The Little History lesson.

[Shuffler]

Let's keep the discussion going without adding any insults, however vaguely they are concealed.    

No insult intended..... not even a veiled one. If you were insulted by anything I said it was not my intention and I apologise.


Now let's get some BBQ and a beer!

[Anaxogoras]

Doesn't hindsight give you all the power?
The first landing through the Atlantic wall was a failiure. Dieppe.
The landings on Italy came straight after the war in the desert. They did not fail, but were costly. They were also costly to the Axis, who's one power of three turned sides.

Dieppe wasn't an invasion attempt.  It was a test to see what was required to take and hold a coastal port.  People point to the Dieppe failure in order to whitewash UK/US feet dragging over invading France.

[Obie303]

No subject is a more "heated" discussion in my family, especially when my grandfather was alive.  He never had one good thing to say about the Russians or the Germans for that matter.  I know from my perspective, I have a tainted view on the events involving Poland.  However, I would like to offer somebody else's view on the matter.  If you haven't read the book "A Question of Honor."  by Stanley Cloud and Linda Olsen (American writers), I would highly recommend it.  There were allegations that in 1939, Roosevelt knew the Russians were planning on attacking Poland and did nothing! 

In the end, Poland was betrayed by everyone.  The Poles fought from the beginning of WWII to the very end.  What did they get....nothing.  They lost everything from their freedom, right down the line to their own country.

Again, read the book.  I don't recommend many, but when it comes to the dirty little secrets at the beginning of WWII, this book was emotional from beginning to end.

[Anaxogoras]

I will look up that book.  Fwiw, I've previously stated here that France and the UK not only betrayed Poland, but also Czechoslovakia, Norway, and ultimately each other.

[AWwrgwy]

I don't understand what The First Lord of the Admiralty would have to do with the Invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939.

Poland fell September 30, 1939.  Winston Churchill became Prime Minister of England May 10, 1940.

Someone needs a little history lesson.


wrongway

[Kermit de frog]

I don't understand what The First Lord of the Admiralty would have to do with the Invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939.

Poland fell September 30, 1939.  Winston Churchill became Prime Minister of England May 10, 1940.

Someone needs a little history lesson.


wrongway

Churchill promoted War ALL THE TIME during this political life and was in favor of going to war long before the invasion of Poland by Russia and Germany.  Him being a graduate of a Military school, he also had a love for war!  He was a "win at all cost", not because life depended on it, but because of his lust for war.  This lust screwed Europe in both wars due to the political concessions made to win at all cost.

After that said, Churchill declined the Peace offering in June 1940 with Germany!  Why side with one enemy instead of letting both your enemies fight each other?  Well, read my first paragraph again.

[Kazan_HB]

It is Sad but British politics  brought to the 2WW.


'"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." Munich 1938

[Marauding Conan]

Churchill promoted War ALL THE TIME during this political life and was in favor of going to war long before the invasion of Poland by Russia and Germany.  Him being a graduate of a Military school, he also had a love for war!  He was a "win at all cost", not because life depended on it, but because of his lust for war.  This lust screwed Europe in both wars due to the political concessions made to win at all cost.

After that said, Churchill declined the Peace offering in June 1940 with Germany!  Why side with one enemy instead of letting both your enemies fight each other?  Well, read my first paragraph again.

Actually, it was, has been, and will be for the forsee-able future, British policy to maintain a situation in mainland Europe where no country is dominant. This policy goes back to the French Revolution. Under that policy, GB could not acquiescence a mainland Europe dominated by Germany. Same as they can't allow an unified EU, or a Europe dominated by Napoleon, or Bismarck, or Soviet. So, I wouldn't blame it all on Churchill, he was continuing the same policy as always. You got to understand that GB looked at any dominant power in mainland Europe as a challenge to their own empire. Why they continue that policy now that the empire has been dismantled, is a matter for another debate.

Now, I would not caractherise Churchill as bloodthirsty. He was more a product of an Empire, which dominated international affairs, used to military adventures and as such opportunistic.

[Anaxogoras]

Actually, it was, has been, and will be for the forsee-able future, British policy to maintain a situation in mainland Europe where no country is dominant.

And yet Germany still became the dominant European country right under their noses in the second half of the twentieth century.

[Kermit de frog]

Actually, it was, has been, and will be for the forsee-able future, British policy to maintain a situation in mainland Europe where no country is dominant. This policy goes back to the French Revolution. Under that policy, GB could not acquiescence a mainland Europe dominated by Germany. Same as they can't allow an unified EU, or a Europe dominated by Napoleon, or Bismarck, or Soviet. So, I wouldn't blame it all on Churchill, he was continuing the same policy as always. You got to understand that GB looked at any dominant power in mainland Europe as a challenge to their own empire. Why they continue that policy now that the empire has been dismantled, is a matter for another debate.

Now, I would not caractherise Churchill as bloodthirsty. He was more a product of an Empire, which dominated international affairs, used to military adventures and as such opportunistic.

Well said.  

I believe British policy was to ensure dominance over all European countries.  The Treaty of Versailles is a good example of doing that in a political way.  They went with the "self determination" as a way to create smaller countries that would be individually weaker than Britain.   Once Churchill was Prime Minister he did what he wanted to do, and that was have his war with Hitler, at any cost.
  I do not place all the blame on him, as the French are just as responsible.  To be clear, I partly blame Churchill for the handling of WWII so wrongly.  Yes it's hindsight, but if one gives up ones beliefs (Stalin = bad) you give up much more in the end.  Being friends with Stalin caused much suffering and death in Eastern Europe long after WWII, along with loss of life in Vietnam and Korea.
  Signing that treaty with Poland was only a way to get their(Britain&France) war and ensure their Dominance over all European countries.  Yes Britain and France both knew they could not save Poland.  They could not even save themselves.  In the end, Britain got lucky with the change in the LW tactics.  But I guess the fire bombings in Berlin was a war crime worth doing that gave them the much needed luck.

 

So much was wronged to so many, by so few.    

[Obie303]

Although Churchill was not the Prime Minister until 1940, his voice did have weight behind it in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.  Even as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Churchill was an important figure in British politics.  I'm not a professional when it comes to politics, but even in Europe, the political atmosphere was volatile.  The Treaty of Versailles basically ensured that there would be a second World War.  Like Kermit said, Both France and Britain knew that they couldn't save Poland.  But at least they could have offered a more amicable outcome instead of turning their backs on Poland.

To blame one person for the fate of a country is wrong.  I would never say or agree with anyone that Churchill was the reason why Poland did not receive the aid they were promised.  I feel that it was a combination of many things that caused the ultimate fate of Poland in 1939.  That being said, the Pole did prove that they could defend their country till the bitter end.

Below is the Oath that all Polish military personnel took in 1924.  (There are many variations.  This is one:)

I swear to God Almighty my faithful allegiance to my Fatherland, Republic of Poland. I swear always to stand by the military banners, to uphold the constitution and guard the honour of the Polish soldier, to be obedient to the law and to the President of Poland, to faithfully carry orders of my commanders and superiors, to keep the military secrets, to fight for my Fatherland to the last breath in my breast, to always behave so as to live and die as a true Polish soldier. So help me God! Amen.

[Ack-Ack]

OK, let me make it a little clear.  Did hitler wanted Jap and U.S. to decrea war in hoping that Russia would Declear war on Jap.  And in the situation, that Russia would send troops to fight Jap.

No, Nazi Germany did not want the Japanese to go to war with the US.  The attack on Pearl Harbor took the Germans by surprise as well, as the Japanese did not inform Germany of her plans to attack the US.  Hitler was upset that he was forced to declare war on the United States earlier than what was planned for.  

However, after the war was started between the Japanese and US, Hitler did try and get the Japanese to attack the USSR through China which Japan repeatedly ignored.

ack-ack

[oakranger]

No, Nazi Germany did not want the Japanese to go to war with the US.  The attack on Pearl Harbor took the Germans by surprise as well, as the Japanese did not inform Germany of her plans to attack the US.  Hitler was upset that he was forced to declare war on the United States earlier than what was planned for.  

However, after the war was started between the Japanese and US, Hitler did try and get the Japanese to attack the USSR through China which Japan repeatedly ignored.

ack-ack

OK, got it backwords.  thx.

[cpxxx]

I have read some versions of history in my time. But I've never seen one where Churchill and the British are blamed for WW2. Kermit, I'm not sure where you got your ideas from. But I suggest you do some further research.

I think part of your problem is that while you have obviously have done some reading. You are ignoring the context of the times. Right through the thirties everyone expected war with Germany once Hitler was in power. He didn't exactly keep it a secret. You simply cannot ignore the Nazis ambitions. As for not making peace in June 1940. Why on earth would the world's greatest empire at the time, effectively surrender to the Nazis and grant them free reign. It was never going to happen. The British have a certain pride, which as an American you should understand.

As for Stalin, well Soviet Union wasn't perceived as the threat that can only be seen with hindsight. Stalin's territorial ambitions were not exactly on a par with Hitler's, in any case he was too busy purging real or imagined traitors. What happened in Eastern Europe post war could hardly be imagined. In fact whether or not the British stayed in or out. It's likely that the Soviets would have won out in the end and taken all of the continent. That would have been a lot worse than what actually transpired.

 But I'm not going to give you history lessons. It probably won't make any difference to your viewpoint anyway. When it comes to mistakes made, no country or leader has a monopoly on that. Indeed the winners of most war are those who make the least number of mistakes or less fatal mistakes.

[Anaxogoras]

I have read some versions of history in my time. But I've never seen one where Churchill and the British are blamed for WW2. Kermit, I'm not sure where you got your ideas from. But I suggest you do some further research.

Pat Buchanan argues as much in his book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War