I’m afraid Churchill was overrated.
His bumbling cost the British their empire, and it is arguable the Jewish holocaust would not have occurred if the Brits had simply let Hitler go after the Ukraine, and to extinguish Bolshevism.’
There is no way he intended to attack the Brits or America, and would have also left France and the rest of Western Europe alone. How do we know this? EASY. He had NO NAVY. Totally interested in expanding as a land power far enough to unite Germans and provide sufficient foods (Ukraine) so they would not be starved out again as in WWI.
Pat Buchanan’s book on this is outstanding.
Better bumble; bumble than surrender; surrender.
Dude he conquered France BEFORE he invaded the USSR. Are you nuts?!!!
>I’m afraid Churchill was overrated.
Correct. Churchill was a drunk who gave great speeches and managed to lose the empire and half of Europe. Great at inspiring people to amazing acts, awful at actually ruining the British Empire.
>His bumbling cost the British their empire, and it is arguable the Jewish holocaust would not have occurred if the Brits had simply let Hitler go after the Ukraine, and to extinguish Bolshevism.’
This however is not correct. If you’ve read Mein Kamf it’s pretty clear that Hitler had a burning need to destroy France because of WW1 and kill the Jews for the stab in the back.
>There is no way he intended to attack the Brits or America
Originally he didn’t want to fight a way against the UK and USA. However, Hitler’s desire for conquest kept growing as the successes piled up. I very much doubt he would have stopped once he owned Russia.
You forgot the /s
No, the lack of will by the socialists who replaced Churchill is what lost the Empire. Furthermore, if Hitler had been allowed to control Stalin’s oil fields, the Reich would have become unstoppable.
Nonsense like this is why people think Buchanan is a closet Nazi.
SHOCKED AM I, that someone else reads the truth into the myth of Churchill. He was to be nice, not as portrayed. Not one single little bit.
How do we know this? EASY. He had NO NAVY. Totally interested in expanding as a land power far enough to unite Germans and provide sufficient foods (Ukraine) so they would not be starved out again as in WWI.
Yes, it's so EASY. I'm sure Hitler, with his air power and rocket technology , would never have developed nuclear weapons first and used them against any English-speaking nations. After all, the guy was so level-headed and reasonable.
I'm no "rocket scientist, but the friggin' Nazis were trying to develop the A-bomb, for God's sake!
Whatever the thesis behind Buchanan's book might be (and I very much like Patrick Buchanan), it's the height of wishful thinking to imagine that Hitler wouldn't have eventually turned his attention towards the United Kingdom, America, or any other nation, once the mood struck him.
To me, the Nazi regime in Germany, with its desire to develop nuclear weapons, produces just about the strongest argument I can imagine regarding the potential necessity and moral justification of engaging in pre-emptive warfare...
Talk about rewriting history -
And you believe that crap!
Does the stupid hurt?
Hitler had no Navy?
Who owned those U-Boats that sank almost 2,800 ships?
We can agree that Hitler’s surface navy wasn’t on a level with his land and air forces, especially in the early years, but that was because Germany was primarily engaged in a land war.
England, being an island nation, and the USA fighting from the other side of the Atlantic had greater need for naval forces.