was made because of a comment made by a certain shadow chancellor regarding a uk incident - so it’s not ironic to see someone who sees fit to criticise a national hero while standing proudly by an organisation which ritually slaughtered innocent women and children? That’s the real point

Then we have post war Germany and when it’s greatest chancellor was exposed via hidden papers to have been a “very enthusiastic National Socialist” the German view was it should not be debated as its long in the past.

Strange contrast to what we see here. I wonder why,

You could also add the ex-Nazis on the boards of the resurgent West German industries of the 50s and 60s. The awkward truth though G is, who else was going to help rebuild the country after that? Germany has done very well in dealing with being responsible for the worst crimes in history and they have built a society that works better than ours does. No it isn't perfect but its recovery is a success story. Still there are clearly some of us who still hold grudges with the Germans from long ago and some, like JRM, make very thinly veiled accusations of Merkel wanting a German superstate.

Just grow up. To put Churchill up as a man with no flaws and a perfect record is absurd.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Was it just the RAF?

Area bombing was the government's order to the RAF. The USAF tried sticking to precision bombing in daylight.

 

[Grendel]

Area bombing was the government's order to the RAF. The USAF tried sticking to precision bombing in daylight.

Hamburg was destroyed in 1943 and the USAF attacked as many civilian targets as the RAF

Targeting civilian areas was entirely justifiable given the gravity of the situation and the need to eradicate all German resistance and loyalty to Hitler

 

[skybluetony176]

Was it just the RAF?

No one is saying it was.

 

[Grendel]

No one is saying it was.

Your pal in your little German pact did

 

[skybluetony176]

Your pal in your little German pact did

No he didn’t.

 

[Grendel]

No he didn’t.

Only in your own strange mind Tony he didn’t

 

[skybluetony176]

Only in your own strange mind Tony he didn’t

Show me then.

 

[martcov]

At the time who didn’t agree with it? Why keep saying it was the RAF as if the UK acted alone?

We are talking about Churchill.

 

[dancers lance]

I've got a hunch that some people on here are most upset with Churchill for putting an end to the mass murder of Jews.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Hamburg was destroyed in 1943 and the USAF attacked as many civilian targets as the RAF

Targeting civilian areas was entirely justifiable given the gravity of the situation and the need to eradicate all German resistance and loyalty to Hitler

Let's be honest the situation in 1945 didn't call for us to carpet bomb a country on the brink of surrender. All it did was create extra propaganda for Goebbels and make the reconstruction efforts harder.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I've got a hunch that some people on here are most upset with Churchill for putting an end to the mass murder of Jews.

Read that back and hang your head in shame

 

[skybluetony176]

A good news Brexit story

Brexit could be delayed until 2021, EU sources reveal

It might give Liam “it will be the easiest negotiations in history” Fox the time he needs to do his job.

 

[dancers lance]

Read that back and hang your head in shame

I don't need to read it back, I know what I said. When people on here are attacking Churchill whilst failing to even mention the fact, I don't think it should be me hanging my head in shame. Now, people can take it anyway they want, they can be as offended as they like, it takes a lot to make me cry.

 

[skybluetony176]

Talking of trade there was a good article in the FT’s today

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I don't need to read it back, I know what I said. When people on here are attacking Churchill whilst failing to even mention the fact, I don't think it should be me hanging my head in shame. Now, people can take it anyway they want, they can be as offended as they like, it takes a lot to make me cry.

So if you criticise Churchill you wanted the Holocaust to happen? Do we apply that standard to Stalin as well?

 

[dancers lance]

So if you criticise Churchill you wanted the Holocaust to happen? Do we apply that standard to Stalin as well?

The statement was incendiary for a reason, I tend to find that ideological apologists are well prepared to use the very same to try and close down an argument, but they don't like it *up em*.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

The statement was incendiary for a reason, I tend to find that ideological apologists are well prepared to use the very same to try and close down an argument, but they don't like it *up em*.

Yeah but your point's a non sequitur? If the 'apologists' make bullshit arguments, don't stoop to their level.

 

[dancers lance]

Yeah but your point's a non sequitur? If the 'apologists' make bullshit arguments, don't stoop to their level.

I don't think the *level* exists any more, rational argument has been lost to angry, agenda driven hyperbole.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I don't think the *level* exists any more, rational argument has been lost to angry, agenda driven hyperbole.

So you offer more of it?? Meh

 

[dancers lance]

So you offer more of it?? Meh

Iv'e already told you that, the gloves are off, offending the easily offended and self righteous has become somewhat of a pastime.

 

[martcov]

I've got a hunch that some people on here are most upset with Churchill for putting an end to the mass murder of Jews.

Who would that be?

 

[martcov]

I don't need to read it back, I know what I said. When people on here are attacking Churchill whilst failing to even mention the fact, I don't think it should be me hanging my head in shame. Now, people can take it anyway they want, they can be as offended as they like, it takes a lot to make me cry.

Who is attacking Churchill? The Nazis saw Churchill as a war criminal and would have tried him if they had had the chance. How is that attacking him? It is a fact.

Some people seem to like being offended, others even fly into a rage. Why? Churchill wasn’t perfect. He became a hero, but before that he was counted as a maverick and had made some bad mistakes. Definitely a fascinating person and has gone down in history. Pointless rewriting history to make him a total hero with no downside. Ridiculous actually in his case as he had significant downsides.

 

[Astute]

Just grow up. To put Churchill up as a man with no flaws and a perfect record is absurd.

I fully agree with the rest.

But I detest it when someone goes off on one about Churchill being a war criminal. You couldn't even imagine being a citizen being bombed every night let alone one of those in the forces. Imagine the pressure on Churchill constantly sending thousands of our troops to their deaths to try and defeat Germany. Or to start the rebuilding of each city bombed.

Like I said there is plenty of regret. But to call it out as over zealous German commanders but Churchill as a war criminal is going well below the belt.

I noticed there were no replies to this link.

Oradour-sur-Glane 10 June 1944 (a war-crime in France)

This was in 1944. It was murdering in full sight and not dropping bombs where you couldn't see the death you were causing. Then you have the concentration camps. How about what Russia did? Ourselves and America knew so were not wanting to be far behind them in the capture of Berlin.

Nothing should be forgotten what happened. But for the sake of harmony we need to learn our history, learn from our mistakes then move on. What gets me the most is the Holocaust deniers. It happened. It should never be forgotten or repeated. Germany should be praised for the way they deal with it. It is illegal around a lot of the world. But Germany is very strict on the matter. Then we have nutters like David Irvine

Antisemite, Holocaust denier … yet David Irving claims fresh support

If Mart used the over zealous remark about the Holocaust or questioned the truth and the German government found out he would be straight in court and would be looking at a prison sentence.

 

[Astute]

You are really nuts and talking codswallop. There was a question as to whether Churchill would have been tried by the Nazis. Yes. They saw him as a war criminal.

That’s a fact. End of story for most people.

Now it’s me attacking England and ignoring German war crimes.

The question wasn’t about German war crimes.

Not about German war crimes? Have you forgotten your statement about the German atrocities being down to overzealous commanders?

 

[Astute]

We are talking about Churchill.

You want to talk about Churchill and make him out to be a war criminal but not aim at anyone else.

I'm still waiting for you to come out against the atomic bombs which were aimed at the innocent public by America. BSB would tell us he says they were all for strategic bombing. You will agree with him as he is backing you up in trying to vilify Churchill. The atomic bombs were strategic bombing. They were dropped to make Japan surrender. This saved countless American lives.

So come on Mart. Why are you after making Churchill a war criminal but you haven't aimed at anyone else? Although it shouldn't have happened and is regrettable there was much worse that happened than Dresden. But Churchill is your only target.

 

[Astute]

So if you criticise Churchill you wanted the Holocaust to happen? Do we apply that standard to Stalin as well?

So what is making out that Churchill is a war criminal but not mentioning and refusing to mention those that sanctioned worse during the war?

And what about you calling the USA as strategic bombing who dropped atomic bombs on civilians? If you want to come out with the truth it is best not to ignore the full truth.

Every leader made mistakes. Some worse than others. I am happy to talk about all of them. But to aim at only one and not consider what had happened in the previous 6 years is wrong. You have to take the story as a whole. And some are good at only looking at one point and ignoring the rest.

 

[Astute]

Who is attacking Churchill? The Nazis saw Churchill as a war criminal and would have tried him if they had had the chance. How is that attacking him? It is a fact.

Some people seem to like being offended, others even fly into a rage. Why? Churchill wasn’t perfect. He became a hero, but before that he was counted as a maverick and had made some bad mistakes. Definitely a fascinating person and has gone down in history. Pointless rewriting history to make him a total hero with no downside. Ridiculous actually in his case as he had significant downsides.

Do you agree with the Nazis or are you using them to make a point?

They murdered 6 million Jews. They murdered civilians right through Europe. They murdered countless amounts in Russia. Yet you seem to have a massive point to make about what happened with the UK and only want to use that point only. If I didn't know better I would think you were German and hated the British for not letting Germany take over Europe for good. Then try and take over the rest of the world.

Scary thought.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

So what is making out that Churchill is a war criminal but not mentioning and refusing to mention those that sanctioned worse during the war?

And what about you calling the USA as strategic bombing who dropped atomic bombs on civilians? If you want to come out with the truth it is best not to ignore the full truth.

Every leader made mistakes. Some worse than others. I am happy to talk about all of them. But to aim at only one and not consider what had happened in the previous 6 years is wrong. You have to take the story as a whole. And some are good at only looking at one point and ignoring the rest.

Didn’t call Churchill a war criminal anywhere and by USAF I thought we were only on about the European theatre. The use of the A-bombs will be debated for all time but it was weighed up against the difficulty of invading the Japanese home islands one by one and their kamikaze tactics. We also know it deterred Stalin from making further inroads west.

We can also look at Churchill’s plan to invade Poland in 1945 to take it back from the Soviets in Operation Unthinkable and be thankful he was talked out of it, and look at his determination not to surrender in 1940 and be thankful he ignored those around him. All I’m arguing is that history isn’t black and white and that he was a man with many flaws alongside his one great triumph.

Please don’t put words in my mouth.

 

[Astute]

Didn’t call Churchill a war criminal anywhere and by USAF I thought we were only on about the European theatre. The use of the A-bombs will be debated for all time but it was weighed up against the difficulty of invading the Japanese home islands one by one and their kamikaze tactics. We also know it deterred Stalin from making further inroads west.

We can also look at Churchill’s plan to invade Poland in 1945 to take it back from the Soviets in Operation Unthinkable and be thankful he was talked out of it, and look at his determination not to surrender in 1940 and be thankful he ignored those around him. All I’m arguing is that history isn’t black and white and that he was a man with many flaws alongside his one great triumph.

Please don’t put words in my mouth.

I don't disagree with a word you are saying.

But you have joined in with Mart who is calling Churchill a war criminal. And as you know that is my point. I said Dresden is regrettable. And so is the dropping of atomic bombs whatever the reason as they were aimed at civilians.

Civilians were aimed at from the start. It was totally wrong. But after Germany aiming at killing civilians for so long it seemed to become acceptable. Dresden was levelled by us. Then America spent the next 2 days bombing the infrastructure. This killed thousands trying to escape.

As I said many regrettable moments happened during WW2. We need to never forget. There are laws so history can't be changed. It is easy for someone not involved to blame people involved. But what about Roosevelt's involvement? There was an agreement between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill. The Russians murdered a countless amount of civilians. But the Germans murdered a countless amount of Russian civilians. Does one make the other right? Of course not.

But neither does calling one leader a war criminal and not mentioning the others. And this is what Mart has done. He has worded it as though we were the worse. Do you think it is right?

 

[martcov]

You want to talk about Churchill and make him out to be a war criminal but not aim at anyone else.

I'm still waiting for you to come out against the atomic bombs which were aimed at the innocent public by America. BSB would tell us he says they were all for strategic bombing. You will agree with him as he is backing you up in trying to vilify Churchill. The atomic bombs were strategic bombing. They were dropped to make Japan surrender. This saved countless American lives.

So come on Mart. Why are you after making Churchill a war criminal but you haven't aimed at anyone else? Although it shouldn't have happened and is regrettable there was much worse that happened than Dresden. But Churchill is your only target.

I’ve stopped reading most of your mad posts. The question was simply about Churchill and whether he would have been tried by the Nazis. Anything else you are on about has nothing to do with the question or the answer.