@AverageJoe1 saidYou are seriously deluded.
Give up your foolish take on who did what, you are sounding like Sonhouse. At least you don't ask me 'what someone was thinking".
Roosevelt was sitting at his desk, Stalin was thinking about other stuff on his plate, or eating borscht. Churchill is the total reason, the turning point, that, with the late entry of these two guys while he was screaming his ass off, ...[text shortened]... we do, you see, resounds throughout all the world economies. Ask Suzianne if you don't believe me.
@AverageJoe1 saidYou do realise your great wartime hero, Churchill, lost the general election directly after the war, don’t you?
The foundation of the libs on this Forum is found in Contrarianism. That is all they know.
Imagine your saying to Marauder, the glass is half full. OK, everyone, all at once now,,,,One Two....It is Half Empty!!
Am I wrong? For god sakes, they even trash Winston Churchill. He saved Shav's country, Shav trashes him. "Extremely disappointing".
Notice TDS exists ...[text shortened]... ev once said, "We will bury you1". Libs will be left in the dust....the Trump train will leave dust.
There are reasons why that happened. And they weren’t to do with his wartime persona (in which he was actually quite good, with astoundingly brilliant PR and a flair for allowing ungentlemanly warfare to be waged by characters who normally would be in prison).
Nobody is detracting from his WW2 achievements. Except when you say he saved Europe. That’s a madhatter exaggeration.
But what did he do in WW1?
What did he do outside of WW2?
Then you get a picture of the complete man.
Lots of nuance and shades of grey.
If you need heroes, watch Marvel.
@shavixmir saidThere is truth in what you say, and although Churchill was a great wartime leader, he, like all leaders had his flaws and failures.
You do realise your great wartime hero, Churchill, lost the general election directly after the war, don’t you?
There are reasons why that happened. And they weren’t to do with his wartime persona (in which he was actually quite good, with astoundingly brilliant PR and a flair for allowing ungentlemanly warfare to be waged by characters who normally would be in prison). ...[text shortened]... icture of the complete man.
Lots of nuance and shades of grey.
If you need heroes, watch Marvel.
It is also true that he lost the election after the war, but this should be countermeasured by the fact that he was given the largest state funeral in British history,
Churchill's popularity alone wasn't enough to win his party the election. The post war mood had changed and voters wanted social reform, something the Labour Party’s manifesto promised to deliver, including a commitment to full employment, affordable housing, and health care for all. - Who wouldn't want that, after years of war?
@shavixmir saidIf Churchill had sat on his hands in Parliament and not opened his mouth, while Neville Chamberlain was appeasing and bowing to the trickery of Hitler, do you think everything would be OK today???????
You do realise your great wartime hero, Churchill, lost the general election directly after the war, don’t you?
There are reasons why that happened. And they weren’t to do with his wartime persona (in which he was actually quite good, with astoundingly brilliant PR and a flair for allowing ungentlemanly warfare to be waged by characters who normally would be in prison). ...[text shortened]... icture of the complete man.
Lots of nuance and shades of grey.
If you need heroes, watch Marvel.
I don’t how to otherwise phrase this question, fool.
As if you will answer it
@AverageJoe1 saidYes. Everything would much be like today.
If Churchill had sat on his hands in Parliament and not opened his mouth, while Neville Chamberlain was appeasing and bowing to the trickery of Hitler, do you think everything would be OK today???????
I don’t how to otherwise phrase this question, fool.
As if you will answer it
The appeasement would have ended sooner or later. Especially once they invaded Poland, Belgium or France.
Do you think if Hitler hadn’t done Barbarossa, that Britain would have stood a hope in hell?
@shavixmir saidDoes everyone here think that SHav is right, that Hitler's advance to take over all of Europe would have stopped,,,,,,,would hitler have had second thoughts? Wojld Shav be speaking German? Would Shav in effect be a slave? Socialism begets slaving enough as it is.
Yes. Everything would much be like today.
The appeasement would have ended sooner or later. Especially once they invaded Poland, Belgium or France.
Do you think if Hitler hadn’t done Barbarossa, that Britain would have stood a hope in hell?
Who would have stopped Hitler?
@AverageJoe1 saidThe Russians stopped Hitler, you dribbling baffoon.
Does everyone here think that SHav is right, that Hitler's advance to take over all of Europe would have stopped,,,,,,,would hitler have had second thoughts? Wojld Shav be speaking German? Would Shav in effect be a slave? Socialism begets slaving enough as it is.
Who would have stopped Hitler?
Stalingrad was basically the begin of the end of the Nazi regime. From there on in, they were on the retreat. And only because they had to spend most of their resources on the Eastern front, did the allies have a hope in hell of landing in Italy and France.
This being said having the US join the war did Hitler no favours either.
So, without the Russians but taking US manufacturing into account, the Nazis wouldn’t have lasted more than an extra 5 to 8 years.
And if they didn’t have the Eastern front to contend with, they would have invaded England without too much problem.
@shavixmir saidYou speak of physical actions, foxholes, etc.
The Russians stopped Hitler, you dribbling baffoon.
Stalingrad was basically the begin of the end of the Nazi regime. From there on in, they were on the retreat. And only because they had to spend most of their resources on the Eastern front, did the allies have a hope in hell of landing in Italy and France.
This being said having the US join the war did Hitler no fav ...[text shortened]... ’t have the Eastern front to contend with, they would have invaded England without too much problem.
Uhh, who got Stalin off his ass, and got FDR to travel in an uncomfortable wheel-chair journey, to meet at their various summits??????????????
If a man has a successful factory, he has managers running it, the managers making appointments, giving orders. The real man in charge (Churchill),, who calls board meetings (Yalta?) is the man running the big picture.
You should chat more with Sonhouse. He would follow your logic and that the 'people who do the fighting' win the war. So, Churchill had nothing to do with all of the successful warring?
1 edit
@shavixmir saidYou are failing to give credit where it is due. The US is responsible for the victory of the Soviet Union over Hitler. The US was a prolific war manufacturing factory and was was easily the richest nation at that time. The US assisted all the countries who were fighting Hitler.
The Russians stopped Hitler, you dribbling baffoon.
Stalingrad was basically the begin of the end of the Nazi regime. From there on in, they were on the retreat. And only because they had to spend most of their resources on the Eastern front, did the allies have a hope in hell of landing in Italy and France.
This being said having the US join the war did Hitler no fav ...[text shortened]... ’t have the Eastern front to contend with, they would have invaded England without too much problem.
Through the Lend-Lease Act In March 1941, Roosevelt provided weapons, supplies, and raw materials to countries fighting Germany and Japan. The US shipped over $11 billion worth of goods to the Soviet Union, including vehicles, aircraft, tanks, tractors, food, petroleum products, uniforms, and more. The US also sent guns, ammunition, explosives, copper, steel, aluminum, medicine, field radios, radar tools, and books to the Soviet Union. An entire Ford Company tire factory was sent to the Soviet Union. Roosevelt prioritized shipments of aid to the Soviet Union over other uses of available shipping. Stalin said that the US help was critical to winning the war, and that without it, the Soviet Union would have lost.
You hate the US, but give credit for whatever good they do in the world.... ingrate.
@Rajk999 saidThis is a classic thread where a lib comes apart. All of them do. Or they go to gibberish, you know which one that is. Then there is the one who writes tomes of the same subjects over and over.
You are failing to give credit where it is due. The US is responsible for the victory of the Soviet Union over Hitler. The US was a prolific war manufacturing factory and was was easily the richest nation at that time. The US assisted all the countries who were fighting Hitler.
Through the Lend-Lease Act In March 1941, Roosevelt provided weapons, supplies, and raw mater ...[text shortened]... have lost.
You hate the US, but give credit for whatever good they do in the world.... ingrate.
We need new blood.
@Rajk999 said1. I don’t hate the US. I’ve even lived there.
You are failing to give credit where it is due. The US is responsible for the victory of the Soviet Union over Hitler. The US was a prolific war manufacturing factory and was was easily the richest nation at that time. The US assisted all the countries who were fighting Hitler.
Through the Lend-Lease Act In March 1941, Roosevelt provided weapons, supplies, and raw mater ...[text shortened]... have lost.
You hate the US, but give credit for whatever good they do in the world.... ingrate.
2. I did mention the production done by the US.
As for the rest, you talk out your arse.
@AverageJoe1 saidI didn’t say Churchill didn’t have anything to do with winning the war.
You speak of physical actions, foxholes, etc.
Uhh, who got Stalin off his ass, and got FDR to travel in an uncomfortable wheel-chair journey, to meet at their various summits??????????????
If a man has a successful factory, he has managers running it, the managers making appointments, giving orders. The real man in charge (Churchill),, who calls board meetin ...[text shortened]... do the fighting' win the war. So, Churchill had nothing to do with all of the successful warring?
Indeed, I even mentioned many of the good things he did do.
What I am saying is that it wasn’t him who stopped thr Nazis from stomping all over Europe. Because they fvcking well did.
What I am saying is that, in various parts of the world (Scotland & New Zealand for example) he’s not held up as the hero as some of you think he is.
He made a great many mistakes and was a conservative, racist imperialist.