Re: US Self Defence nut (History derail)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Winston Churchill called for war to start in 1936, TWELVE YEARS LATER?
And you call that wisdom? You astound me.
Although, to you, it probably is.

Apparently you didn't read the other stuff I posted:

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1179420
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 3#p1179423
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 9#p1179429

I wonder what country we would have attacked Germany through, and would they agree to it, or would we have to conquer that country first? Hmmm, practical problems. How inconvenient !
File them under "ignore"

Again, a little reading goes a long ways. I'm guessing the phraseology "in conjunction with France" doesn't mean much to you.

I'm going make the most generous assumption, that you're being deliberately obtuse, and move on. Pearls and swine, and all that -- I'm sure you've heard the aphorism before.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm going make the most generous assumption, that you're being deliberately obtuse, and move on. Pearls and swine, and all that -- I'm sure you've heard the aphorism before.

In his defense, he was simply utterly unprepared to comment cogently on the topic at hand.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm going make the most generous assumption, that you're being deliberately obtuse, and move on. Pearls and swine, and all that -- I'm sure you've heard the aphorism before.

In his defense, he was simply utterly unprepared to comment cogently on the topic at hand.

I'm trying to be nice.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm going make the most generous assumption, that you're being deliberately obtuse, and move on. Pearls and swine, and all that -- I'm sure you've heard the aphorism before.

In his defense, he was simply utterly unprepared to comment cogently on the topic at hand.

I'm trying to be nice.

That was nice.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You seem unable to grasp the fact that Churchill was just an isolated, distrusted politician at the time.
He had a tiny following. His best TACTIC was to keep on about war, because if there was no war, he was insignificant, and would never amount to anything. It was his one chance, and he knew it.

If he had been in power, you would have heard a totally different story from him.
There is no way whatsoever, if he had been Prime Minister in 1936, that he would have declared war.
He may have upped rearmament. That's about it.

And before the war, Churchill always called for greater arms spending, EXCEPT when he was in charge of it, when he actually cut it.

His "histories" were nothing but a re-writing of history, with him as the wise hero.
It's all bollocks.

ps, I just match your tone in my posts. If you prefer a friendly debate, it's not difficult to get one.

You don't seem to understand that I'm mentioning him to rebut your criticism of Seth that an American should second-guess the policy of appeasement, by presenting a Briton who clearly didn't.

As far as hypothetical history, I'm of the opinion that Churchill would probably have worked a little more spine into those around him.

And before the war, Churchill always called for greater arms spending, EXCEPT when he was in charge of it, when he actually cut it.

Also, I didn't realize Churchill had official responsibility for defense spending before the war. Do you have an article on it I can read?

[mistermack]

Apparently you didn't read the other stuff I posted:

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1179420
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 3#p1179423
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 9#p1179429

.

No. You're beginning to bore ME now. Examples of Churchill's wonderful hindsight are really meaningless.
As is your own hindsight.

And both you and Gawdzilla should try to understand that to go to war, you need more than military power, you need political support at home and abroad. I've pointed it out, can't do more than that.

This argument has nowhere to go.
I don't think war was winnable in 1936, and it was politically not on.
I think you're both blind to the fact that nobody knew what was going to happen, or wilfully ignoring it.
You disagree.
You're welcome to disagree. Nobody can prove anything, so it's just futile to keep banging on about it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gee, MM, I didn't know that about war and stuff.

[mistermack]

Gee, MM, I didn't know that about war and stuff.

Well, I am embarrassed to HAVE to state the obvious.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gee, MM, I didn't know that about war and stuff.

Well, I am embarrassed to HAVE to state the obvious.

That's definitely the path less traveled.

[mistermack]

That's definitely the path less traveled.

I don't stick to the path.

[mistermack]

Also, I didn't realize Churchill had official responsibility for defense spending before the war. Do you have an article on it I can read?

This is when Churchill was president of the Board of Trade. In 1908, six years before WW1
( I mention that, because it might confuse an American ) :
I'm not sure that this is the incident that I was recalling though. There may be others.

As President of the Board of Trade he joined newly appointed Chancellor Lloyd George in opposing First Lord of the Admiralty, Reginald McKenna's proposed huge expenditure for the construction of Navy dreadnought warships,......................................
:

This is interesting too, from the same wikipedia page :

As a supporter of eugenics, he participated in the drafting of the Mental Deficiency Act 1913; however, the Act, in the form eventually passed, rejected his preferred method of sterilisation of the feeble-minded in favour of their confinement in institutions.[66]

[Thumpalumpacus]

Apparently you didn't read the other stuff I posted:

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1179420
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 3#p1179423
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 9#p1179429

.

No. You're beginning to bore ME now. Examples of Churchill's wonderful hindsight are really meaningless.
As is your own hindsight.

And both you and Gawdzilla should try to understand that to go to war, you need more than military power, you need political support at home and abroad. I've pointed it out, can't do more than that.

This argument has nowhere to go.
I don't think war was winnable in 1936, and it was politically not on.
I think you're both blind to the fact that nobody knew what was going to happen, or wilfully ignoring it.
You disagree.
You're welcome to disagree. Nobody can prove anything, so it's just futile to keep banging on about it.

You're wrong. You're wrong about Churchill's objection to appeasement being hindsight, you're wrong about British impotence in the 30s, and you're wrong in the fact that not only Americans, but Britons as well criticize appeasement as a failed policy, an opinion borne out by fifty million deaths.

Also, I didn't realize Churchill had official responsibility for defense spending before the war. Do you have an article on it I can read?

This is when Churchill was president of the Board of Trade. In 1908, six years before WW1
( I mention that, because it might confuse an American ) :
I'm not sure that this is the incident that I was recalling though. There may be others.

As President of the Board of Trade he joined newly appointed Chancellor Lloyd George in opposing First Lord of the Admiralty, Reginald McKenna's proposed huge expenditure for the construction of Navy dreadnought warships,......................................
:

Wait, now you're criticizing Churchill because he did not foresee the rise of Hitler twenty-five years before the fact?

Also, Wiki as a source for history? Spare me. Give me some real stuff. Some academic shit. You know, some minutes from the Commons, like I gave you. You know, his own words.

This is interesting too, from the same wikipedia page :

As a supporter of eugenics, he participated in the drafting of the Mental Deficiency Act 1913; however, the Act, in the form eventually passed, rejected his preferred method of sterilisation of the feeble-minded in favour of their confinement in institutions.[66]

So what? We're talking about his opinion on appeasement, not social engineering.

Your flailing is pathetically funny.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We need a tap-dancing smiley.

[FBM]

We need a jeezus tap-dancing christ smiley.

[Thumpalumpacus]

We need a tap-dancing smiley.