What Churchill Would Make of Obama’s Iran Appeasement

First topic message reminder :

In the fall of ’38, the motion was submitted to approve the government’s policy “by which war was averted in the recent crisis and supports their efforts to secure a lasting peace.”

The policy was the carving up of Czechoslovakia and the war being averted was World War II. Of that, Winston Churchill said, “Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war.”

Echoing that old Munich motion, the pro-Iran left is calling the nuclear deal that lets Iran keep its nukes and its targets their Geiger counters, Obama’s “achievement”. Any Democrat who challenges it is accused of obstructing the only foreign affairs achievement Obama can claim.

“Cory Booker wants to torpedo a major Obama achievement,” the New Republic shrieked. On MSNBC, Chris Hayes accused sixteen Democratic senators who wanted tougher measures on Iran of seeking a war to sabotage “Obama’s greatest foreign policy achievement” out of “fear” of the Israeli lobby.

Hayes and MSNBC were only echoing another famous Democrat, Joseph P. Kennedy, who warned of opposition to Munich by “Jew media” making noises meant to “set a match to the fuse of the world.”

Samuel Hoare, the Home Secretary, of whom King George V said, “No more coals to Newcastle, no more Hoares to Paris”, warned against those who wanted a sterner tone to bring an end to Hitler’s program of conquest as today’s Hoares warn against those who want to bring an end to Iran’s nuclear program.

“If at the very time when we were attempting… to obtain a peaceful settlement, we had accepted the advice of those who said you must face Herr Hitler with a public ultimatum,” Hoare warned. “If we had made an ultimatum… Europe would to-day have been plunged into a world war.”

Today the Hoares warn that stiffening sanctions against Iran and demanding an end to its nuclear program will lead to war. For years, the Hoares of the Democratic Party insisted sanctions were the only way to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Now the Hoares say sanctions will alienate Iran and lead to war.

Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the alternative to the nuclear deal would be war. Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, warned that the failure of the deal will force Obama to, “choose between military options or allowing Iran’s nuclear program to continue.”

Since the deal allows Iran’s nuclear program to continue, it’s a buffet of three choices, all three of which lead to conflict of some kind. The only variations are in the date and in the capabilities of the enemy.

That was the problem with Munich.

Hitler had already been making plans for a war with Britain and France that would commence three or four years after finishing off Czechoslovakia. The only thing that the Munich Agreement accomplished was to speed up Hitler’s timetable from three years to one by letting him finish his business with the Czechs earlier than he had planned.

Winston Churchill spoke. “I will… begin by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing… we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat.”

Lady Astor, whose Nazi sympathies were infamous, interrupted him with a cry of “Nonsense”.  The Member for Berlin had written to Joseph P. Kennedy that Hitler would have to do more than “give a rough time” to “the killers of Christ” before she would launch “Armageddon to save them.”

“The wheel of history swings round,” she wrote. “Who are we to stand in the way of the future?”

Churchill, like William F. Buckley, believed however in standing athwart the history of totalitarians, their Reichs, their People’s Republics and their Caliphates and yelling stop.

“£1 was demanded at the pistol’s point. When it was given, £2 were demanded at the pistol’s point,” Churchill retorted. “Finally, the dictator consented to take £1 17s. 6d. and the rest in promises of good will for the future.”

That is the sum of all negotiations with totalitarians, whether it is with Nazi Germany, Communist Russia or Islamist Iran.

“Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Obama said in 2012. Now there isn’t even a policy of containment.

Obama’s foreign policy achievement consists of letting Iran do nearly everything nuclear it wants in the hopes that it won’t go all the way. Containment has given way to appeasement. Iran gets nine tenths of its nuclear ambitions at gunpoint in the deal and will take the rest when it pleases at nukepoint.

“We have been reduced in those five years from a position of security so overwhelming and so unchallengeable that we never cared to think about it,” Churchill said, “reduced in five years from a position safe and unchallenged to where we stand now.”

In five years of Obama, the United States has also been reduced, its security stripped away and sold to win the approval of its enemies. It’s locked into the same policy of offering worthless security guarantees to its allies and then selling those allies down the river to prevent them from calling on those guarantees and exposing their worthlessness.

That was the Chamberlain policy that Churchill was denouncing. That is the Obama policy with his chalkboard of worthless red lines whose bluffing powers he is determined to protect.

“Having secured resources which will greatly diminish, if not entirely remove, the deterrent of a naval blockade, the rulers of Nazi Germany will have a free choice open to them in what direction they will turn their eyes,” Churchill said.

Similarly the nuclear deal cuts off most options for America and its allies and endows Iran with a great many options. And once it does have nuclear weapons, its options will be nearly unlimited.

Chamberlain’s rejoinder to Churchill reduced a practical problem to a philosophical one.

“It seems to me that there are really only two possible alternatives. One of them is to base yourself upon the view that… friendly relation… with totalitarian States are impossible, that the assurances which have been given to me personally are worthless, that they have sinister designs and that they are bent upon the domination of Europe,” he said, reciting true facts with the air of a conspiracy theory.

If that were indeed the case, Chamberlain argued, “There is no future hope for civilisation or for any of the things that make life worth living.”

Peace stopped being a rational program and became a philosophical one. A world where dictators could not be successfully appeased was not a world worth living in. The appeasement of Iran follows that same self-pitying mysticism.

For Churchill negotiations were a practical policy with a practical end, but supporters of appeasement had made negotiations into a moral absolute so that practical issues could be ignored and the dismantling of Czechoslovakia could be rationalized for the greater good of peace.

Any contradictory information was drowned in enthusiasm for peace with Hitler, which became indistinguishable from enthusiasm for Hitler.

If peace depended on Hitler and the entire hope of civilization rested on Hitler’s willingness to live in peace, the Chamberlains and their Hoares had to believe in Hitler to believe that life was worth living.

Their modern counterparts substitute the Supreme Leader of Iran for the Fuehrer, or leader, of Nazi Germany, but otherwise they make the same mistake.

To believe in world peace, they must believe in Hitler, in Stalin and in Khamenei and believe that regimes which ceaselessly talk of war, build weapons of war and torture and murder their own people on a whim somehow share their hopes for peace.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/what-churchill-would-make-of-obamas-iran-appeasement/

It matters little sassy as smelly has never been one for taking on board facts.

I am still dying to know how Churchill would have made any difference to the war in 1938 if it started a year earlier, he of course ignores these details

smelly_bandit wrote:

Korben Dallas wrote:
No they mentioned it

but hear you are

Milestones: 1937–1945
The Tehran Conference, 1943

The Tehran Conference was a meeting between U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin in Tehran, Iran, between November 28 and December 1, 1943.
Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill at the Tehran Conference

Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill at the Tehran Conference

During the Conference, the three leaders coordinated their military strategy against Germany and Japan and made a number of important decisions concerning the post World War II era. The most notable achievements of the Conference focused on the next phases of the war against the Axis powers in Europe and Asia. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin engaged in discussions concerning the terms under which the British and Americans finally committed to launching Operation Overlord, an invasion of northern France, to be executed by May of 1944. The Soviets, who had long been pushing the Allies to open a second front, agreed to launch another major offensive on the Eastern Front that would divert German troops away from the Allied campaign in northern France. Stalin also agreed in principle that the Soviet Union would declare war against Japan following an Allied victory over Germany. In exchange for a Soviet declaration of war against Japan, Roosevelt conceded to Stalin’s demands for the Kurile Islands and the southern half of Sakhalin, and access to the ice-free ports of Darien (Dalian) and Port Arthur (Lashun Port) located on the Liaodong Peninsula in northern China. The exact details concerning this deal were not finalized, however, until the Yalta Conference of 1945.

At Tehran, the three Allied leaders also discussed important issues concerning the fate of Eastern Europe and Germany in the postwar period. Stalin pressed for a revision of Poland’s eastern border with the Soviet Union to match the line set by British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon in 1920. In order to compensate Poland for the resulting loss of territory, the three leaders agreed to move the German-Polish border to the Oder and Neisse rivers. This decision was not formally ratified, however, until the Potsdam Conference of 1945. During these negotiations Roosevelt also secured from Stalin his assurance that the Republics of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia would be reincorporated into the Soviet Union only after the citizens of each republic voted on the question in a referendum. Stalin stressed, however, that that the matter would have to be resolved “in accordance with the Soviet constitution,” and that he would not consent to any international control over the elections. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin also broached the question of the possible postwar partition of Germany into Allied zones of occupation and agreed to have the European Advisory Commission “carefully study the question of dismemberment” before any final decision was taken.

Broader international cooperation also became a central theme of the negotiations at Tehran. Roosevelt and Stalin privately discussed the composition of the United Nations. During the Moscow Conference of the Foreign Ministers in October and November of 1943, the United States, Britain, China, and the Soviet Union had signed a four-power declaration whose fourth point called for the creation of a “general international organization” designed to promote “international peace and security.” At Tehran, Roosevelt outlined for Stalin his vision of the proposed organization in which the future United Nations would be dominated by “four policemen” (the United States, Britain, China, and Soviet Union) who “would have the power to deal immediately with any threat to the peace and any sudden emergency which requires action.”

Finally, the three leaders issued a “Declaration of the Three Powers Regarding Iran.” Within it, they thanked the Iranian Government for its assistance in the war against Germany and promised to provide it with economic assistance both during and after the war. Most importantly, the U.S., British, and Soviet Governments stated that they all shared a “desire for the maintenance of the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Iran.”

Roosevelt secured many of his objectives during the Conference. The Soviet Union had committed to joining the war against Japan and expressed support for Roosevelt’s plans for the United Nations. Most importantly, Roosevelt believed that he had won Stalin’s confidence by proving that the United States was willing to negotiate directly with the Soviet Union and, most importantly, by guaranteeing the opening of the second front in France by the spring of 1944. However, Stalin also gained tentative concessions on Eastern Europe that would be confirmed during the later wartime conferences.

please someone wheel this one back into his cell

I find when people start with the lame insults that's generally a indication there up there own ego ...i can lend you a torch if you need it must be really dark that far up

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

  

this is really getting to you isn't it

ive broken you in record time

normally it takes ages for you to resort to the broken record tactic

didge why do you constantly threaten to show me things??

do i want to see this?? do i want to see that??

ten times out of ten the answers is "yes please" and ten times out of ten you never deliver

 ://?roflmao?/: 


So your argument is that Churchill would have stopped the Hitler in 1938, which I have debunked, to then also claim that Churchill who was well aware of the death camps denied the chance to bomb Auschwitz, would you like a little history lesson on that also?

To then shown Churchill appeased which makes your argument moot and on all these points you have no counter, so as always you have been

 :/pwn://:   

back to the ole strawman argument are we where you tell me what ive said even though i haven't said it???

when have i said that Churchill "was well aware of the death camps denied the chance to bomb Auschwitz"

    

are you and sassy in competition on who can talk the biggest load of shit??

PhilDidge wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:

Is that your favorite video allakaka?

I think OBAMA is rather partial to it.

Oh nobody could outdo you in that Smelly, you have been the champion as long as I can remember on forums, but Kaka is very good up bringing up the rear, your rear normally.

Korben Dallas wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

please someone wheel this one back into his cell

I find when people start with the lame insults that's generally a indication there up there own ego ...i can lend you a torch if you need it must be really dark that far up

100% Korben, he has no answer to your posts, mine, sassy and thus is left with feeble insults.

I am happy leaving him doing that as he knows himself he has little knowledge on any of this and takes what he has read by a Zionist as fact, this same Zionists who thought Jews had been living in Palestine constantly for 4000 years. That in itself speaks volumes how he never even takes the time to research anything and takes it as Gospel some of the tripe he reads


Most amusing

PhilDidge wrote:It matters little sassy as smelly has never been one for taking on board facts.

I am still dying to know how Churchill would have made any difference to the war in 1938 if it started a year earlier, he of course ignores these details

are you asking me to speculate on what would have happened??

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


 ://?roflmao?/: 


So your argument is that Churchill would have stopped the Hitler in 1938, which I have debunked, to then also claim that Churchill who was well aware of the death camps denied the chance to bomb Auschwitz, would you like a little history lesson on that also?

To then shown Churchill appeased which makes your argument moot and on all these points you have no counter, so as always you have been

 :/pwn://:   

back to the ole strawman argument are we where you tell me what ive said even though i haven't said it???

when have i said that Churchill "was well aware of the death camps denied the chance to bomb Auschwitz"

    

are you and sassy in competition on who can talk the biggest load of shit??

Hilarious again you said very clearly that because of Chamberlain the holocaust could have been prevented and yet again you fail to answer how this could have been prevented in 1938 by Churchill if he was in power?

Seriously all can see you are out of your league here being as you back an article without any research on the people, that speaks volumes


So again answer the questions, people can see you are just running scared now

 :D 

Sassy wrote:Gladly put you back in your cell Smelly, because you talk crap and ignore all evidence in order to cling on to your nasty bigotted views.   I don't know why anyone bothers even talking to you, you are beyond redemption and are proud of being a disgusting piece of dog shit.

bit harsh sassy. uneducated ,inflexable willing to ignore facts if they don`t support his rhetoric or agendas .Benail. predictable and repetitive certainty

korban cell 31  :::grouch::  :::grouch::  :::grouch:: 

Korben Dallas wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

please someone wheel this one back into his cell

I find when people start with the lame insults that's generally a indication there up there own ego ...i can lend you a torch if you need it must be really dark that far up

you haven't got the faintest idea what you're on about fella have you??
   

The Iranian people are not fools .

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:It matters little sassy as smelly has never been one for taking on board facts.

I am still dying to know how Churchill would have made any difference to the war in 1938 if it started a year earlier, he of course ignores these details

are you asking me to speculate on what would have happened??

Is that now what you are doing with this whole article?

So explain to me how Britain could have prevented the holocaust from happening if Churchill had gone to war in 1938?

You made this absurd notion

With countless evidence of what Britain war time abilities are please show to me how he would have been able to prevent this.


Buck buck what a chicken!

 :D

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

back to the ole strawman argument are we where you tell me what ive said even though i haven't said it???

when have i said that Churchill "was well aware of the death camps denied the chance to bomb Auschwitz"

    

are you and sassy in competition on who can talk the biggest load of shit??

Hilarious again you said very clearly that because of Chamberlain the holocaust could have been prevented and yet again you fail to answer how this could have been prevented in 1938 by Churchill if he was in power?

Seriously all can see you are out of your league here being as you back an article without any research on the people, that speaks volumes


So again answer the questions, people can see you are just running scared now

 :D 

are you smoking crack??

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

where have i said anything about the holocaust??

go ahead and quote me

my god you really are losing the plot
 ::lies:: 

Sassy wrote:Gladly put you back in your cell Smelly, because you talk crap and ignore all evidence in order to cling on to your nasty bigotted views.   I don't know why anyone bothers even talking to you, you are beyond redemption and are proud of being a disgusting piece of dog shit.

dry your eyes darling

smelly_bandit wrote:

Korben Dallas wrote:
I find when people start with the lame insults that's generally a indication there up there own ego ...i can lend you a torch if you need it must be really dark that far up

you haven't got the faintest idea what you're on about fella have you??
   

so is that yes you need a torch?

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

No what you Fail to Grasp smelly is that Churchill was an ardent hater of communism and yet in his last years in office, he sought to appease them, showing how far removed you are from understanding any history.

So your argument here as seen is very moot as Churchill himself appeased his enemies.

so what??

did Churchills appeasement result in millions of deaths??

chamberlains did

The post is very clear, showing to all that smelly believes that if Churchill had been in power the holocaust, as millions died in the holocaust and it would not have happened, he blames this solely on the appeasement of Chamberlain, so we all can see he is running scared now from his claim



So explain to me how Britain could have prevented the holocaust from happening if Churchill had gone to war in 1938?

You made this absurd notion

With countless evidence of what Britain war time abilities are please show to me how he would have been able to prevent this.


Buck buck what a chicken!

Very Happy

smelly_bandit wrote:

Sassy wrote:Gladly put you back in your cell Smelly, because you talk crap and ignore all evidence in order to cling on to your nasty bigotted views.   I don't know why anyone bothers even talking to you, you are beyond redemption and are proud of being a disgusting piece of dog shit.

dry your eyes darling

Yep, good idea, I'm crying with laughter.

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Hilarious again you said very clearly that because of Chamberlain the holocaust could have been prevented and yet again you fail to answer how this could have been prevented in 1938 by Churchill if he was in power?

Seriously all can see you are out of your league here being as you back an article without any research on the people, that speaks volumes


So again answer the questions, people can see you are just running scared now

 :D 

are you smoking crack??

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

where have i said anything about the holocaust??

go ahead and quote me

my god you really are losing the plot
 ::lies:: 

The Holocaust is Just a diversion Smelly , I wonder if the COMRADES will talk about the Jews killed by Russians.

Ah the REAR guard.

I am just laughing because smelly makes absurd claims that millions would not have died in Churchill would have been in power in 1938, which includes millions from the Holocaust

ALLAKAKA wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

are you smoking crack??

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

where have i said anything about the holocaust??

go ahead and quote me

my god you really are losing the plot
 ::lies:: 

The Holocaust is Just a diversion Smelly , I wonder if the COMRADES will talk about the Jews killed by Russians.

Stalin killed millions to and guess what Churchill tried to appease him thus by smelly's logic millions died because of his appeasement!

Well done allakaka for pointing that out!

 :D

I'm convinced that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would think I'm an awesome guy!

PhilDidge wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:



The Holocaust is Just a diversion Smelly , I wonder if the COMRADES will talk about the Jews killed by Russians.

Stalin killed millions to and guess what Churchill tried to appease him thus by smelly's logic millions died because of his appeasement!

Well done allakaka for pointing that out!

 :D

Pleased to be of assistance in showing the Lefts involvement in the Holocaust.

ALLAKAKA wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



Stalin killed millions to and guess what Churchill tried to appease him thus by smelly's logic millions died because of his appeasement!

Well done allakaka for pointing that out!

 :D

Pleased to be of assistance in showing the Lefts involvement in the Holocaust.

The left were not involved in the holocaust though, they were involved in mass murder, you do understand why it is called the holocaust?

Holocaust refers, quite literally, to the burning of corpses, hence why used in reference to many of the murdered 11 million by the Nazi's

Coward Churchill would GIVE IT ALL to the Japanese.

Yeah Defend the Cold wet miserable Isalnd and let a WHOLE CONTINENT of resources fall to the Enemy, the USA would of have a lot hard timer in the pacific If Aussies listened to that Coward Churchill and let our boarders fall in order to send all our troops to Europe. Japan would have went from struggling for fuel, food and metal to being able to match supply with the USA.

Fuck me

Sassy is crack to didge and didge is speed to sassy

Wow what an amazing double act

  

Never seen two posters wind each other up so much

Get a room guys

Actually I think you and Didge are two sides of the same coin. You both go round and round in circles and never listen to any facts.

veya_victaous wrote:Coward Churchill would GIVE IT ALL to the Japanese.

Yeah Defend the Cold wet miserable Isalnd and let a WHOLE CONTINENT of resources fall to the Enemy, the USA would of have a lot hard timer in the pacific If Aussies listened to that Coward Churchill and let our boarders fall in order to send all our troops to Europe. Japan would have went from struggling for fuel, food and metal to being able to match supply with the USA.

Veya that is a tad far fetched, what Navy did the Australians have to defend themselves, or did they need help from both the Americans and British Navies?

The point is here Smelly uses others arguments and cannot formulate any on his own, this one being from a Zionists. Sassy does much of the same they just read an article and never research them or have studied any history. Churchill did stand firm in Britain darkest hour, but he would have made no difference to how the war panned out if Britain had gone to war in 1938, it would have still cost millions of lives as seen already Britain was ill prepared or had the resources to fight a war on its own, it needed the assistance of many nations including Australia and many others, all of which needed each others help in defeating Germany and Japan. 

Though I have to laugh at the absurd claim that Chamberlain was the cause of millions of deaths, being as nobody could have changed how the war panned out if Britain had even gone to war 1938 and as seen all smelly and sassy can do is post other's articles and arguments, a real no brainier, as you can see all they are capable of is slagging people off!

veya_victaous wrote:Coward Churchill would GIVE IT ALL to the Japanese.

Yeah Defend the Cold wet miserable Isalnd and let a WHOLE CONTINENT of resources fall to the Enemy, the USA would of have a lot hard timer in the pacific If Aussies listened to that Coward Churchill and let our boarders fall in order to send all our troops to Europe. Japan would have went from struggling for fuel, food and metal to being able to match supply with the USA.

well you guys sure as shit showed japan didn't you??

PhilDidge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Coward Churchill would GIVE IT ALL to the Japanese.

Yeah Defend the Cold wet miserable Isalnd and let a WHOLE CONTINENT of resources fall to the Enemy, the USA would of have a lot hard timer in the pacific If Aussies listened to that Coward Churchill and let our boarders fall in order to send all our troops to Europe. Japan would have went from struggling for fuel, food and metal to being able to match supply with the USA.

Veya that is a tad far fetched, what Navy did the Australians have to defend themselves, or did they need help from both the Americans and British Navies?

The point is here Smelly uses others arguments and cannot formulate any on his own, this one being from a Zionists. Sassy does much of the same they just read an article and never research them or have studied any history. Churchill did stand firm in Britain darkest hour, but he would have made no difference to how the war panned out if Britain had gone to war in 1938, it would have still cost millions of lives as seen already Britain was ill prepared or had the resources to fight a war on its own, it needed the assistance of many nations including Australia and many others, all of which needed each others help in defeating Germany and Japan. 

Though I have to laugh at the absurd claim that Chamberlain was the cause of millions of deaths, being as nobody could have changed how the war panned out if Britain had even gone to war 1938 and as seen all smelly and sassy can do is post other's articles and arguments, a real no brainier, as you can see all they are capable of is slagging people off!

because you never use anyone elses arguments is that it??

i guess you have several dozen names if we take into account those billion word waffles you bore the shit out of us with day in day out

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Veya that is a tad far fetched, what Navy did the Australians have to defend themselves, or did they need help from both the Americans and British Navies?

The point is here Smelly uses others arguments and cannot formulate any on his own, this one being from a Zionists. Sassy does much of the same they just read an article and never research them or have studied any history. Churchill did stand firm in Britain darkest hour, but he would have made no difference to how the war panned out if Britain had gone to war in 1938, it would have still cost millions of lives as seen already Britain was ill prepared or had the resources to fight a war on its own, it needed the assistance of many nations including Australia and many others, all of which needed each others help in defeating Germany and Japan. 

Though I have to laugh at the absurd claim that Chamberlain was the cause of millions of deaths, being as nobody could have changed how the war panned out if Britain had even gone to war 1938 and as seen all smelly and sassy can do is post other's articles and arguments, a real no brainier, as you can see all they are capable of is slagging people off!

because you never use anyone elses arguments is that it??

i guess you have several dozen names if we take into account those billion word waffles you bore the shit out of us with day in day out

No counter to my points as per usual, you were the one that made the absurd claims here not able to back up how or what difference would have been made if Britain had gone to war in 1938, that you failed to answer and then even worse blamed the deaths of millions in WW2 solely down to Chamberlain. It really does not get any more silly than those claims

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:


because you never use anyone elses arguments is that it??

i guess you have several dozen names if we take into account those billion word waffles you bore the shit out of us with day in day out

No counter to my points as per usual, you were the one that made the absurd claims here not able to back up how or what difference would have been made if Britain had gone to war in 1938, that you failed to answer and then even worse blamed the deaths of millions in WW2 solely down to Chamberlain. It really does not get any more silly than those claims  

 :D you have abandoned all pretense at debate and gone full retard on the straw man argument.

normally you try to be a bit more clever with it, but this time you have come out and are lying loud an proud

i haven't made any claims about how things would be different if the UK went to war earlier since that would be pure speculation, i know you love speculation but im more about facts

you have also accused me of some bizarre things about the holocaust when the first person on this thread to even mention the holocaust was you

take your pills

Japanese WAR CRIMINALS convicted to date ?

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


No counter to my points as per usual, you were the one that made the absurd claims here not able to back up how or what difference would have been made if Britain had gone to war in 1938, that you failed to answer and then even worse blamed the deaths of millions in WW2 solely down to Chamberlain. It really does not get any more silly than those claims  

 :D you have abandoned all pretense at debate and gone full retard on the straw man argument.
No debate or counter again

normally you try to be a bit more clever with it, but this time you have come out and are lying loud an proud
No debate or counter again

i haven't made any claims about how things would be different if the UK went to war earlier since that would be pure speculation, i know you love speculation but im more about facts
You said Chamberlain was responsible for millions of deaths, thus implying because he did not go to war in 1938 millions could have been saved and as seen you cannot provide an answer to say how this could have been accomplished with going to war in 1938 dodging every time to answer this, just giving me feeble excuses. Not only that, you claim to know facts and yet as seen when I presented you with facts showing Britain would not have been able to do anything to stop Germany in 1938, also that when in 1939 they did nothing also to stop Poland being invaded and in fact sat on the defensive. So on all counts we know why you did not answer because you were being schooled in history   

you have also accused me of some bizarre things about the holocaust when the first person on this thread to even mention the holocaust was you
Millions died in the holocaust as well as in the war, you said millions died because of Chamberlain in reference to him not going to war in 1938, that clearly implies millions would not have died, so maybe you can enlighten the whole forum who these millions would have been, take your time  

take your pills

So to sum up, not only did you not have any knowledge of history even worse you did not even know Churchill tried to appease the Communists in the USSR, who he hated, thus you got

 :/pwn://: 

S

ALLAKAKA wrote: Japanese WAR CRIMINALS convicted to date ?

I know that nearly 2,000 Japanese war criminals were put to death after the war. There might have been a lot more done if it hadn't been for the intervention of U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who was the military governor of Japan immediately after the war.

:D 

dear didge you have completely lost the plot

for the umpteenth time

quote me on where i have said these things

im not interested in the fractured conversations the people in your head are having with each other

i didn't say anything like that

  

PhilDidge wrote:

so what??

did Churchills appeasement result in millions of deaths??

chamberlains did

As plain as day, his appeasement by your reference was by not taking action in 1938 by the article of this thread, all can see you trying ever so funnily to wriggle out of what you said.
So I am giving you the opportunity to explain what millions died you refer to that was created by his appeasements.
I also would love to know how Churchill could have prevented any of these millions.

Take your time

digde im just having fun with you fella

every single person will have seen what you're accusing me of and if interested, will be trawling back through to see where i have said these things

they will not find them since i never said them, you're having on of your episodes again didge, where your fractured psyche is creating an alternate reality that you can make sense of

you're inventing things in your head and then demanding i address them

Hilarious, best joke of the day being smelly not able to explain his point, knowing as usual he made another huge gaff

Laters

 

no idea what you're on about

PhilDidge wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:



Pleased to be of assistance in showing the Lefts involvement in the Holocaust.

The left were not involved in the holocaust though, they were involved in mass murder, you do understand why it is called the holocaust?

Holocaust refers, quite literally, to the burning of corpses, hence why used in reference to many of the murdered 11 million by the Nazi's

And how many people were killed in the Holocaust of the London Blitz ?



And the burning of CORPSES is called CREMATION.

ALLAKAKA wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



The left were not involved in the holocaust though, they were involved in mass murder, you do understand why it is called the holocaust?

Holocaust refers, quite literally, to the burning of corpses, hence why used in reference to many of the murdered 11 million by the Nazi's

And how many people were killed in the Holocaust of the London Blitz ?
Thousands.



And the burning of CORPSES  is called CREMATION.

The term holocaust comes from the Greek word holókauston, referring to an animal sacrifice offered to a god in which the whole (olos) animal is completely burnt (kaustos)

PhilDidge wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:




And how many people were killed in the Holocaust of the London Blitz ?
Thousands.



And the burning of CORPSES  is called CREMATION.

The term holocaust comes from the Greek word holókauston, referring to an animal sacrifice offered to a god in which the whole (olos) animal is completely burnt (kaustos)

I've do not advocate the term Holocaust as in the case it refers to it is GENOCIDE.

ALLAKAKA wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

The term holocaust comes from the Greek word holókauston, referring to an animal sacrifice offered to a god in which the whole (olos) animal is completely burnt (kaustos)

I've  do not advocate the term Holocaust as in the case it refers to it is GENOCIDE.

Yes it does mean genocide and many of those butchered were cremated, hence the reference to the word.

Look I seriously know plenty about history, if you want to look smart then you best be able to know what you are talking about.

So what do you wanna know about the Blitz as you brought it up?

What was the most bombed place in WW2?

Didge if I wanted to look smart I would point that Holocaust comes from a Greek word , that related to a ritual practice of sacrificing animals , where the animal was COOKED then eaten and the Offal was burnt in sacrifice.


The word Holocaust in it's self has too many loopholes , Jews were beaten , tortured and starved to death , in reality The biggest WAR CRIME and CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY in our History.

ALLAKAKA wrote:
Didge if I wanted to look smart I would point that Holocaust comes from a Greek word , that related to a ritual practice of sacrificing animals , where the animal was COOKED then eaten and the Offal was burnt in sacrifice.


The word Holocaust in it's  self has too many loopholes , Jews were beaten , tortured and starved to death , in reality The biggest WAR CRIME and CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY in our History.  

I pointed out to you it comes from the greek word, lol

Dear me, you fail to understand why it was termed as such, maybe reading about this may help you allakaka

Anyway why not answer the points you raised:

So what do you wanna know about the Blitz as you brought it up?

What was the most bombed place in WW2?

Sicily or Ireland?

Malta