Comments by "Steve Watson" (@stevewatson6839) on "Churchill was an idiot" video.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
National Socialism or Socialism in One Country, there is no difference. Both produce tens of millions of corpses as their only "product" and both eat themselves sooner or later.
Neither emotion, ideology, nor 20/20 hindsght or bigotry, have a place in this argument. Just as they should have no place in a discussion In Cabinet.
Churchill should not have been PM, you can make that judgement on his past record going back to the Liberal administrations of Campbell Bannerman and Asquith 1906-1915 which set GB on "The Road to Serfdom" (See the trade union legislation following the strikes and near-insurrection in Glasgow which convicts the Liberal Party as crypto-Socialist loonies)
Would the 'Holy Fox' have capitulated to Hitler? We are forgetting we have cabinet government and a parliament. Wood would NOT have the whole say or even the largest part off that say. (Besides, he had repudiated the policy of appeasement and demanded 'the destruction of Nazism' in the week previous to Munich.)The mood of neither cabinet nor parliament favoured capitulation and there was no actual threat of invasion to these isles and there was no threat of us actually being defeated by military means in any reasonable timescale.
I do not say Hitler cannot come, my lords, only that he cannot come by sea or air.
Bigging up threats is a distractor and common means of shoring up leaders who, absent hysterics, are obvioulsy dubious on examination (See Brandon and the Ukraine).
There were other options than capitulation and the dozey "Total War" idea, from a White Peace to conducting a limited war that husbands resources until we could wage a more substantial one.
A thing to remember is that at the time Chamberlain resigned Fall Gelb hadn't opened and French stupid was a week from being unmasked. There were low-life traitor types like 'Rab' Butler, but they were hardly representative.
I believe we could have negotiated Hitler out of Scandinavia and the Low Countries into accepting demilitarisation of the coast between Germany and Spain. Even a peace a la 1870 with France neutralised and castrated, shorn of Alsace-Lorraine and the industrial North East.
Some have mentioned the lifting of the blockade, see the measures the US, Britain, and the Netherlands took against Japan for a riposte.
It was known Hitler would go east. It was known the Red Army was craptastic. It was known that the Wehrmacht would suffer insurmountable logistics problems. It was known that the Soviet forces in the Far East were an exception to craptastic. It was known that Stalin could just throw near infinite bodies at the problem and that he didn't actually give a fuck about the Soviet peoples.
Hitler would probably lose. What then? The possibility of Commies on the Channel coast, well that is something that couldn't be allowed and a threat that must have been honoured. A continuation of hostilities or a resumption of hostilities after a "Peace of Amiens" would have been the inevitable and neccessary conclusion of sober (SWIDT? 🙂!!!)analysis.
Absent Churchill and absent France a harder and more pragmatic analysis of reality would have revealed the lack of an invasion threat or of the possibility of defeat in a meaningful timescale. The necessity of clearing the Med and extinguishing the Italian empire and navy should have been obvious. (The Med or South East Asia; we couldn't make war in both at the same time.)
The fact of serious financial restraints should have also been obvious. The ideas behind Bomber Command were fallacious. Building heavy bombers and the huge airfields to support them should have been seen as the financial and sunk cost fallacy it was.
Conducting war a la outrance without the means and relying on a nation that was at best a "frienemy" to come in and "save" us or "demoracy" was stupid in the extreme and treasonous to boot.
My point is there are umpteen better means to kill a cat than drowning it in cream; and feels plus idiotology no way to promote the national interest, or wellbeing and freedom in general.
1
-
1