|[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]|
|Subject: yeah, yeah.|
|[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Date Posted: 09:17:59 01/13/05 Thu
In reply to: Aussie 's message, "Churchill sucked" on 08:42:46 01/13/05 Thu
'not the world, USA did that, besdies only europe and africa were threatened'
Rubbish. So Hitler had no interest in dominating anywhere outside Europe and Africa, didn't he? And so the world would have been fine if 'only' Europe and Africa had become Nazi? Talk about insularity.
And it is also a ridiculous re-writing of history to say that Britain didn't stand up for the world and the 'USA did that'. Crap. The British Empire was struggling to defend itself globally while fighting the Nazis in Europe and Africa. It was a classic case of overstretch, but that doesn't mean Britain made no attempt to defend the rest of the world or somehow was only acting in its own or 'Europe's' interest. Bollocks revisionism.
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
|[> [> Subject: What did Churchill suck?|
Ed Harris (London)
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 10:34:12 01/13/05 Thu
I think you'll find that Britain, Canada, Australia and NZ joined the war when other countries were threatened and invaded: Poland, Belgium, France, Scandinavia, all that mob. On the other hand, the Americans didn't join until they were actually attacked. This, of course, is their prerogative and they can not seriously be criticised for wanting to stay out of other people's conflicts so soon after WWI. On the other hand, it does make it a bit rich to suggest that Churchill's Britain was only interested in Britain and not the destruction of national socialist tyranny.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
Forum timezone: GMT+0|
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2012 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.