Face Off: De Valera vs Churchill

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, but the French and British were culprits – not saviours - in that destruction. If they had kept out of things and allowed Germany to go to war with Russia this would have resulted in a far better outcome for Europe. Hitler hated communism and wanted to smash it - letting him attempt this would have been better for Europe. Both forces were becoming - in due process - better matched to each other and the end result would have been a weaker Germany AND Soviet Union. The British and French actions actually contributed to a larger and more dominant Soviet Union at war's end and a divided Europe with the “Iron Curtin” as Churchill called it, but side stepped his own culpability by cleverly writing the history himself.

I take it you are quoting that from Buchanan, because that sounds very much like you are saying Nazi Germany wasn't ll that bad.

You might want to think about what you have just written.

Edit: why not open up a thread on the WWII forum (A sub forum of the Military fora) and see what they have to say there. it would make an interesting discussion.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I take it you are quoting that from Buchanan, because that sounds very much like you are saying Nazi Germany wasn't ll that bad.

Let me categorically state that Nazi Germany was evil - there is absolutely no doubt about that. In fact this very evil is the very reason that discussing it becomes so emotive and has been so academically difficult. The problem for many historians is maintaining that position -i.e. that the Nazis were a very sick, heinous bunch - while describing what might have been a better outcome for eastern Europe.

Don't know that you are right about Buchanan - I have never heard him say anything but negative things about the Nazis. Just saw a recent interview done in his personal library in his home in which he repeated this. BTW his was one of the lone voices in the US that hit hard at Bush - and Blair- over the Iraq war and is supportive of a Palestinian homeland but this does not make him a "Nazi" - anyway I never heard him say anything that would suggest this. I certainly don't share his views on a lot of stuff, too far to the right for me - but I think he is a good compiler of issues and a careful researcher.
.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Edit: why not open up a thread on the WWII forum (A sub forum of the Military fora) and see what they have to say there. it would make an interesting discussion.

Yes, it might but you can see how emotive the issue is - and how misconceptions can dominate.

There is an interesting publication on the issues of the origins of WWII and Taylor's research :

http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Second-World-Reconsidered-J-P/dp/0415163250/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232369528&sr=8-3

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, it might but you can see how emotive the issue is - and how misconceptions can dominate.

There is an interesting publication on the issues of the origins of WWII and Taylor's research :

http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Second-World-Reconsidered-J-P/dp/0415163250/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232369528&sr=8-3

Someone had to win WWII. it was either going to be Germany, or the alternative. You could argue that if the Allies had not opened up the western front, Russia would have completely dominated europe right up to the Western borders of Germany itself, making it even stronger than it was. the alternative, Germany winning is not worth considering. Where would Germany have stopped?

If you scroll down to the botom of the link you gave, there is a very useful comment that is highly critical of Taylor's work btw.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you scroll down to the botom of the link you gave, there is a very useful comment that is highly critical of Taylor's work btw.

Yes, I am well aware of that - here and in other places - and saw that comment. But I am not looking to put forward a single view - just open up the dialogue - it all adds to the discussion which should be more open than it has been.

deadhead13

There was a very real threat of another civil war if Ireland had made moves to join the war

tricky D

Meanwhile, in relation to Irish 'neutrality'...

Neutral Ireland's secret war

McArmalite

MarchDub wrote: »

Fratton - What you are doing is simply repeating the ususal - and well worn - arguments of why the war happened. You ought to check out the later work of historians who have challenged this propagandised version of events. I would suggest you look at the work of John Charmley and AJP Taylor and even Pat Buchannan [who has recently done an excellent job at compiling all the research together].

Chamberlain was out-voiced by Churchill and the so called "war party" within the British government at the time and ultimately went against his own better judgment. Some of his private correspondence on the issue is revealing for how "shamed" he was made to feel over his previous stand. In fact, in many modern historical quarters Chamberlain is no longer the bête noire of British policy that he was painted to be by Churchill and other war propagandists. And the Polish leadership was woeful - they took full advantage of the foolish war guarantee made by the British at a time when the Brits in fact had insufficient ground forces to back up their crazed promise.

As for Kenya - Jeez, historians are only just really getting to that one. The amount of files that were destroyed by the British on their departure has left it a formidable challenge but recently work by Caroline Elkins at Harvard has revealed the bloodbath that the British engaged in and again - the propaganda that covered up what was really going on there. Like NI and other places that they destroyed they tried to make it look like an internal struggle and not a Brits Vs the nationalists. In other words, same old, same old...

" Fratton - What you are doing is simply repeating the ususal - and well worn - arguments " Yes MarchDub, that's our Fred for you. If britain's offical line was that the the earth is flat, then it is flat would be his line :rolleyes:.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

" Fratton - What you are doing is simply repeating the ususal - and well worn - arguments " Yes MarchDub, that's our Fred for you. If britain's offical line was that the the earth is flat, then it is flat would be his line :rolleyes:.

isn't there something in the rules about attacking the post, not the poster?

Maybe you could give us your opinion on march Dubs opinion that europe would be better of if Germany had won the war.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

isn't there something in the rules about attacking the post, not the poster?

Maybe you could give us your opinion on march Dubs opinion that europe would be better of if Germany had won the war.

An outrageous comment - I never said such a thing. What i said was the war ought not to be been fought in the first place, that Britain and France made a mistake that ended up with their own individual demise - and then Germany and the Soviet Union would have essentially destroyed each other this saving eastern Europe from the hell hole they fell into.

You really are pathetic - if you lose an argument you either resort to name calling or lies and distortions... or maybe you are simply unable to follow a complex discussion? Sad, either way...

sock puppet

MarchDub wrote: »

An outrageous comment - I never said such a thing. What i said was the war ought not to be been fought in the first place, that Britain and France made a mistake that ended up with their own individual demise - and then Germany and the Soviet Union would have essentially destroyed each other this saving eastern Europe from the hell hole they fell into.

You really are pathetic - if you lose an argument you either resort to name calling or lies and distortions... or maybe you are simply unable to follow a complex discussion? Sad, either way...

And where would this war have been fought? They might have destroyed each other but not before leveling everything that stood between them.

Armin_Tamzarian

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Maybe you could give us your opinion on march Dubs opinion that europe would be better of if Germany had won the war.

This is an excellent, informative thread but that's a pretty outrageous, baseless comment.
It seems pretty clear that marchDub's point was that it would have been better if Germany and Russia were left to fight each other and wear each other down before Britain got involved, if needed.

Armin_Tamzarian

sock puppet wrote: »

And where would this war have been fought? They might have destroyed each other but not before leveling everything that stood between them.

But nothing stood between them, after they both invaded Poland
and split it between them.

SirHenryGrattan

Deedsie wrote: »

Does anyone think it could have at least helped bring Unionists and Nationalists together if we had joined in with them saying we are all Irish and we'll fight together for this noble cause?

Perhaps unionist distrust of Ireland could have been reduced if we fought with them?

I dont think it would have resulted in a united Ireland but perhaps the civil rights issues may have been avoided?

That's a good question but the answer is invariably no, not just in Ireland but in most conflicts. American Civil War. Generals who once fought together fight against each other. Russia V NATO after WW2. And what about all those NI Nationalists that fought with the British military during WW2? Did them absolutely no good.

SirHenryGrattan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why would Britain have invaded Ireland, when the Irish had already gone running home to mummy to ask for help if the Germans attacked? (Some things never change do they)

Good job Britain didn't captiulate eh, things might look a bit different today if they had.

I seem to remember Australia appealing to the USA for help when Churchill refused to send Aussie troops home to defend Australia from the Japs so "running to mummy" was not unusual.

The war in the European theatre was effectively won and lost on the Eastern Front where the Russians broke the back of the Nazi war machine. It's ironic but we have the Russians to thank for preserving democracy in Europe.

SirHenryGrattan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Balfour declaration of 1926 signalled the end of empire, not Hitler.

30 years too early. Suez 1956. Then Britain realised She could not afford the Empire or at least afford to defend it.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

An outrageous comment - I never said such a thing. What i said was the war ought not to be been fought in the first place, that Britain and France made a mistake that ended up with their own individual demise - and then Germany and the Soviet Union would have essentially destroyed each other this saving eastern Europe from the hell hole they fell into.

You really are pathetic - if you lose an argument you either resort to name calling or lies and distortions... or maybe you are simply unable to follow a complex discussion? Sad, either way...

I thought we had agreed not to resort to name calling?

In one post you are saying that Britain and France should never have got involved in WWII, you go on to say that their participation created a stronger soviet union. Their involvement led Poland to not concede Danzig and therefore their invasion and yet you then go on to claim that Germany was only interested in the Soviet Union, how the hell were they going to get there, Ryanair? The long and the short of it is that Poland was ****ed, with or with or British and French support.

You claim that Germany would have crushed the Soviet Union, which is certainly true, especially considering they would have launched their attack earlier in the year and without having to leave a significant amount of men and equipment in northern France, Greece and North Africa and the Russians would have not had the benefit of the Arctic convoys.
So, what would have been left? Would Hitler have just gone away once he had defeated the Russians?

Maybe, rather than resorting to name calling and throwing your toys out of the pram, you could give a reasoned, logical view on how WWII would have panned out, rather than looking for various disjointed reasons why Britain was a “Culprit”.

Fratton Fred

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

The war in the European theatre was effectively won and lost on the Eastern Front where the Russians broke the back of the Nazi war machine. It's ironic but we have the Russians to thank for preserving democracy in Europe.

how long would russia have lasted if the Germans had attacked earlier in the year and with an extra one million men, planes etc? There were also huge supply convoys from the US and britian to russia that helped keep them afloat. Yes the war was effectively won and lost on the eatern front, but the russians were not fighting alone.

SirHenryGrattan wrote: »

30 years too early. Suez 1956. Then Britain realised She could not afford the Empire or at least afford to defend it.

i would have called that the final nail in the coffin personally.

Svenolsen

The Nazis were never Neutral towards anyone.

They would have chewed up Ireland if they got half a chance.

Ask the Dutch,Belgians,Danes,Norwegians and Poles etc:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/invasion_of_norway_1940.htm

.