Post: #51

I did Nazi this thread coming.

Post: #52

This thread is timely for me. I'm just finishing up listening to Max Hastings's 20 CD biography of Churchill during WWII. It's entitled "Churchill's War: 1940-1945". Highly recommended.

Post: #53

While it is heresy to say anything even slightly positive about Hitler or Nazi Germany, this thread does make you think.

So many topics we discuss on this forum, the rise of feminism, immigration politics, how beta Western men have become, are related to this: the broken spirit of the white race.

And then specifically the men, because the women follow whatever. It's been pointed out repeatedly in Japanese men, how they transformed from proud warriors into asexual herbs. This was a result from the same war.

Looking at the West, the same is visible. Europeans conquered the world through superiority. But our societies have been successfully infected with a cultural virus that has rendered us impotent. There's no standard of good and evil, beauty and truth. Whatever the urgency of cultural threats like Islam, we are unable and more importantly unwilling to defend ourselves.

Was Hitler a cunt? Most definitely. But what do we have in its place? The communists were 'defeated' with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but they have infiltrated and successfully taken control of virtually all our institutions. Education, the media, politics.

Education doesn't teach facts anymore, it openly focuses on political ('social') activism. Freedom of speech has been taken away in all but name. The media combined with our current understanding of human psychology is the most effective propaganda tool in human history. In politics, we have big corporations buying our politicians while people are distracted with easy outrage. Black versus white, men versus women, oh my good terrorism-and-ebola. At the same time, hundreds of billions are channeled to private people via bank bailouts and war expenses.

But we won the war...

Edit: I still think Churchill himself was dope. His take:

Quote:Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Post: #54

Churchill was a cunt. He was a bigger dick to many parts of the world than Hitler ever was. Victors write history books. Hitler was probably a cunt too but he's blamed for a lot of shit that was indeed the fault of the Brits, Americans, Russians, and Jews. I'm not even bloody christian or white or w/e. This is fact.

Now, am I just plain fascinated by Hitler? Yes. Maybe in a similar way to how I am fascinated by Alex DeLarge in A Clockwork Orange perhaps.

Regardless I think it is worth looking at atleast some of this very very long movie.

Post: #55

Just released from a three day suspension for Stormfront-syle comments. I did go over the top. I do not want to be seen as a Stormfront type nor do I want this forum to become like Stormfront. It's difficult to maintain an arm's-length detachment when making an unpopular argument.

So let me preface this by saying that absolutely nothing in this comment will help you get girls, money, fame, happiness or improve your life in any way. Whatever your cultural, ethnic or religious bias is I respect it. What I'm trying to do is make an argument about military history, and the most phenomenal military victory of the last two thousand years. In which a people's historical enemy were convinced to destroy each other on the battlefield and the victors took their world. And I congratulate the victors and I sympathize with the crushed. But let's see it for what it is.

Why do we discuss this in the Churchill thread? Because how do we appreciate Churchill honestly unless we appreciate what he won?

Again I reiterate, without condemnation or spite, that the Jewish people won the greatest military victory of the last 2000 years in WW2. They crushed the civilizations that expelled them, marginalized them and otherwise treated them as second class citizens.

They have sentenced the defeated to that which they themselves for so long suffered: to wandering, to feeling marginalized and to being deconstructed. And look, fair is fair. But please let us call it for what it is.

The winners:


The losers:




The real victors of WW2, when seen from the eyes of the defeated looking out from the now long gone Old World, were the indomitable and indefatigable Jewish people in a rout that would even make Sun Tzu blush. Hitler, Roosevelt, and Churchill all lost, insofar as their people's interests were aligned with ancient traditions. But only Hitler fought honestly for them, however wrong they were, and however much he abused them to make them fit his time.

This is the light in which I believe Churchill should be seen. Certainly a good light for many, not a good light for others.

Please take this comment in the spirit it was intended, which was not a spirit of malice, but a spirit of free inquiry.

Post: #56

Damn, the truth is stranger than fiction.

Post: #57

What is ironic is that WWII ruined England. They went to war over Poland and by the end of it Poland was solidly in the hands of Stalin. They traded one threat for a much worse, much more insidious one.

Afterwards they gave up their colonies and turned their back on civilied countries like Rhodesia, handing the communists victory after victory because of their own weakness and probable infiltration.

They should never have gone to war with Germany and the US should've never gotten directly involved in the European theater. Hitler, for that matter, made a very foolish mistake when he declared war on the United States.

Buchanan wrote a good article on Poland, Churchill, etc. You can read it here: http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-betraya...9-1945-363

Quote:Britain had gone to war and lost 400,000 men and an empire for Poland’s independence. Yet, as Poland receded into the darkness, not once did Churchill vent upon Stalin the oratory he used so often on Hitler. The rape of Poland by Hitler and Stalin was the moral cause that precipitated the war. Yet, Churchill and FDR, to appease Stalin, meekly acquiesced in the betrayal of that moral cause.

“Of one thing I am sure,” FDR said at Yalta, “Stalin is not an imperialist.” How explain his naivete about Stalin, to whom he gave everything, including a third of the Italian fleet and recognition of his puppet government in Poland? “Puerility,” writes George F. Kennan. FDR once told his friend, ambassador William Bullitt: “I think if I give him (Stalin) everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy.”

Post: #58

To be fair, we were struggling to keep the empire afloat financially long before WW2.

WW1 is what really ruined Britain.

Those two wars robbed us of too many good men. Too many good genes.

Post: #59

Peter Hitchens has often spoken and written on why he thinks WW2 was a colossal mistake for the UK. Here is an example.

I agree that it was absurd that the UK guaranteed Poland's freedom knowing full well that it could not have backed that up even if it had wanted to. I also agree that it was absurd that Roosevelt and Churchill gave not only Poland, but all of Eastern Europe, as well as a large piece of Germany, to Stalin. What, exactly, was the point of WW2 then?

It is well known that Hitler saw war with the Soviet Union as an inevitability and that he did not want to fight in the West. It didn't make any sense based upon his ideology of lebensraum.

A far smarter policy would have been for the UK and France to build up their own forces. They should have let Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union tear one another apart, and then mopped up the victor. In my opinion, WW2 was a much more stupid strategic mistake than WW1, and Churchill is largely responsible for that due to his tunnel-vision, massive ego and general war mongering. WW2 was a huge Pyrrhic victory that never need have happened to begin with.

Also, yes, Churchill also screwed up in a big way at Gallipoli. You'd think people would have got wise to him back then.

Although he said some witty things about women or Muslims, I can't get behind the hero worship. The first half of the 20th century was a time of massive egos far beyond their owners' intellectual capabilities, and we're still paying the price for that today.

Post: #60

(11-21-2014 01:19 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  What is ironic is that WWII ruined England. They went to war over Poland and by the end of it Poland was solidly in the hands of Stalin. They traded one threat for a much worse, much more insidious one.

Afterwards they gave up their colonies and turned their back on civilied countries like Rhodesia, handing the communists victory after victory because of their own weakness and probable infiltration.

They should never have gone to war with Germany and the US should've never gotten directly involved in the European theater. Hitler, for that matter, made a very foolish mistake when he declared war on the United States.

Buchanan wrote a good article on Poland, Churchill, etc. You can read it here: http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-betraya...9-1945-363

Quote:Britain had gone to war and lost 400,000 men and an empire for Poland’s independence. Yet, as Poland receded into the darkness, not once did Churchill vent upon Stalin the oratory he used so often on Hitler. The rape of Poland by Hitler and Stalin was the moral cause that precipitated the war. Yet, Churchill and FDR, to appease Stalin, meekly acquiesced in the betrayal of that moral cause.

“Of one thing I am sure,” FDR said at Yalta, “Stalin is not an imperialist.” How explain his naivete about Stalin, to whom he gave everything, including a third of the Italian fleet and recognition of his puppet government in Poland? “Puerility,” writes George F. Kennan. FDR once told his friend, ambassador William Bullitt: “I think if I give him (Stalin) everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy.”

Buchanan develops these ideas much more fully in his book The Unnecessary War.

Post: #61

(11-22-2014 07:09 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  A far smarter policy would have been for the UK and France to build up their own forces. They should have let Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union tear one another apart, and then mopped up the victor. In my opinion, WW2 was a much more stupid strategic mistake than WW1, and Churchill is largely responsible for that due to his tunnel-vision, massive ego and general war mongering.

Churchill strikes me as an aristocratic, more eloquent version of US Senator and sometimes Presidential candidate John McCain. Both of them warriors with undeniable personal charisma and strength, both of them seemingly incapable of thinking through strategy.

(11-22-2014 07:09 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  Although he said some witty things about women or Muslims, I can't get behind the hero worship. The first half of the 20th century was a time of massive egos far beyond their owners' intellectual capabilities, and we're still paying the price for that today.

Yes, the hero worship is way overdone.

It's the opposite with Chamberlain, who is painted as a simpering coward and idiot when in fact he was much more deft at statecraft than Churchill ever was. People also selectively edit out Churchill's domestic political decisions during and after WW2, in which he allowed the Labour Party to Sovietise the British economy and create the monstrous welfare state that is now choking the life out of this country.

Winston Churchill succeeded in being on the winning side in WW2, but he failed to safeguard every political principle he once claimed to hold.

He was the arch-imperialist whose decisions led to the dismantling of the British Empire during his own lifetime.

He was the friend of democracy who abandoned half of Europe to Josef Motherfucking Stalin.

He was the avowed anti-socialist who let the Labour Party turn Britain into a socialist country where virtually every major industrial and business concern was owned and run by the state.

There's a lot to admire in the life of Winston Churchill, but he made some terrible mistakes too. He was a man of considerable strengths and considerable flaws, as are we all.

Post: #62

This is off-topic but I think it's worth commenting on.

(11-20-2014 05:13 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  The real victors of WW2, when seen from the eyes of the defeated looking out from the now long gone Old World, were the indomitable and indefatigable Jewish people in a rout that would even make Sun Tzu blush. Hitler, Roosevelt, and Churchill all lost, insofar as their people's interests were aligned with ancient traditions. But only Hitler fought honestly for them, however wrong they were, and however much he abused them to make them fit his time.

Hitler encouraged superficial imitations of German heritage, but they were in reality contrary to tradition. Serious conservative minds opposed or disapproved of Hitler (Ernst Junger, Eric Voegelin, Edgar Julius Jung, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn...) while the main Nazi theorists were intellectual dwarfs who wrote children's books and clumsily tried to misrepresent the ideas of Nietzsche. Heidegger was the rare exception of a truly intellectual member of the Nazi party, but after 1934 he had little to no involvement in party activities and later admitted that his participation was "the greatest stupidity of his life".

The German clergy often worked to oppose Nazism whenever they could, which is understandable given the anti-church policies of the NSDAP, resulting in over 400 German priests being sent to Dachau. The bishops of Munster and Berlin openly criticized the regime, and Protestant pastors routinely opposed Nazi efforts to meddle in their churches (some paid for this with their freedom and/or lives). The old nobility strongly rejected Nazism as well, as evidenced by the Crown Prince of Bavaria's family being thrown in the concentration camps. Finally, elements of the Wehrmacht's leadership, including Rommel, saw Hitler as a dangerous loon and tried to get rid of him...and the fact that Hitler responded to July 20 by killing and purging so many (among them some of the finest and most decorated in all of Germany) only underlines how widely that view was shared.

So counted among Hitler's opponents: the German military leadership, the clergy, conservative intellectuals, Germany's old nobility and royalty...exactly how many pillars of German tradition need to oppose Nazism before the antagonism between the two becomes undeniable?

Furthermore, what developed in the west after WWII cannot be blamed upon the conflict itself or its immediate results, as that's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The related notion that this can all be blamed on Jews also makes zero sense.

Post: #63

I didn't say nor do I think that "this could all be blamed on Jews." In fact I believe that Christians absolutely are to blame for the loss of their world. What is my perspective in this thread related to but Churchill's role in destroying Christendom?

I also stated in my last comment what I meant by "Christendom." What I meant by "Christendom" was a world in which, for better or for worse, the people who believed in the God-Man who said the Jewish kingdom was not of this world, held moral authority. This meant the nation-states within Christendom, for better or for worse, had civic authority over the Jews and would often expel them. Obviously it was also imperative that Christendom maintain the moral authority, as they believed (again, for better or for worse) was given them by their Messiah, to ensure that the Jews did not have a kingdom of this world. In short, Christendom was a world in which the Jews did not have a Kingdom of this world.

Were there other interests at play in WW2? Of course. But what I am arguing here is that the defining result of WW2 was the ultimate loss of the moral authority of Christendom to implement their Messiah's mandate that the Jewish kingdom was not of this world.

As I said before, Hitler's alignment with tradition was the best he could do under the circumstances given an already collapsed Christendom. There is a large chance I would have been compelled to go against Hitler myself because of his tweaking of actual tradition. But the fact of the matter is, calling people to get on their knees and pray for redemption just was not going to work. The time for fine instruments and careful procedure was long gone for Germany, or Christendom for that matter. A crowbar was about the best one could hope for. And obviously any experienced observer, near or far, would say ah, yeah, you might not want to go there. And he fucked up huge doctrinally. But he grabbed the crowbar nonetheless, because the time had long past since a proper traditional effective fighting doctrine could have been developed. As I said, he was fighting for a world that was long gone. All that was left was a crowbar.

But with regard to the issue of Jews wining the war, and on the issue of traditional Christian doctrine of their kingdom not being of this world, even though Hitler was integral to the creation of Israel, Hitler was the closest of he, Churchill and Roosevelt to the traditional doctrine of Christendom that nation-states had the right to expel. RIGHT OR WRONG. It was what was believed.

I don't see how it can be argued that the biggest military win of the last 2000 years was not the win by the Jews of a Homeland of this world. I mean come on! You kidding? If Moses and Christ were sitting on a hill looking at the situation at the founding of Israel, Moses would be saying "Holy cow they did it," and Christ would be saying "Holy cow they lost it."

And from the perspective of a member of ancient Christendom, looking out from the grave, the loss of moral authority in the world that the existence of Israel would imply would be the obvious cause of all the other disturbing elements they would see in what was once their Christendom, including the dissolution of sovereignty and native peoplehood in their nations. It would be as obvious as 1+1=2. And they wouldn't be saying that "Jews did it to us," they would be saying their world finally failed. Which it obviously did. Because it was left for a guy in a completely corrupted nation in a civilization long past its "good until" date to grab a crowbar to defend.

I say it is good for some and bad for others. Ultimately it doesn't really matter to me that much other than that it is seen for what it is. But it is what it is. The Western World, traditionally speaking insofar as its traditional attitude (right or wrong) towards Jews, is no longer Christian. It is Jewish. That is what happened in WW2. And it is by no means "all the fault of the Jews." Not hardly. But it is the defining moment of the world since Christ.

Post: #64

Let me explain what I'm saying in a very loose metaphor.

Let's say we're Captain Kirk flying through the galaxy. We come across a planet "Zed" where there are a formerly great people that for the life of them cannot get their governments to recognize their authority. Kirk asks the leader of the stricken people their history.

"Well," says the alien, "In the beginning their was a dairy farmers union and there were free farmers. A man showed up and said he was there to save the dairy farmers' union. The union said well here then, eat some cottage cheese. Their savior said no, I am not here to eat cottage cheese. The union said well then you're not our savior. Our savior must eat cottage cheese."

The savior wouldn't eat cottage cheese and the dairy farmers' union started to get real upset and cause all shit ton of problems with the authorities on Zed. Why wouldn't this guy eat cottage cheese? All he had to do was eat some damn cottage cheese and it would all die down. But he wouldn't, and he ended up getting killed by the authorities in order to get the dairy farmers' union to settle down.

But the free farmers liked this dude because he was doing and saying all kinds of cool shit. So they looked at the foundation of what got the dairy union savior killed and they realized it was not eating cottage cheese. So they based their new civilization on not eating cottage cheese. The civilization grew and reflected all kinds of things the free farmers liked.

Then the free farmers got comfortable and some started eating cottage cheese. It didn't really matter after all. It's just cottage cheese, it's good. The free farmers started to fracture and believe different shit. They started different nations and factions. Then one day one of the free farmers looked around and didn't like what he saw. His people were a mess. So he figured he would bring his nation back to his civilization's roots and not eat cottage cheese anymore. The rest of the world was already eating cottage cheese and the nation was destroyed.

Kirk asks the leader of the free farmers if he was eating cottage cheese. "Of course, we all eat cottage cheese."

"Well that's your problem. That's why you're not taken seriously. That's why you're losing your nation."

"But why, cottage cheese is good," asks the leader of the free farmers.

"It may be," says Kirk "but you can't expect anyone to take you seriously when the civilization you were hoping to preserve was based on not eating cottage cheese and you're eating cottage cheese."

"Why not?" asks the leader.

"Because it causes a spiritual dissonance that disarms your moral authority. You believe in a savior that died for not eating cottage cheese and you're eating cottage cheese. Your actions in themselves are saying that your savior was wrong. They are also saying that all your ancestors who built your nations who did not eat cottage cheese were wrong. When you are eating cottage cheese, out of whatever motive you believe to be true or good, you are disowning your entire patrimony. It doesn't surprise me that nobody respects you or that you've lost the moral authority to maintain your nations, it surprises me you haven't all been killed. Looking at the situation I can see you haven't been killed because you are so ineffectual you make incredible slaves."

"So what do we do," asks the leader of the free farmers.

"Well," Kirk says, "I've got two options for you. First is you can stop eating cottage cheese. Not because in the moment it is objectively objectionable, but because of what it says about how you feel about your savior or the civilization your ancestors built. In short, you are not taken seriously as a free farmer eating cottage cheese, nor should you be.

"The second," Kirk continues "is that you can create a new savior for your people that allows for the eating of cottage cheese so you can eat cottage cheese without being spiritually dissonant and relinquishing your moral authority. If you must eat cottage cheese, you need a god that didn't die for not doing so."

"Thanks Kirk," says the alien.

"No prob," says Kirk, grabbing his communicator. "One to beam up, Scotty."

Cut to credits.

To say that a country whose foundation was established on not eating cottage cheese wasn't fundamentally compromised by slaughtering people who didn't want to eat cottage cheese is ridiculous. Ask a soldier. What you kill defines you until you decide otherwise. WW2 turned the west from free farmers into free farmers who eat cottage cheese -- an absolutely meaningless and illogical personal, spiritual and cultural construct. The meaninglessness of this construct has evidenced itself over the last 70 years with its adherent's near complete inability to maintain or defend even a shred of their former values or mores. Not a shred. In spite of endless effort to the contrary, their women literally fuck canines on the internet, faggots dance in the streets, borders? lol, family? lol, third graders learning to give blowjobs, etc. The only reason, I repeat the only reason, the free farmers who eat cottage cheese haven't been completely slaughtered, is because they make such good slaves.

Post: #65

I posted an article today at Return of Kings about Churchill.

I like Churchill. Of all the Allied leaders, he is the one I most sympathize with. Even more than Roosevelt, who remains an elusive, evasive, and rather cold figure.

Post: #66

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2...ures11.g21

"This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."

Writing on 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 1920

As a side note I have zero hatred for the jews. This is not an anti-jew post. Since their masters treat them worse than how they treat catholics.

Post: #67

Catholicism had to be brutal to challenge the Jewish claim to the God of the Old Testament. You don't send the Zanesville JV up up against the French Foreign Legion. You don't put Lloyd Christmas up against Garry Kasparov. In terms of WW2, Churchill and Roosevelt were definitely playing the roll of the Zanesville JV.

"We have killed the wrong pig," reportedly said Churchill. Can't be more of a pawn than that. Patton reportedly agreed.

But yeah people trapped in either the Jewish or Catholic traditions are not handed a box of chocolates at birth.

Post: #68

(11-13-2014 11:49 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 06:49 PM)Tim in real life Wrote:  The same guy who appeased Hitler? Never mind the fact he's a product of Victorian England.

I cast my reservations about Churchill.

Churchill was a warhawk who desired to oppose Hitler from the Start.



A colossus of a man. One of the giants of the 20th century. That is a good article, the debate about whether or not great men shape the world or simply hear Gods footsteps echoing down the hallways of history and grab onto his coattails is interesting.

Personally I subscribe to the former theory.

Churchill's speeches are some of the finest pieces of oratory we have. I highly recommend them to anyone who wants to take up public speaking.

Indeed. Chuchhill has little army and his country was not prepared for war at all, but right was right. He knew the right thing to do was to fight the germans.

As for "he stands alone", eh, I could make a decent case for octavian(built up the infrastructure, ran the worlds largest empire with the efficiency of an accountant) or napoleon(great war general and great leader on and off the battlefield, inspired and loved by his troops and countrymen, men would willingly throw down their lives at his feet and fight as hard as they could because they were so enamored with him) as greatest leader of all time.

At that point, we are just comparing apples to oranges. All of them were a great leader for their country at the time when each country needed such a man.

Post: #69

(11-24-2014 07:04 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I posted an article today at Return of Kings about Churchill.

I like Churchill. Of all the Allied leaders, he is the one I most sympathize with. Even more than Roosevelt, who remains an elusive, evasive, and rather cold figure.

Excellent article. I started his biography by Roy Jenkins recently but it was unreadable, full of unnecessary commentary and petty gossip on the class system. Exchanged after three chapters for something on Patton.

Can anyone recommend a good biography of the man? Something shorter and more readable? Boris Johnson's recent effort? I simply don't have the bandwidth for a dense, slow book right now. My plan is first an overview of his entire life then focus on the war years with a second book.

Post: #70

In the past I've thought of Churchill as one of the greatest men of the 20th century, but as you dig deeper into reading history you wonder about some things.

Was Hitler really worse than Stalin? Why the double standard with the German invasion of Poland vs. the Soviet invasion?

At his core Churchill really despised Hitler but one wonders how much of this was recognizing a madman and how much of this was reflexively being opposed to any increase in German power which threatened the Empire.

Looking back with a hundred years of hindsight, WW1 was a colossal mistake. If the Germans had simply taken France quickly like in the Franco-Prussian War things would have been much better.

Post: #71

Is it true Churchill only fucked one woman in his entire life?

Post: #72

(01-10-2016 12:12 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  In the past I've thought of Churchill as one of the greatest men of the 20th century, but as you dig deeper into reading history you wonder about some things.

Was Hitler really worse than Stalin? Why the double standard with the German invasion of Poland vs. the Soviet invasion?

At his core Churchill really despised Hitler but one wonders how much of this was recognizing a madman and how much of this was reflexively being opposed to any increase in German power which threatened the Empire.

Looking back with a hundred years of hindsight, WW1 was a colossal mistake. If the Germans had simply taken France quickly like in the Franco-Prussian War things would have been much better.

Our world is still recovering from World War One. It really is. Some psychologists and commentators called it "The Great Suicide of Europe", and they're not far off. Sting in Children's Crusade sings about it being "The flower of England, face down in the mud, and stained in the blood of a whole generation."

Most of what comprised the living examples of patriarchy -- the male nobility -- were gunned down in far larger numbers than pretty much any other societal class, because the lower-level officers -- all young and strong men with decades of life ahead of them -- led charges into machine gun fire. Old generals, who would have been replaced by those young men, were left to linger on and bring their thinking into planning for the next couple of decades.

On top of that the fuckwits thought men related to one another would fight harder, so they put siblings in the same units as one another. Entire family names were wiped out on the fields of Belgium and France. And the campaigns also chewed up huge numbers of the colonies that could ill afford to lose those men. Australia, still a tiny colony in those days, and heavily dependent on young, strong men for its agricultural economy, lost five thousand men in one night -- at Fromelles if I remember right.

Try and imagine just for a second a world in which that generation of young men had been spared. Wilfred Owen and Rupert Brooke would have had lifetimes of poetry ahead of them. The Russian revolution might not have taken place - although maybe that's a forlorn hope given the way Nicholas II was fucking up his country. Poland might have survived to forge an alliance with Ukraine and Lithuania to become a great power. Turkey might have been a light of Western thought; Ataturk's reputation was forged at Gallipoli, but it seemed pretty clear he wanted the Ottoman Empire out and wanted to follow Western ideals of democracy. But more importantly all those young men would have been alive to advance our world. Any number of advances could have come generations ahead of where we are now.

Post: #73

(01-10-2016 10:55 AM)Engineer Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 07:04 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I posted an article today at Return of Kings about Churchill.

I like Churchill. Of all the Allied leaders, he is the one I most sympathize with. Even more than Roosevelt, who remains an elusive, evasive, and rather cold figure.

Excellent article. I started his biography by Roy Jenkins recently but it was unreadable, full of unnecessary commentary and petty gossip on the class system. Exchanged after three chapters for something on Patton.

Can anyone recommend a good biography of the man? Something shorter and more readable? Boris Johnson's recent effort? I simply don't have the bandwidth for a dense, slow book right now. My plan is first an overview of his entire life then focus on the war years with a second book.

The Churchill biography to rule them all. It's a 3 part series, each is ~1000 pages. I'm currently reading the first one and its surpassed all expectations.

Post: #74

Anyone else seen those Hitler Reacts To... videos?

If I was Hitler I would of stopped at Sudenteland and just chilled out.