PDA

View Full Version : OK History buffs



BfHeFwMe
01-27-2004, 03:06 PM
Who said this and when.....


America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government - and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives.

BfHeFwMe
01-27-2004, 03:06 PM
Who said this and when.....


America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government - and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives.

DONB3397
01-27-2004, 03:10 PM
Please tell us it wasn't Lindbergh during his tour of Germany in the late '30's. On second thought, it couldn't be...he was an isolationist, not crippled historian.

horseback
01-27-2004, 03:16 PM
Isegrim and Huckebein, last fall, in that thread where they tried to prove that the Erla Haube canopy provided greater visibilty than the Mustang or P-47 bubbletops.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Blutarski2004
01-27-2004, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Who said this and when.....


America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government - and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


....... This history buff will go out on a limb and say Winston Churchill.

BLUTARSKI

Insuber
01-27-2004, 03:32 PM
Winston Churchill, 1936, in an interview given to Mr. William Griffen, editor of the New York Enquirer.

Regards,
Insuber

Zen--
01-27-2004, 03:44 PM
I believe what Winston Churchill said was:

"I may be drunk madam, but BLEEEYAAAAAAARG!!"
(sound of you know what)


--From Dave Barry's book, 'Dave Barry Slept Here' (an abbreviated version of US history, extremely informative)

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

johann_thor
01-27-2004, 03:55 PM
and he was perfectly right in every way

tsisqua
01-27-2004, 04:00 PM
Ok, I deleted the stupid post that showed that old men do not read everything before they react. You know, like "Who said this . . .".

My apologies for the stupid moment.

Tsisqua

http://www.uploadit.org/files/010903-nedChristie.jpg
Tsalagi Asgaya Galvladi

Menthol_moose
01-27-2004, 04:01 PM
ah... revisionist history.

Again it seems America is responsible for Europe's woes.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

BfHeFwMe
01-27-2004, 04:06 PM
Correct, Mr Winston Churchill 1936.


http://www.geocities.com/~worldwar1/america/america.html

An interesting read.

JG7_Rall
01-27-2004, 04:10 PM
Yes, always our fault. We're not all bad, you know. Every country has it's good, honest, kind, and intellegent people. And every country has it's ignorant ones too. Your nationality doesn't determine your personality.

Then again, you can blame us. Makes things easier, right?

Chuck_Older
01-27-2004, 04:12 PM
I blame us. What do I win? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

*****************************
do I hear the echoes of the days of '39? ~Clash

BfHeFwMe
01-27-2004, 04:13 PM
http://www.geocities.com/~worldwar1/america.html

Wrong link above. Whats with the kneejerk reaction? Trying to equate a quote from 1936 on political matters of that day as modern political revisionism is quite humorous.

carguy_
01-27-2004, 04:17 PM
That quote clearly shows Churchill wasn`t a very intelligent man as most Brits would think.

Saying that "this and that wouldn`t have happened if...." is plain bullsh!t.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

johann_thor
01-27-2004, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Menthol_moose:
ah... revisionist history.

Again it seems America is responsible for Europe's woes.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no - even though he was right - what this really means is only that US involvement played a critical role in the outcome of WWI.

churchill said many wierd things - but he always had a point.

of course the US is not to blame for the russian revolution ... that was the marxists in germany.

and of course the US is not to blame for versailles treaty - that was the french.

repco
01-27-2004, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
That quote clearly shows Churchill wasn`t a very intelligent man as most Brits would think.

Saying that "this and that wouldn`t have happened if...." is plain bullsh!t.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol! He did win the nobel prize for lierature you know, I doubt he was all that stupid. Though I don't agree with the quote I think it's a bit hard to condemn someone, just because they weren't 100% correct 100% of the time. This thread's elicited some very touchy responses for a quote nearly 70 years old http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Kampfmeister
01-27-2004, 07:34 PM
I also took a guess and came up with Churchill, although it still surprises me that he would have said such things http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif I can't imagine him bad mouthing the US. I think he was just trying to make a point, on how eventual US involvement in WWI ended up making matters worse in the long run of European history. Not deliberately of course. Still very strange, since British propaganda was working overtime throughout the war to get the US involved in the conflict and tip the balance of power in favor of the allies. You all remember, the stories of the evil Huns rampaging through Belgium and France, raping, pillaging, and plundering everything in site, eating babies etc.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

tagert
01-27-2004, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Isegrim and Huckebein, last fall, in that thread where they tried to prove that the Erla Haube canopy provided greater visibilty than the Mustang or P-47 bubbletops.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL!

TAGERT

maverick7614
01-27-2004, 09:03 PM
First of all get the hell off the USA's back. And about this bull**** Churchill might have said, the US was a military force to be reckoned with. Some people think the American military actually saved Europe's *** and stopped a maniacle killer from the sweldering pits of Germany. Now that thats off my chest i feel much better.

tttiger
01-27-2004, 09:12 PM
Hmmmm..."what if....?"

Sounds like the stupid Luft 46 stuff Oleg is designing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ttt

PS: You can damn well bet Winston was dancing the Macarena up and down Downing Street on Dec. 7, 1941, when the Japanese forced us into the war on his side. I'm sure he had a different view of our entry into WWII.

Man, savin' Europe's butt over and over gets tiresome...

ttt


"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

Achilles97
01-27-2004, 09:27 PM
I wonder if Churchill's America-should-mind-their-own-business attitude changed about 4 years after he made that statement.

Kinda like the Royal Navy minding their own business when they attacked French ships while in port.

Korolov
01-27-2004, 10:18 PM
Quite ironic to think four years later he was bending over backwards trying to get the US into the second world war.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

BfHeFwMe
01-27-2004, 11:08 PM
From a historical point one has to wonder how prevalent this view was running during the 30's. To discount it and just throw it out the window for some present day axe grinding is childish, there's no reason too, and one really has to wonder why you guys would connect it in such a manner to start with.

Posting it the thought never even registered, but than my field of study was history, although that's ancient history. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Try thinking of the implications of what he said, one could make the case, for instance, makes a rational explaination for Germany declaring war on America when it made absolutely no sense, at least from our perspective. What was their perspective?

But may be it's much more healthy to keep ones head under the sands......

darkhorizon11
01-27-2004, 11:16 PM
I read once Churchill was also an avid user of Crystal Meth and Nitrous. Maybe somebody purposely waited till he was cranky before asking... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

TheGozr
01-27-2004, 11:54 PM
Churchill ofcourse it's so easy!


Winston Churchill :

"America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government - and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives."


-GOZR
"TheMotorheads" All for One and One for All (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/)

Chef_Boy_R_D
01-28-2004, 12:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Who said this and when.....


America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government - and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What dose this topic have to do with IL2 ?

AirBot
01-28-2004, 12:39 AM
Actually, this argument does have a point. Before the US entered WWI, both sides were at a stalemate. Had it gone on for long, it seems likely a peace treaty would've been signed in the end, the Versailles treaty would've never happened, and thus the Nazi's rise to power would've probably been averted.

However, America obviously had no way of knowing it at the time, and no way of even predicting something like that.

But all these people (apparently Americans) complaining of being insulted need to get off their high horse. That quote did not insult America, it simply stated a likely chain of events had America not entered the war. He did not say America was stupid for entering the war, nor did he condemn America for it.
Also, everyone seemed to miss the last sentence which says the British could've saved over a million lives if they had just made peace. Now are you trying to tell me Churchill is insulting his own country as well!?

Rajvosa
01-28-2004, 01:17 AM
Ouch!

A potentially dangerous thread. Keep it cool, guys!

Personally I also think that it would have been better if the US had stayed out at that time, but done is done. And it is far from sure that there would have been peace in 1917 or 18 or 21 for that matter had the US not come.
Why do I think it is better if US never entered the "Great" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif War?
As it happens, my native country, Bosnia, was a memeber of Austria-Hungarian "clan". Austria did great things for this country, such as sending the Turks back to where they belong after 500 years of occupation. In fact Sarajevo has a wonderful combination of oriental and Austrian architecture, breathtakingly beautiful buildings in Jugend style. Anyway, after the war, Austria-Hungary was no more, and Bosnia found it self under Yugoslavia. Had war ended with peace treaty in 1917, this would not have happened, and there would not have been this war of aggression in the '90s when my people claimed independence. Funny how things are connected like a red thread through the history of time.
I also believe that France really was unjustifiably harsh on Germany with the terms of the Versailles peace treaty. If one looks at how things were cooking up in the Europe in early 1900's, the war seemed almost unavoidable. Everyone was waiting for the other side to make the first move so they could have an excuse to start the war. That's why France has been very hypocritic with the Versailles thing. They wanted the war as much as anyone else.
That Serbian lunatic (backed by the Russians and French) Gavrilo Princip shot Ferdinand in Sarajevo (why Sarajevo of all the friggin places??). Enraged Austria declared war on Russia. France, Russia's pal, declared war on Austria. Germans declared war on France, and UK declared war on Germans. And the hell was loose.
But all things considered, it was inevitable that US joined the war. Therefore there is no point in holding any grudge against the US in this case. We, the Europeans messed it up, the US came and finished the darned war.

Wow... this is got to be my longest thread, yet!

Golf GTI Edition 2.0 16v (Rest In Pieces!)

madsarmy
01-28-2004, 02:10 AM
"Trouble Ahead!"

Is'nt this how wars start?

http://mysite.freeserve.com/fbscreenshots/images/0-picture.jpg

"LOOK MUM NO HANDS!"

Bill_Door
01-28-2004, 02:54 AM
Im am not to sure if Churchil was absolut right about this.
If the ruling classes in GB and France could not sell the outcome of WW1 as a victory to their people (after this huge amount of suffering), they would have got revolutions like they were in Germany after 1918.
Maybe this would end in the "socialistic union of europe".
Maybe not to bad at all, but now you can guess who would fight against who in the next war http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

johann_thor
01-28-2004, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bill_Door:
Im am not to sure if Churchil was absolut right about this.
If the ruling classes in GB and France could not sell the outcome of WW1 as a victory to their people (after this huge amount of suffering), they would have got revolutions like they were in Germany after 1918.
Maybe this would end in the "socialistic union of europe".
Maybe not to bad at all, but now you can guess who would fight against who in the next war http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

interresting point

jeroen_R90S
01-28-2004, 12:37 PM
Kind of shortsighted IMHO... Wouldn't have expected Churchill to have said that!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And several years later, some country would not be satisfied with the situation and start all over again. 1871 French/German war, former Yugoslavia?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government - and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the sun would shine forever and we'd all give each other a group hug...

They all shouldn't have STARTED that war to begin with... The politics leading up to the war were stinking more than a pile of $hit. (still amazing Italy swiched sides from Austria/Hungary/Germany to the Allies so rapidly -must have had quite a good reason to turn your back on your allies.

Jeroen

Lucius_Esox
01-28-2004, 04:37 PM
Makes me laugh bigtime this.. Where is he "badmouthing" the Americans in this statement?? It's his opinion about what would have happened if!! Judging by how accurately he predicted the outcome of WW2 in political terms I reckon he is not far wrong either.

Someone elses sig on these boards sums this up perfectly methinks, sorry if misquoted here "The mark of an educated mind is the ability to take on board someone elses opinions without neccesarily agreeing with them"

Read it again, I do not think he was badmouthing the Americans, come on people dont be so "touchy"

clover4
01-28-2004, 06:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Achilles97:
I wonder if Churchill's America-should-mind-their-own-business attitude changed about 4 years after he made that statement.

Kinda like the Royal Navy minding their own business when they attacked French ships while in port.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take it You must mean the time Churchill asked the french if he could commandeer the french fleet.The reasons being to use against the Germans when they decided on invasion by sea or basically so the Germans couldnt use the fleet against the Royal navy
When the reply from the French came back as No,Churchill ordered the fleet be destroyed, which it was.
This was not personal it was purely a strategic move.

Or maybe you mean operation chariot.A joint op by the Royal navy and commandos to destroy the only dry dock on the french coast capable of berthing the German battleship the Tirpitz.In short they sailed the HMS campbelltown formely the USS Buchannan full of explosives into St Nazaire in Normandie causing so much damage it wasnt used again for the duration of the war.So the Tirpitz was never sent to the south of france.
Again another strategic move.

*S*Clover4

Lucius_Esox
01-28-2004, 07:42 PM
Just re-read this thread and the bit about saving Europes butt again caught my eye. No flame intended here at all btw. Does anyone realise the consequences for the rest of the world if Europe "went down the pan" America (God bless her) has never acted out of pure "altruism" with reference to it's involments in European (or come to think of it any) of it's overseas wars. Large, mature Nation states just dont do that sort of thing any more, there is always some sort of self interest, normally economic. It's not cowboys and indians with the US playing the role of the 7th cav, it never has been and I hope to God there is never any reason for it to be. America came out of the 2ww quids in and it's position of primacy today is directly reflected in this, as is poor old Britains. Britain on the other hand was f*****d finacially after 1945. It cost that country dear, as it did the Soviets. It's all Geopolitique. No doubt Churchill was extremely happy (sic) after America's entry into the war as was he also seeing Germany attack Russia. All nation states act out of self interest, I just wish someone would have the balls to say this at relevent times (am thinking of recent events here). Maybe then we might stop and really look at ourselves as a race and stop throwing rocks at each other.

I know a much used quote but it sums it up really

"War is just an extension of politics by other means"

From Clauswitz's book "On War" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MOH_Ker
01-28-2004, 08:10 PM
"You must mean the time Churchill asked the french if he could commandeer the french fleet.The reasons being to use against the Germans when they decided on invasion by sea or basically so the Germans couldnt use the fleet against the Royal navy
When the reply from the French came back as No,Churchill ordered the fleet be destroyed, which it was.
This was not personal it was purely a strategic move."

About strategy, this move was obviously a "shortsighted" bad one !

This attack killed 1,300+ men in 1940. The ships were ready to be sunk in case of German-Italian moves. Those who escaped joined Toulon's base in southern France. When Germany invaded this area in 1942, none were seized as their own crew scuttled them (80% of the french navy was scuttled in Toulon, most of them modern and very effective ships).

The whole fleet could have joined Free French side following Torch and would have made relationships with "allies" much more easy without this "strategic move".

France still had lots of air/navy forces in North Africa in July 40. The whole fighter air forces were sent there. Hundreds would have joined RAF in Battle of Britain without this "smart strategic move".

Churchill's ultimatum was a complete mistake. What do you think any Royal Navy Admiral would have answered in such situation ?

regards,

Korolov
01-28-2004, 08:33 PM
So THATS why the French didn't like the British!

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

MOH_Ker
01-28-2004, 08:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
So THATS why the French didn't like the British!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol
I don't think so. French and british just don't understand each others. Cultural stuff. But nothing really bad in french side about those guys. They did pretty well in june 1944 and this Mers-El-Kebir stuff has been forgiven.

Sad story anyway.

clover4
01-28-2004, 10:51 PM
You imply quote"About strategy, this move was obviously a "shortsighted" bad one !"
Maybe on De Gailles behalf this was true.The terms were given and they refused point blank to adhere or compromise.The attack killed 1300+ men ,These unfortunately are casualties of war and I don‚'t say this lighthearted .I also don‚'t want a flame war.I respect everyman that walks on this earth today unless he violates human rights.You also say that when Germany invaded Toulan no boats were seized,I have listed just a few below that were used against allied forces.

FR L'Impetueuse Scuttled at Toulon on 27 November 1942. Refloated by the Italians in 1943 and renamed FR 54.Captured by the Germans on 9 September 1943.

FR Fresnel Scuttled at Toulon on 27 November 1942. Refloated on 29 January 1943.
Sunk by Allied aircraft on 11 March 1944.

Le Corsaire After being scuttled in November 1942, she was raised by the Regia Marina and renamed FR 32. Taken to Genoa in June 1943, she was seized by the Germans in September.

Le Flibustier Scuttled and refloated by the Italians, who renamed her FR 35. Seized by the Germans September 1943.

FR strasbourg She was disabled and scuttled in Toulon on 27 November 1942 . The Italians subsequently stripped her, and later the hulk was refloated by the French. In 1944 she was bombed by the Americans whilst being used by the Germans to block the port‚'s shipping channel, and had to be grounded.

La Galissonniere The German forces allocated the ship to Italy after long and tedious negotiations, but did not allow the Italians to take title until December. Renamed FR 12, she was salvaged and refloated on 9 March 1943 with a view to being incorporated into the Royal Italian Navy, a rather short-sighted but probably politically inspired decision, given the chronic oil fuel shortage then being suffered by Italy. US bombers then damaged her in an air raid on 24 November 1943, but by this time Italy had also surrendered, although she did not restore the ship to France until May 1944. Unfortunately, during the attacks launched after the start of Operation Dragoon, La Galissonniere was bombed and sunk for a second time in a raid by B-25s of the 321st Bombardment Group, USAAF, on 18 August 1944. The hulk was raised and scrapped in 1952

So I still think the move to destroy the fleet at Mers el Kébir was a strategic one because no ship was reused in wartime that was sunk there by the Royal Navy.

Fortunately Britain didn‚'t need the French air force in the Battle of Britain as they already had many great and admirable allies fighting with the RAF for the freedom we have today.So my friend lets agree to disagree ,we all have different opinions.

*S* clover4