Alternate history (long post)
 

I would like your views....

Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles by re-arming in the 1930s. The League of Nations did not act to enforce the treaty, driven in part by a desire to avoid war and in part by a perception that it was inappropriate to meddle in "internal" German activities. On March 7th, 1936 the Rhineland was remilitarized, breaking the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pact. The Munich conference (September 29, 1938) was to ensure "peace in our time" but subsequently the Sudetenland was annexed and then, in direct defiance of the Munich agreement, Czechoslovakia was occupied. (March 1939). As we all know, Poland was invaded on September 1, 1939.

Now, let's say Churchill, not Chamberlain, had been British Prime Minister during the 1930s. Say he had agressively re-armed Britian and had met the remilitarization of the Rhineland with a military campaign to enforce the Treaty of Versailles (despite the member nations of The League of Nations perferring to appease Hitler). Say it was a drawn out war with no easy victory, but did result in Hitler's (and the Nazis') downfall.

Would Churchill be seen as a hero who prevented a World War, or as an imbecilic national leader driven be ideology and aggression who bogged Great Britian down in a prolonged war with no clear exit strategy, a war not unambiguously supported by The League of Nations and hence "illegal"?

He would be the villain...

The most curious fact about WWII is that the Germans were able to take as much territory as they did. In 1940, the English tanks were superior. The allies had more men and material. The Germans used Blitzkrieg because they didn't have the resources to wage prolonged war. It was far more about morale than might.

But once the Allies lost France, and all of the equipment, it took years to re-arm to the point for an invasion of Europe.

But, to your point, a homeowner who is robbed and has a gun and defends himself may or may not be viewed appropriately. One who is attacked, then purchases a gun and exacts revenge is considered a vigilante, worse than the criminal.

But one who buys a gun, installs an alarm system, posts said information, and is never robbed, is considered a paranoid nut job. :eek:

the op is foolishly trying to compare WW2 to Iraq. Nice superficial argument. Winston Churchill's parrot is a greater man than our current president.

"The Americans will always do the right thing...after they've exhausted the alternatives." - Winston Churchill

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1129554901.jpg

And I am sure that doom and gloom Kerry would have been better??? Dream on.

Had Hitler had a heart attack in 1939 before invading Poland he would have gone down as the greatest man in Germany's history. Had he not invaded Russia he would still probably control much of Europe. It was not until his stupid decision to attack Russia that things went downhill, along with his idiotic attempts to eliminate various races in Europe.

Even after the Japanese attacked the US and we came into the mix, winning the war was not a sure thing. If the military divisions that were stalled on the Eastern Front fighting the Russians had been on the beaches at Normandy in 1944, we would probably been thrown back into the ocean.

JoeA

kristalnacht...

yeah...what a great man pre poland.

Who brought up John Kerry? You did.

Read my post again. I mentioned "idiotic attempts to eliminate other races" or did you skim over that part?

You brought up "our current President" in your post and we had only one other choice in the election, or were you holding out for Howard Dean?

I lived in Germany for over 10 years. What is your experience with this country and its people? Am always willing to learn from someone else who is more experienced than I am! Please enlighten us!!

JoeA

I don't think I was being foolish, although I will admit to seeing some similarities. You are, of course, entitled to hold any view of my question you choose. I would be interested in why you think the perceived similarities are foolish. As regards the "greatness" of Churchill vs Bush--I have no direct knowledge of either man, only what I have learnt through the media and history. My point was how much have the circumstances of history affected the commonly held view of each man?

I would have to agree. Many similarities.

The only reason American Democrats got on-board against Hitler was because "Uncle Joe" was being threatened.

Aside from the fact that Iraq wasn't about to invade anyone, and we still don't have any evidence of the wmd thing or their remilitarization (you're comparing to germany right) or there being a significant threat.

Kuwait excepted, of course...;)

Oh, was Iraq about to invade Kuwait? I havn't heard of this yet.

this whole thread went right over your head, didn't it?

Well until this point I didn't think it had. Did I miss a truckload of sarcasm and assume it was a valid comparism? If so, then yep, it went straight through to the keeper.

This exemplifies my point. The general perception in the 1930s was that Germany was not about to invade anyone either. The few voices that were proclaiming the risk (eg, Churchill) were denounced as deluded war-mongers. History treats those that fail to perceive and act against an emerging military threat very harshly: Chamberlain for example. But if pre-emption works (by removing an emerging military threat) you will never know if the threat WAS real or simply imagined.
Fail to act--history condemns you.
Act to remove a potential threat, and be successful--history condemns you.

Another question. You are President / PM / whatever. You are told that a certain group (be it nation or terrorist entity) MAY be preparing a "mass destruction"attack (ie, nuclear-biological-chemical) against one of your main cities. When do you initiate pre-emptive action? When the attack is possible? probable? almost certain? Or do you wait for the collapsing buildings, then take action?

Say what you may about Sir Winston - but he did have a way with words (Moses post).

Interesting...but fatally flawed....as the reasons why action was taken in completely different..

Pre WW2 there was visible, flaunted evidence even of the re-armament...but there was no demonstration of the will to use it.. however once that will had been demonstrated...by a number of 'aggessive' acts; then it became clear that war was the onl option..

Pre GW2 there was no visible and flaunted evidence of rearmament.. secret dossiers were used to justify it all...not all of which seem to match the reality...but there was great posturing about what a big bad mo-fo Saddam was..and prior to GW1 how he was going to kick ass....

Now more often than not the two are inherently linked....as eloquently voice by Teddy R....speak softly but carry a big stick....(the noisy bastards are the ones yuo know won't hurt you....)

I think that Saddam fits into this later category and notwithstanding potential links to 9/11 supporting bodies his real risk was negligible...

And yes Churchill would have been regarded as a reckless warmongerer.. much like in his earlier years and in 1945...when he lost an election.

So...