Started By
Message

re: The True History of the Jonestown Cult, WWII, and How Winston Churchill Ruined Europe

Posted on 9/3/24 at 8:32 pm to
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
84603 posts
Posted on 9/3/24 at 8:32 pm to
quote:

I know I have read it in more than one book and no one seemed to think that was an outlandish statement. It's been well understood for years that Churchill was playing to get the US involved. That's no conspiracy theory.


He was playing to get the US involved because it was very plausible that he’d be fighting Germans in 1941 somewhat on his terms hopefully with his big brother with him or in 1946-47 after they’d conquered the men and materiel of the continent and were in a much stronger position to focus solely on GB and who knows where the Americans would be.
This post was edited on 9/3/24 at 8:32 pm
Posted by Pandy Fackler
Member since Jun 2018
21114 posts
Posted on 9/3/24 at 8:44 pm to
I read all that, and it's obvious the guy is trying to intellectually discuss difficult and sensitive subject matter that challenges conventional historical thought. It's easy to trip and klutz it up a little.

History is seldom as simple as good and evil, right and wrong. I get the overall point he's trying to make and I appreciate alternative historical thought.
Posted by Pandy Fackler
Member since Jun 2018
21114 posts
Posted on 9/3/24 at 8:52 pm to
quote:

quote:
Hitler was eager to make peace with the UK. The terms would probably have been generous.


Does he have primary documents to support this or is it supposition?


This is a good question.
Posted by Toomer Deplorable
Team Bitter Clinger
Member since May 2020
23773 posts
Posted on 9/3/24 at 8:54 pm to
quote:

Churchill was an opportunist and war monger.



Churchill was a staunch anti-communist — except when he wasn’t. Indeed, Churchill’s famous lamentation over an “Iron Curtain” descending over much of Eastern Europe was in large part facilitated by Churchill’s secretly negotiated “percentage agreement” with “Uncle Joe” Stalin:



In truth, Churchill was first and foremost an Imperialist: his moral convictions swelled or slumped based on what was best for the continuation of British militaristic hegemony after WWII. This is well and fine if Empire is your thing yet the incessant conservative mythology of Churchill being some stalwart defender of small “r” republican values is utterly absurd and antihistorical.

Posted by OBReb6
Memphissippi
Member since Jul 2010
41553 posts
Posted on 9/3/24 at 8:57 pm to
quote:

This is a good question.


No one knows because Churchill refused over and over to hear the terms
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 9/3/24 at 9:16 pm to
quote:

I can tell you why the West looks the way it does despite winning a World War. Because you sacrificed the wrong dmn people. They are still here. Hence why they won't allow a large group of white individuals to come together because they are afraid they will finish the job. Take that with a grain of salt.


I know who you are alluding to and it’s not them. Read Revelation 3:9.
Posted by Lima Whiskey
Member since Apr 2013
22594 posts
Posted on 9/3/24 at 9:21 pm to
The British were seriously compromised by Soviet agents and Soviet sympathizers. And it was true up and down the chain of command.

Peter Kemp, the SOE agent who operated in Yugoslavia during the war, talked about how Soviets sympathizers in the command tried to get him killed. He had the same problem with his erstwhile allies on the ground as well though, and it was a miracle he made it out alive.

Kemp was a monarchist and had fought with the Requetés in Spain, and the partisans hated him for it.

Fitzroy Maclean is a good example of what the problem looked like though, and he was someone who had direct contact with Churchill.

Under his direction the Britain sidelined the royalists and the nationalists, and backed the communists instead. The communists for their part avoided fighting the Germans, preferring to save their resources for the post war civil war that they planned on winning.
This post was edited on 9/3/24 at 10:59 pm
Posted by OU Guy
Member since Feb 2022
25082 posts
Posted on 9/3/24 at 9:26 pm to
quote:

I have not either. I have no reason to believe, based on the other things I said, they would be unreasonable

But the biggest and most glaring reason they should have accepted peace is the fact it was literally impossible for them to achieve a victory without the United States, who at the time was not their ally. And wasn’t one for another year and a half.

How can you justify “bargaining” when you have no chips? Churchill was bloodthirsty and we should have never been in the war, and we wouldn’t have been had it not been for him and his mind numbing stubbornness and deceit.


Had they settled it would have been Germanys terms. The bigger issue is had England opted out it allows Germany to fight Russia on one front and win. Once they take out Russia its onward to world conquest. Britton fighting meant Germany couldn’t focus solely on Russia.

And Hitler was so confident in his air force he decided to use it solely. And Britton was able to outflank him due to radar and better fighters. But they were practically out of fighters when tactics were changed to city bombing vice airfields. This gave Britton time to build and repair enough fighters.

The key point was Britton staying in the war (vice settle) kept Germany from taking Russia and therefore the rest. Eventually they would have then used the resources to rebuild and come to the US via Mexico.
Posted by Toomer Deplorable
Team Bitter Clinger
Member since May 2020
23773 posts
Posted on 9/3/24 at 9:40 pm to
quote:

No one knows because Churchill refused over and over to hear the terms


Roosevelt’s and Churchill’s dogged insistence on “unconditional surrender” with Germany without doubt prolonged the war. By 1943, an increasing number in the Wehrmacht high command were coming to the correct conclusion that German was not only going to lose the war but the Russians would not stop until they marched to the Brandenburg Gates.

If the allies had been willingly to accept a negotiated peace with military factions opposed to Hitler, we very likely would have seen more military officers willingly to risk their neck in a putsch against Hitler. The insistence on “unconditional surrender” in many ways empowered Hitler and virtually ensured that Eastern Europe and much of Germany would be Sovietized.
Posted by Toomer Deplorable
Team Bitter Clinger
Member since May 2020
23773 posts
Posted on 9/3/24 at 10:09 pm to
quote:

The British were seriously compromised by Soviet agents and Soviet sympathizers. And it was true up and down the chain of command.



The same was true of the Roosevelt administration. John le Carre based the main plot-line of his novel Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy on the “Cambridge Five” nest of Soviet spies.

I recently rewatched Alec Guinness’ portrayal of George Smiley in the BBC adaptation of the novel. It is the greatest spy movie ever made: “It was a marvelous turn, old sport.”



Posted by Lima Whiskey
Member since Apr 2013
22594 posts
Posted on 9/3/24 at 11:18 pm to
quote:

I recently rewatched Alec Guinness’ portrayal of George Smiley in the BBC adaptation of the novel. It is the greatest spy movie ever made: “It was a marvelous turn, old sport.”


Posted by BuckyCheese
Member since Jan 2015
57778 posts
Posted on 9/3/24 at 11:29 pm to
quote:

The same was true of the Roosevelt administration.


Hell, Roosevelt had communists in his cabinet. By choice.


I have to chuckle watching Oppenheimer when they rage about communists while their commander in chief had them in his inner circle as he was a sympathizer himself. It was noted FDR was rather cold towards Churchill at Yalta while he was very friendly with Stalin.
Posted by Stealth Matrix
29°59'55.98"N 90°05'21.85"W
Member since Aug 2019
11091 posts
Posted on 9/4/24 at 5:08 am to
At least the UK isn't speaking German

It's just speaking Polish, Punjabi, Urdu, Bengali, Sylheti, Gujarati, Arabic, Mandarin.......
Posted by dafif
Member since Jan 2019
7943 posts
Posted on 9/4/24 at 6:51 am to
quote:

It's called protecting your backside.


So Germany would have all of Europe but England would be ok

Posted by 632627
LA
Member since Dec 2011
14691 posts
Posted on 9/4/24 at 7:03 am to
quote:


So proud of TC to have Darryl on his podcast. Love more and more people are waking up to the realization so much of what you’ve been told about the last 100 years historically is fake and gay. it’s way past time the history brokers who’ve controlled the narratives get exposed as the frauds they are.


Yes, hundreds of historians have lied to us for decades, but good ol Tucker has now exposed the truth on his YouTube channel.

Hilarious that fools gobble his shite up and don't realize that his form of media thrives on contrarianmism.
Posted by SECSolomonGrundy
Slaughter Swamp
Member since Jun 2012
18090 posts
Posted on 9/4/24 at 7:04 am to
Which parts did you disagree with?
Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
36078 posts
Posted on 9/4/24 at 7:33 am to
Cooper is a must listen to. He brings context and texture to historical events.

He's not saying anything that hasn't been talked about in bits and pieces. He brings them together.

It's interesting as to what he talks about as it pertains to the Germans in WWII and Eastern Europe as it applies to captured Russians and others. My grandfather who served in the British Navy would say much the same thing. " The Germans had all these captured people but they did not know what to do with them. Do you feed them and let Germans starve? I suppose your choices become limited at that point." He did not in any way absolve the Nazis from their deeds, but he said that the British ran into the same problem in Asia during the war but the victims were Indians . It's something that is not really known in America or for that matter throughout Europe. But, Churchill actually created a famine in India during the War because grain needed to be diverted to Europe to feed the troops and populace of the home country
Posted by 632627
LA
Member since Dec 2011
14691 posts
Posted on 9/4/24 at 7:42 am to
quote:

The Germans had all these captured people


These weren't imprisoned POWs or criminals.

The Germans rounded up millions of Jews, gypsies and other citizens deemed subhuman with the intent to wipe them out.

To suggest otherwise is despicable.
Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
36078 posts
Posted on 9/4/24 at 7:52 am to
I'm not suggesting otherwise at all. I'm talking about the mass starvation of Russian POWs. The Jews and Gypsies were separated and isolated and purposely eliminated in a systematic fashion. The architects and functionaries of that policy deserve to spend eternity in in a hot tub of molten lava with Satan inviting his demons to come and inflict hourly torture sessions .
Posted by SECSolomonGrundy
Slaughter Swamp
Member since Jun 2012
18090 posts
Posted on 9/4/24 at 8:24 am to
quote:

the British ran into the same problem in Asia during the war but the victims were Indians .


The British invented concentration camps.

And the British had been starving the Germans for most of 1940. They also starved the Irish. The British Empire is despicable. It's just that the nazis went even farther.

But the media misleads the average viewer into thinking the nazis were a unique brand of evil. But the fact is there were a whole lot of bad actors doing terrible things. The british used concentration camps and chemical weapons. The King of Belgium slaughtered the Congolese like rats, but most people have never heard of Leopold II. The japanese raped their way through China. But we have to be told over and over again how bad the nazis were in order to justify what the british did.
Jump to page
Page First 3 4 5 6 7 ... 18
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 18Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram