Merged Winston Churchill a war criminal?

[Old Bob]

Norm, do you ever contribute anything worth while ? Did you get upset at me spilling a few Mason bits in another thread? Churchill was a Mason, maybe the cult rituals affected him. Have you done the nude coffin bit yet Norm?. I suppose you know what W.C. said regards Australia, "let the Japs take Australia we'll get it back later" Wouldn't that have been nice. Also I'm not proud to have W.C. anywhere on our family tree but stated so as to legitimise that I would know a few things he said and done. Agatha, no I mean Gothenburg as the Royal family name, they changed it to Windsor in the very early nineteen hundreds. A German name was a no no then. The doc. I saw was a declaration of war against Germany dated 1926 admitting that it was a copy but thats how far ahead things are planned. Embargo's were put in place and Germany was pushed into war. Much of what we are told is warped to suit, just read a news paper.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Norm, do you ever contribute anything worth while ? Did you get upset at me spilling a few Mason bits in another thread? Churchill was a Mason, maybe the cult rituals affected him. Have you done the nude coffin bit yet Norm?. I suppose you know what W.C. said regards Australia, "let the Japs take Australia we'll get it back later" Wouldn't that have been nice. Also I'm not proud to have W.C. anywhere on our family tree but stated so as to legitimise that I would know a few things he said and done. Agatha, no I mean Gothenburg as the Royal family name, they changed it to Windsor in the very early nineteen hundreds. A German name was a no no then. The doc. I saw was a declaration of war against Germany dated 1926 admitting that it was a copy but thats how far ahead things are planned. Embargo's were put in place and Germany was pushed into war. Much of what we are told is warped to suit, just read a news paper.

Dear Old Bob,

Did you like the new bong we left for Christmas?

Sincerely,
Santa and the Elves


What the Hell are you talking about? Churchill was not in power in 1926, nor was Hitler, nor Roosevelt, nor Mussolini, nor Franco... Just who the Hell did they declare war on? And I assume that even in Moolawoogawarra you know that the King of England cannot just decide to declare war in secret or in the open (and could not in 1926), and I do believe that in the USA, we'd have heard if Calvin Coolidge went and declared war on "an as yet unrisen foe, to be named later".

And there is no such thing as the House of Gothenburg. As already noted, it was the House of Saxe-Coburg, and they openly changed the name because of anti-German sentiment in 1917.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Dear Old Bob,

Did you like the new bong we left for Christmas?

Sincerely,
Santa and the Elves


What the Hell are you talking about? Churchill was not in power in 1926, nor was Hitler, nor Roosevelt, nor Mussolini, nor Franco... Just who the Hell did they declare war on? And I assume that even in Moolawoogawarra you know that the King of England cannot just decide to declare war in secret or in the open (and could not in 1926), and I do believe that in the USA, we'd have heard if Calvin Coolidge went and declared war on "an as yet unrisen foe, to be named later".

And there is no such thing as the House of Gothenburg. As already noted, it was the House of Saxe-Coburg, and they openly changed the name because of anti-German sentiment in 1917.

Well I did ask Ol' B for evidence -- I gather there isn't any in the Universe most of us inhabit. :snicker:

 

[Old Bob]

Dear Old Bob,



war on "an as yet unrisen foe, to be named later".

And there is no such thing as the House of Gothenburg. As already noted, it was the House of Saxe-Coburg, and they openly changed the name because of anti-German sentiment in 1917.

Sorry your right memory lapse, but it was a German name. But the secret docurment was signed by the UK & USA which gave W.C. his war in 1939, isn't that the subject.? Bong was nice, thanks.

 

[Drewbot]

Winston Churchill had a hand in some of the botched naval maneuvers in WW1 I believe, I seem to remember him running 6 or 7 battleships into a minefield off the coast of Turkey or something like that. Galipoli maybe? At worst he could be cited for imcompetence there.

Part of the industrial bombing strategy was to make sure that the workforce didn't get to the factories, so, while they may not have blown up the critical area of a plant, they could make it extremely treacherous for an employee to get to the plant. I think the book I read that in is called "Flying Fortress", But I also read an 8th air force book recently and can't remember the name of it.

 

[Drewbot]

2WW was initiated by the British in 1926 and it took 13 years to get going. Churchill wanted war and yes even though he is in our family tree(outer limb) he was a war crim. The victors always make it sound good for themselves. He used to stand in his back garden yelling and shaking his fist at the sky "Why won't they come" If Germany was so bad why did Hilter hold his Army back letting the british troops escape at Dunkirk.?

Churchill wanted war? or he wanted to enforce the treaty that the Germans had no intention of adhering to? Could it not be argued that he was trying to prevent a World War type scenario, by trying to engage a then-weaker Germany, and enforce the treaties that were being ignored?

As far as the Germans not closing the Dunkirk deal, Is that a rhetorical question? or do you really know some reasons? Because I am thinking of a few reasons they didn't Destroy the Dunkirk Evacuation.
1. Beachhead Under Air Protection from Brit. Isles
2. Ineffective German naval resources in the area
3. Lack of heavy armor for final assault, The blitzkrieg troops/tanks were made for dynamic battles of large movements, fighting a dug-in enemy w/backs to the beach, is no place for light tanks

Am I forgetting any?

 

[Old Bob]

Churchill wanted war? or he wanted to enforce the treaty that the Germans had no intention of adhering to? Could it not be argued that he was trying to prevent a World War type scenario, by trying to engage a then-weaker Germany, and enforce the treaties that were being ignored?

As far as the Germans not closing the Dunkirk deal, Is that a rhetorical question? or do you really know some reasons? Because I am thinking of a few reasons they didn't Destroy the Dunkirk Evacuation.
1. Beachhead Under Air Protection from Brit. Isles
2. Ineffective German naval resources in the area
3. Lack of heavy armor for final assault, The blitzkrieg troops/tanks were made for dynamic battles of large movements, fighting a dug-in enemy w/backs to the beach, is no place for light tanks

Am I forgetting any?

Direct order from Hilter who said "let them escape" As far as I know no air cover and civilian boats picked up lots of troops from the beach while the Germany armies stood back. Hitler didn't want war with England, but England makes a living out of hu-man misery.

 

[Lonewulf]

Direct order from Hilter who said "let them escape" As far as I know no air cover and civilian boats picked up lots of troops from the beach while the Germany armies stood back. Hitler didn't want war with England, but England makes a living out of hu-man misery.

I see. And, of course, you have no evidence of this (Just, as you so wonderfully call it, "facts"... methinks you don't know what that word means)...

And England makes a living out of "hu-man misery", but the guy that urged on the murder of 11 million people was totally a humanitarian.

 

[Agatha]

But the secret docurment was signed by the UK & USA which gave W.C. his war in 1939, isn't that the subject.?

A genuine document such as you describe would turn the history of the 1920s upside down.

Given Calvin Coolidge's support for the Kellogg-Briand pact, for him declare war (on whom?) in 1926 would be quite remarkable.

And where was this document signed? Did Coolidge travel to Britain or did King George V travel to America?

Does this document exist outside your imagination, Bob?

 

[Zep]

Folks, I suspect Bob is genuinely believing what he says here. It's all in his head, but it is all REAL in his head, if you get my drift.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Wow. Interesting thread.

Moon, like so many of his threads of late, walks into a room and takes an intellectual crap right on the floor and leaves it for all to see.
He does come back to check on it later...possibly to admire the stench and see how many people are covering their noses in horror.

Most everyone comments on how bad it smells and wonder why somebody would do that.

Along comes OldBob who picks it up, admires it, and sculpts a mountain out of it like Dreyfus in CEOT3K.

"This is important! This means something!"

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

1. Beachhead Under Air Protection from Brit. Isles
2. Ineffective German naval resources in the area
3. Lack of heavy armor for final assault, The blitzkrieg troops/tanks were made for dynamic battles of large movements, fighting a dug-in enemy w/backs to the beach, is no place for light tanks

Am I forgetting any?

Well, the thing is when people think of Dunkirk, they look at it from the hindsight point of view instead of the point of view of the German high command at the time. If we re-focus to the alternate view point we see:


1. Our primary goal is to defeat the French army and conquer France
2. We have driven a wedge straight to the sea, dividing the British and Belgian from the French army.
3. The British and Belgians are trapped between our armies and the sea, they are too weak to break out and threaten our northern flank
4. Thus they no longer pose a threat to the invasion of France
5. The ground around Dunkirk is 'bocage'. Small fields, dense hedgerow and ditches. This is totally unsuitable for tanks.
6. Experience in Poland has shown that built up areas are death-traps for tanks
7. The majority of our army is horse-drawn. We have only a few panzer divisions
8. It is inconceivable that even a small fraction of the BEF could be rescued by an improvised evacuation in the few days it would take for our non-motorised troops to pinch out their pocket of resistance.
9. All heavy equipment would in any case have to be abandoned by the BEF. They will loose all their trucks, armour and guns.
10. The majority of France remains unconquered, as does the French army and air force. These are our primary objectives and also the primary threat to Germany.

- Given the above, it would be unnecessary and imprudent to risk a panzer division to take Dunkirk. It would be better to assign Dunkirk to our non-motorised troops and re-direct the panzer division to continue the invasion of France.


Point 8 is particularly salient. Even the British did not anticipate the rescue of more than 50,000 troops. The Germans would have thought that number greatly exaggerated. Its not called the "Miracle of Dunkirk" for nothing.

As things were it was bad enough. Although the majority were evacuated, the entire BEF had been summarily expelled from the continent in a matter of weeks and had lost all their heavy equipment- tanks, transport, artillery. Everything. Many of those that did make it home, made in nothing but their boots and the uniforms they were wearing. They didn’t even have their rifles.

 

[MG1962]

Well, the thing is when people think of Dunkirk, they look at it from the hindsight point of view instead of the point of view of the German high command at the time. If we re-focus to the alternate view point we see:

Aside from your list, I have seen a comment a couple of times, but no reference to its source that Hitler was cautioned by both his generals and RKO that the advance had a little too well and there were concerns that the German spearhead may be being drawn into a trap

Along with the reasons you gave, German forces paused for a few days till they could gather sufficient intelligence to see if this was a reality or their tactics had really just worked that well.

 

[Drewbot]

Right-
If Hitler had known 4 or 5 Divisions were going to escape to england, and be used later in the war, he probably would have made more of an effort to eliminate the evacuation.

Also- If Hitler would have known that such a military catastrophe, as having your army thrown back into the see, would actually be seen as a morale-lifting miracle by the British people, he probably would have eliminated the evac.

Taking hindsight out of it, is there any thing more humiliating to an army or a government, than having your ARMY PUSHED BACK TO THE SEA? As far as the German generals, they were probably thinking this was the greatest victory in the history of the German army. And saw no need to pursue the beachhead.

 

[drkitten]

Winston Churchill had a hand in some of the botched naval maneuvers in WW1 I believe, I seem to remember him running 6 or 7 battleships into a minefield off the coast of Turkey or something like that. Galipoli maybe? At worst he could be cited for imcompetence there.

Really? Churchill was the watch officer on all seven of the battleships simultaneously?

While I admit Galipoli was a disaster, and there were a lot of things that Churchill did wrong in that particular operation, let's not scapegoat him. It's not merely unreasonable for the First Lord of the Admiralty to be responsible for the navigation and watch-keeping of every individual ship in the fleet, it's physically impossible.

 

[MG1962]

Really? Churchill was the watch officer on all seven of the battleships simultaneously?

While I admit Galipoli was a disaster, and there were a lot of things that Churchill did wrong in that particular operation, let's not scapegoat him. It's not merely unreasonable for the First Lord of the Admiralty to be responsible for the navigation and watch-keeping of every individual ship in the fleet, it's physically impossible.

Thats a very simplistic view. The Admiralty warned him of the danger. Hitting the mines had nothing to do with watch keeeping. The ships were heavily engaged by the coastal forts, who ranged in on them suprisingly quickly. The ships were trying to manouver in narrow waters under fire. The result was sadly innevitable.

 

[drkitten]

Thats a very simplistic view.

Yes, sometimes the truth is surprisingly simple.

The Admiralty warned him of the danger.

This may surprise you, but sometimes the military is required to operate in dangerous circumstances. Believe it or not, the bad guys have ammunition for their guns, and sometimes the good guys actually get shot!

The key word is "operate." There are procedures for how ships are supposed to "operate," procedures which were not followed in Galipoli. Historians have discussed (at length) whether the operational failures were really that great given the tremendous strategic failure -- i.e. the troops shouldn't have been sent there in the first place. But the Navy didn't do an especially good job of getting them there, and that's the fault of the operation commanders, not the First Lord.

 

[MG1962]

The key word is "operate." There are procedures for how ships are supposed to "operate," procedures which were not followed in Galipoli. Historians have discussed (at length) whether the operational failures were really that great given the tremendous strategic failure -- i.e. the troops shouldn't have been sent there in the first place. But the Navy didn't do an especially good job of getting them there, and that's the fault of the operation commanders, not the First Lord.

Those who had to deal with the aftermath dont seem to hold your opinion

http://www.diggerhistory2.info/graveyards/pages/history/report.htm

 

[drkitten]

Those who had to deal with the aftermath dont seem to hold your opinion

Actually, they do. Please re-read your own source. I don't see the word "minefield" in there; they are specifically NOT criticizing the high command for operational failures and losses, but for strategic failures.

 

[fuelair]

I Whereas old Fatty Lispy Bulldog had specifically recommended, in writing, its use against Kurdish tribes.

One of the rules of warfare is make the other side fight on your terms. If they refuse, change the terms. Tribes that choose to spread out and attack from ambush are hittable by poison/otherwise damaging gasses from the air without damage to your own troops (from the ground, as Hitler would have observed, gas was almost as likely to hit the troops of the releaser of it as the other side)so that's what Churchill responded to. You cannot allow the enemy any chances you can avoid.