Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Britain should have kept out of World War II.
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Smithington



Joined: 14 Dec 2011

PostPosted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:59 pm    Post subject: Britain should have kept out of World War II. Reply with quote

Recently I've been thinking about major wars that the West should not have fought. The Vietnam and Iraq wars are classic examples. But I'm increasingly convinced that the UK should have kept out of WWII. What did it gain? Nothing at all. The war devastated the British economy and cost Britain its empire. For what? To honor a rediculous treaty with far-off Poland? How did that work out in the end? Poland ended up as a Soviet satellite state. Churchill for the fail! Confused

And let's remember that the Wehrmacht was going east. In short, it was heading away from the UK. Who in their right mind sees a hungry tiger walking away from their village, then throws stones at it, effectively directing its attention back to one's own village? That's effectively what happened. Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. And it did so as Hitler was looking to expand into the East....The Brits should have let the two totalitarian regimes knock each other out.

Winston Churchill, in my opinion, was a failed prime minister. WWII was a war Britain should have kept out of. And Churchill should be condemned for dragging the UK into it. Instead he's lionized as a great leader.

Do you think the afore-mentioned village lionized the retard who threw stones at that tiger?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rollo



Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh well. do you really think Britain would have stayed independent if the Germans controlled the entire continenet. Only a matter of time until they fell. There was no choice. None what so ever. the tiger was loose and they were next. Have you read any european history. do you know the difference between Iraq, vietnam and WWII. Big differences between all three.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dairyairy



Joined: 17 May 2012
Location: South Korea

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chamberlain was the one who declared war. Churchill didn't take over until later and he certainly led a successful war effort.

If anything the argument could be made that if England had intervened earlier, say when the Rhineland was remilitarized by Germany in 1936, then the war could have been postponed. Handing over Czechoslovakia was the biggest blunder. But Chamberlain didn't have the balls to stand up to Hitler.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
young_clinton



Joined: 09 Sep 2009

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:15 am    Post subject: Re: Britain should have kept out of World War II. Reply with quote

Smithington wrote:
Recently I've been thinking about major wars that the West should not have fought. The Vietnam and Iraq wars are classic examples. But I'm increasingly convinced that the UK should have kept out of WWII. What did it gain? Nothing at all. The war devastated the British economy and cost Britain its empire.


The British lost it's empire to nationalism. The empire was a drain on Britain anyway and they would have been a lot better off losing it a long time before. Humanity gained by Britain remaining in the war. World War II was a war to save humanity. Even the Dalai Lama said it was a necessary war.


Smithington wrote:
And let's remember that the Wehrmacht was going east. In short, it was heading away from the UK. Who in their right mind sees a hungry tiger walking away from their village, then throws stones at it, effectively directing its attention back to one's own village? That's effectively what happened. Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. And it did so as Hitler was looking to expand into the East....The Brits should have let the two totalitarian regimes knock each other out.
Hitler wanted to liquidate the Polish and turn the Russians into agrarian slaves. The Soviet Union actually saved Poland. Britain and France declared war after it was determined that Hitler was a dangerous liar. He would have invaded the UK eventually. Because of the declaration of war he was unable to. The UK started to remilitarize with fighter planes at a much greater rate than the Germans and possibly saved the British. Also the British declaration of war brought in the USA in terms of supplying materials to both the British and the Soviets. The US in no way wanted the British to surrender to the Nazis.

Smithington wrote:
Winston Churchill, in my opinion, was a failed prime minister. WWII was a war Britain should have kept out of. And Churchill should be condemned for dragging the UK into it. Instead he's lionized as a great leader.

Do you think the afore-mentioned village lionized the retard who threw stones at that tiger?


You have a very odd revisionist aspect in how you view World War II. I kind of suspect you have been reading Neo Nazi literature, maybe on the internet. Churchill in fact was sacked in favor of Anthony Eden after the war, but it is clear that actions did a lot to bring defeat on the Nazis and Japanese.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alistaircandlin



Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought the OP might be interested in this debate on Intelligence2:

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/neville-chamberlain/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rollo



Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Churchills remark to Chamberlain" You had a choice between peace or war, you choice peace and guaranteed war' Chamberlain gave Cheksloslovakia away without a fight. That gave Hitler the Skoda works to build his Panzer army. It also put his armies closer to Russia.

Yes they threw Churchhill out when the war ended installed Eden who had been churchill's partner in running Britain. Churchill had ran the war and Eden had run the domestic side. Churchill was seen as a warior and not a peactime leader. If Britain does not join in. russia would have fallen then those 100 tank divisions come after England.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cabeza



Joined: 29 Sep 2012

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Debating "what ifs" in history is fun, but pointless.

Who knows what would have happened.

Would Hitler have stopped at Poland? I doubt it.
Would he have moved against the USSR pre June 1941? Who Knows. Maybe.
Would a Wehrmacht that didn't have to worry about it's Western flank, have been able to defeat the USSR? There's a subject for about 50 books.
Would Hitler turn west eventually anyway? Most probably.
Would Japan have still attacked the US, thus bringing the US into the war against Nazi Germany. ...?

Would an unmatched and unimpeded Nazi Germany have rolled into Russia, taken Moscow and Stalingrad, continued eastward and swept across the great steppe until they saw the Pacific Ocean, thus ushering a period of German hegomny across the Eurasian continent, changing history forever, threatening the US mainland itself, thereby accelerating the US's nuclear ambitions, stopping at nothing to halt the evil Germanic wave that sat just across the Bearing strait, ensuring a future of nuclear winter for us all? Yes. By which I mean, no.

Remember that movie/book "Fatherland"? The movie was pretty rubbish, but it offered a pretty good idea of what may have happened if the British were defeated or never entered the war.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ombeach



Joined: 10 Aug 2009

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ignore the invasion of Poland - and turn a blind eye to the aftermath of genocide?

I'm glad Britain didn't do that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Died By Bear



Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If the Germans ran the world, we wouldn't have all this terrorism now. We'd have much better infrastructure too. German and Jap cars would RULE!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Newbie



Joined: 07 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OP was a joke right?

A kind of "I'm going to post the stupidest thing I could think of and see how people react", right? I hope! Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All detailed in Pat Buchanan's book "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War"

http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/0307405168

A great read.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
northway



Joined: 05 Jul 2010

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All war is unnecessary. This should go without saying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

northway wrote:
All war is unnecessary. This should go without saying.


This is based on the premise that outside actors are rational and benevolent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
northway



Joined: 05 Jul 2010

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
northway wrote:
All war is unnecessary. This should go without saying.


This is based on the premise that outside actors are rational and benevolent.


This is based on the premise that nation states should have little grounding in reality and that wars re pretty much always fought for elite interests.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

northway wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
northway wrote:
All war is unnecessary. This should go without saying.


This is based on the premise that outside actors are rational and benevolent.


This is based on the premise that nation states should have little grounding in reality and that wars re pretty much always fought for elite interests.


But given that there is massive amounts of ethnic cleansing in history, which affects people of all social strata, which means that wars may start for elite interests, but affect all levels.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International