Hitler, Churchill and the Unnecessary War

Discussion in 'The Book Club' started by Gun_Brickie, Nov 16, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Perusing my Sunday paper today, I read this column, and found it "interesting" to say the least.

    Eric Margolis's Column

    I was wondering if any ARRSErs have read or heard of this volume of bound bumwad.

    BTW, I do not agree with the premise of the book, so please reserve the righteous blasting for its author.
  2. Cherchill was'nt Priminster in 1939 Chamberlain was so thats balls
  3. How very silly. I see he conveniently misses out the fact that had Hitler continued his invasion of the East millions would have died in persecution and concentration camps.
  4. An attempt to resurrect a sentiment tipycal of the West prior to WW2: "USSR is more dangerous than Hitler, let them fight and hopefully the later will destroy the former", -- by whitewashing ideology of fascism and nazism.

    Not surprising considering sponsored rise of national-fascism in Lithuania, Ukraine, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia...

    Someone needs a revision of history of WW2.
  5. For someone who has "long argued" the case against Churchill, Margolis' grasp of of the 39-45 conflict seems oddly flimsy.

    Assuming the western allies stayed out of the war:

    - The vast majority of those killed in WWII were Soviet or Chinese. If Hitler had been given a free hand in the east about 1-2m lives would have been saved, mostly in Western Europe and possibly Germany. The loss of life in the Soviet Union and Poland would probably have been even greater through time and Chinese deaths from the Sino-Japanese conflict would still have to be added.

    - By about 1948 at the latest, Nazi Germany would have acquired nuclear weapons - it is also possible that they would have beaten the West to it had we been at peace during the early forties.

    - Would the extermination of the Jews still have occurred? To some extent probably, although a victorious Hitler may have settled for either expulsion from his Reich or working them to death, rather than the gas chambers.

    Ironically, following the Buchanan/Margolis line of argument would have most likely put Nazi Germany, not the USA, as the Hyperpower of the late 20th Century. Would it have been as benign as the US, or the preceding British Empire - I doubt it.

  6. Egad! Someone said it! I'm constantly told Stalin was worse than Hitler.

    "In the end, Churchill and U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt were so obsessed with crushing Germany, and so seduced by "Uncle Joe" Stalin, they handed half of Europe to the Soviet Union, a far more murderous and dangerous tyranny than Hitler's Germany."

    Yes, Stalin killed more people than Hitler was able but Hitler's murderous ambitions would have gone considerably further! The majority of the populace of inhabitants in Africa and Slavic states, conquered to create 'living room' for the Germans, for example. As for Stalin's eastern Russian prison camps, well, how about Nazi slave camps?

    The suggestion here that the Western Powers should have left Nazi Germany to it's conquests of Eastern Europe are illogical. Putting your own country on the line in the hope that the Soviet Union would win it's war against a German attack seems just a bit risky to me.

    More ludicrous still is the idea that millions of lives would have been saved if this was the case, the lives of the Eastern Europeans lost under the Soviet regime being spared by the Nazi regime. In fact, how the conclusion this land was just given to Russia beyond me because the Soviet Union annexed land that it took from the Nazis on their advance to Berlin, it wasn't a present from the Western allies.

    So IF the Soviets won the war (with the late-entry help of a western coalition as Mr. Margolis suggests), they would have still gained this land. Then a newly emerged Russian superpower is pitted against the British Empire (which, due to it's late-coming and relatively small part in this version of the war still maintains it's power shall we suppose?) in a cold war, backed up by the French Empire. I think it would be fair to say there would be British and Russian interests in Afghanistan.

    Alternatively the Germans are successful in their invasion of the East, then turn their gaze westwards, backed up with the oilfields of the Caucasus, which also provides nice passage into the Middle East, allowing a potential link up with sympathetic powers in that region and yet more oil.

    Then there's the consideration of Spain, Italy, the United States of America and the Empire of Japan and China and how they would all react to a German invasion of Eastern Europe which sparks no reaction from the western powers.

    As for his views on the First World War, I can't be bothered now to debunk whatever bollocks he had to say about that. I fear I've just waffled on and on.

    EDIT: After reading Mediaeval's post we should also consider the advent of Nuclear weapons which may well be used in a war which could go on way beyond 1945.
  7. I think this guy is a nut.

    "Buchanan's heretical view, and mine, is that the western democracies should have let Hitler expand his Reich eastward until it inevitably went to war with the even more dangerous Soviet Union. Once these despotisms had exhausted themselves, the western democracies would have been left dominating Europe. The lives of millions of western civilians and soldiers would have been spared."

    Seems a little too much like "sit on your backside and let Russia and Germany slug it out and then mop up". Meanwhile France, Belgium, Holland, Danemark etc is ground under the Nazi jack boot. It was Hitlers intention to go West and then go East. Not the otherway around. Hence the co-operation between the two tyrants to carve up Poland.

    The "untermensch" by this time would be dead. Millions of Canadians and others may have survived but millions upon millions of other poor souls would have suffered worse.

    Could Russia have carpet bombed German industry to an almost stalemate? Germany could undoubtedly have held a Nuclear weapon by the time the "Western" democracies "got around" to joining battle. Likewise they would have had an unmauled Navy.

    As shown on the recent "Behind closed doors" series, Hitler only attacked Russia when their helpfullness in attacking the West had been exhausted. Hitler had never forgotton the ignomy of defeat in 1918.

    As mentioned above, I hope this historian doesn´t really beleive Churchill was PM at the kickoff.
  8. The USSR didn't annex "land that it took from the Nazis on their advance to Berlin", it assisted local communists coming to power to form friendly puppet governments. Something along the lines of "coloured revolutions" of 90th.
  9. Ignoring the obvious point (already made) that he seems to think that Churchill was PM in 1939, Margolis attempts to present the Germans as unlucky bystanders, dragged into the First World War unwittingly when the record suggests that they didn't exactly help matters in 1914 by being so supportive of the Austro-Hungarians.

    His suggestion that Britain could have stopped the First World War is bonkers - the French had something of a say in matters in that war and the charge that 'Churchill and his fellow imperialists...' makes me think that Margolis has something of a bee in his bonnet about Churchill, and is being a bit selective about the facts, over-stating Churchill's influence in the cabinet during the war (an influence which was, of course, rather reduced when he was a Btn commander at the front in 1916...) He gives no reason why the war should've ended in 1917 - the Germans, after all, didn't see it that way which is why they went with unrestricted U-boat warfare.

    Margolis clearly rates himself (his website is an interesting hagiography of what an expert on everything he is), but, to borrow from Captain E Blackadder, there is a slight flaw with his argument in this article. It's b*ll*cks.
  10. Archimedes-you hit the nail on the head. Margolis doesn't believe Churchill was PM at the start of war as some posters seem to thinks. The title of his piece reflects the fact that he has formed an opinion and shaped the facts around it-ie that Churchill held an inordinate amount of influence from WW1 on. This ignores the fact that many regarded Churchill as a maverick and not to be trusted - many as in most politicians.
  11. Hitler attacked France first, not Russia until later on. We could hardly have not gone to war under those circumstances.

    But let's not let fact get in the way of a good rant :roll:
  12. Precisely the kind of revisionist rubbish that spreads misinformation amongst those who do not question what they read in the Press. Ought to take himself outside and have a jolly good word with himself. Next he'll be telling us that the Holocaust was a "minor event" of the war and that we ought to have carried out Op UNTHINKABLE. As previously mentioned, what a very silly man.
  13. My use of the word annexed was laziness on my part rather than historical ignorance. It's probably the least of my posts problems.

    Margolis seems to attempt to play down the role of the Germans as the ones who started the war (as they were oh so unfairly accused of at Versailles). It's important to note that the chief Central Powers (the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire) were aspirant or dwindling Empires.
  14. A farrago of pro-Nazi revisionism, not worth dignifying with a detailed refutation.