Tell me about it. I have first editions of "The Gathering Storm" and "Their Finest Hour"!:yep:

[quote=P_Funk I don't disagree. In fact a mostly agree with you there. However its not as cut and dried as just saying they voted for Hitler, supported him and that was that. The Treaty of Versailles put Germnay in a position where Hitler could make a stab at grabbing power. Germany was a crippled nation and the rest of Europe was sucking the life out of her. Of course the German people were complicit in Hitler's power. But so was the rest of Europe in leaving the German people to rot. When you starve a people and deny them real freedom and then extinguish any real sign of a future you start rolling the dice. Not only were the terms of the Treaty punitive but France continued to enforce the terms that Germany couldn't pay by occupying territory. An angry nationalist could easily see this as a reason to go back to war. France saw Germany as a threat and maybe they helped it along to making her one again.


I'm not excusing anything, I'm giving motive. This isn't about downplaying the horrors of the Third Reich. Its about making sure nobody can get away with saying as joea did, that the German people were somehow different than us.[/quote]



Well I can agree with you on that point...Europe is complicit in that sense (as was the US for not joining the League of Nations IMO), as Liddel-Hart wrote if you let a madman stoke a boiler til it explodes you are guilty as well. This is not the first time that in trying to eliminate a threat nations create worse ones. ;)

I think you misunderstood I was not saying Germans were different I was rejecting the moral equation in the specific instance of WWII between Axis and Allies. I could have brought up other instances (and did with the colonial wars) were one side plunders another (much more lopsided in the colonial war cases). In any case, many in occupied Europe colloaborated with or even embraced the Nazi cause, for example in the Waffen SS foreign volunteer divisions.

Finally, I agree most of what was said about Churchill here, even though he did participate in some of those colonial wars I condemn. ;)

[quote=joea] Hey I'm glad we agree. I always like finding accord in argument. Sometimes you just need to flesh everything out.

I often take on the controversial arguments when I see something thats a blanket statement or something that is generally accepted but not necessarily substantiated. I like to keep you honest or at least challenge you to intellectualize it.;)

Cheers.

I think you must admit that out of the Big 3, Churchill had the most lasting influence.

Stalin didn't do the cause of Communism any good in Russia or elsewhere.

FDR is often seen, to quote a line Danny DeVito said on the Simpsons as Homer's brother, as a "Fuzzy Headed One Worlder".

But really the Bush Doctrine is nothing more than the Churchill Doctrine.

Watching "The Queen", where Churchill is mentioned, really made me wonder if he had that old school condescending attitude as the old Royals do today.

I disagree. Just ask CCIP how much Stalin is still revered by some Russians today. If you had have said "most lasting positive influence," thay might have been a little better.

Churchill gave some nice speeches but I have never really seen him as anything too special. I guess I missed the invitation to join the Churchill cult.

I didn't see the movie (yet). Condescending to whom?