Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>>I know most people would ask if he was the best, but >>I've been listening to some British Historians (David >>Irving) who have a different opinion of the man. They >>say that in 1940 Hitler offered England peace and he >>truly meant it. But Churchill refused and they went to >>war. David Irving and others say that if Churchill had >>accepted, then Hitler would have attacked Stalin and >>the two of them would have duked it out by themselves. >>So the Empire might not have been financially crippled >>and still exist today had it not been for Churchill. >> >>And the theory goes that the English couldn't accept >>that they were so stupid. Thus, they created the myth >>that Britain went to war against Hitler and >>altruistically (not foolishly) sacrificed their Empire >>in the process. If Churchill unnecessarily sacrificed >>Britain's revered Empire, wouldn't that make him the >>worst Briton ever? > >It can be debated but the whole British Island and >Commonwealth was by 1940, if not ready physically, >they were mentally to fight to the end. And even if >Churchill did let is slide, that would go against the >very character of the Empire, to stand down in the >face of a threatening juggernaut. > >So while the Empire may have survived physically, it >would no doubt, have no prestige left, much less any >sense of sacrifice. >Besides, the Empire as it was, offered itself for >sacrifice, we all shared alike. >For he could not know that Hitler would break his pact >with Russia, he could hope and pray for it, with what >Hitler did to the others he had guaranteed, but that >did not release us from our duty to France, and the >Low Countries, to Czechoslovakia, Austria and Poland. > >To make peace at this stage, while we did not know the >horrors Hitler would bring, it would be like making >peace with Napoleon, we were certainly still >interested in not letting one power get hegemony over >the continent. For selfish reasons yes, but it was >still a concern. >If, at this time, he had of talked to Hitler, he would >have been taken out of office by the people no doubt. > > >Another point this chap made was that in the 1920s, >Churchill himself was part of the fund cutting which >he later had to fight against, and that was a fault. >This in nonsense. > >Of course they should have cut back, the threat had >died out for the moment, and if the League of Nations >had of done their job and stopped Hitler, Japan and >Italy, it would have been fine. >Churchill protested strongly the appeasement of >Hitler, WHEN HE WAS IN THE POSITION TO BE A THREAT, >for in the 1920s Hitler was sitting in jail. >He also protested the cutting of funds ONCE THERE WAS >AN OBVIOUS THREAT. > >Churchill was what I consider the last great >Imperialist, he had the Empire's interests on his >mind, our Morales and readiness to sacrifice at heart, >and a will of steel. And, frankly, I consider this >author quite foolish to hint otherwise. > >It was the last hurrah for the Empire, and we made it >glorious.
Choose Message Icon: None :-) Happy ;-) Wink :-D Joy :} Smirk <:-} Innocent ☮ Peace >:) Mischief B-) Shades <3 Heart |O Yawn <:P Sick >:-( Angry :~( Sad ? Question *!* Alert Thumbs Up Thumbs Down (!) Idea [Info] Info Oo. Talk [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.