Dr Fallout
Centurion
Please don't quote Churchill, who even as a conservative proved that he had no brain.
Opinions on Communism
- Thread starter Bond Fan
- Start date
Izak
I Shot The ALBATROSS
You realize Churchill's one of the most revered individuals on the 20th century, right? Say what you will about his politics, but the guy certainly saved a cushy legacy for himself, I'd say that took a brain.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
No, it took dumb rhetoric and propaganda. And a healthy dose of ignorance and biased teaching...
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Churchill was a gin-sipping lunatic who made a lot of bad decisions that cost a lot of British and Allied lives.
And which leader in WW2 wasn't? I mean even the best ones, made mistakes, or had some ego, and they wasted lives. Name a General or leader from WW2 doesn't matter, and you can say the same about all of them.
Well, I guess WW2 helped him as well. I think he was at least the right man for those years in Britain. Post war? Not so much ...
Wasn't it during WW2 that Brits had to specifically ban people from drinking beer during work hours, in order to boost production efficiency?
I get the impression that not only has alcohol been central to human culture everywhere (loved or banned, still central) but humanity seems ruled by drunkards through most of its history
There is even a growing consensus that agriculture came about primarily in order to put alcohol creation under human control, while a secondary effect was "hey, guys, we can also EAT the grains :O"
Extend it to today even, and you have the cliche of the brandy-sipping decision makers, or China - one of the leading world powers, where you pretty much have to gulp down a few shots of booze, before they'll even want to talk business with you
"Nope, too sober, here, have another one!"
I get the impression that not only has alcohol been central to human culture everywhere (loved or banned, still central) but humanity seems ruled by drunkards through most of its history
There is even a growing consensus that agriculture came about primarily in order to put alcohol creation under human control, while a secondary effect was "hey, guys, we can also EAT the grains :O"
Extend it to today even, and you have the cliche of the brandy-sipping decision makers, or China - one of the leading world powers, where you pretty much have to gulp down a few shots of booze, before they'll even want to talk business with you
"Nope, too sober, here, have another one!"
Well next to supply of amunition to verdun, they made sure that the soldiers had a steady stream of wine available. Go figure :p. Vodka was also a common part of rations for the Soviet soldiers. While you shure don't want to have drunk soldiers with lots of weapons, a certain amount of alcohol definetly helps to boost the morale. At least, it did for the Russians and the French. But that is probably also, because vodka and wine play such a large role in their culture, just like beer in Germany. For example, in Bavaria beer is seen as basic food, and up to a few years ago bavarian barracks had to make sure that every Soldier had access to beer for his meal.
There are many interesting mentions of alcohol culture through history, for example in a docu of the building of Egyptian pyramids, the laborers were - well, laborers (as opposed to slaves) and ate good meaty dinners always accompanied by beer.
GoT's characters affinities for alcohol-instead-of-water is not just a fun idea by the author, but based on observations of medieval and other ancient customs where alcohol seems to come first, and water/milk/juice/other childish drinks second
Vikings famously drank their mead or import beer whenever they feasted, you never hear a word about a big horn of water
Non-alcoholic beverages, if you think about it, seem kind of modern. Soft-drinks definitely are modern. Apart from soft-drinks, what do we have left? Milk? Ugh. Imagine milk in a world without refrigerators, barf! Orange juice? Definitely not in Norway, unless you're trying to import it fast as hell before it grows mold
(Btw, this is the random discussion thread yes? I'm going to assume it is!)
Well, it had also practical reasons. Beer for example, contains a lot of nutritions and calories, compared to water. Alcohol in general was favoured over water, for the very simple reason that water was extremly unhealthy in medieval periods! As most people know hygene was a real problem in those times. And on top of it, most people didn't really had a grasp or understanding of diseases, infections and the like. It was very common for those that could afford it to drink very diluted wine instead of water, for that simple reason.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
In World War 2, the wars between Finland and Soviet Union, Soviet soldiers got regular vodka-rations to keep fighting and at least some Finnish soldiers were given a substance called Pervitin, reminiscent of amphetamine. Some have called the conflict between the two countries "The Drunks vs. The Junkies".
Dr Fallout
Centurion
All he did was act tough and people worship him as some hero. This is the same guy who wanted Nazi Germany as a military capable buffer against the USSR, this is the same guy who wanted WW3 right after WW2.
Izak
I Shot The ALBATROSS
He kind of acted tough when his country needed someone to be tough. I don't think anyone was complaining about Churchill during the Blitz.
And lo and behold, he was completely correct in his assumption that the USSR would become (even bigger) cockheads after WW2. I doubt whether he would've cared if it was Weimar or Nazi Germany keeping the Soviets out.
Operation Unthinkable was called 'Unthinkable' for a reason, it was pure conjecture, no one wanted to start WW3 after WW2, they made plans for it just becuz.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
He wanted Nazi Germany, because he thought it would be more military capable. Lucky that everyone else persuaded him otherwise. And it was only called that by the military command not Churchill who was serious about it.
Sources?
Dr Fallout
Centurion
For what specifically?
The fact that Churchill was serious about Operation Unthinkable (it was deemed as fanciful by the British Armed forces, but brought up again in 1946 due to tensions)? Or that he wanted to re-arm the Nazis?
Well, I was simply very confused, because you said, Nazi-Germany, which gave me the impression like Churchill was somehow in favour of the Nazis to fight against the Soviets, which makes no sense as Britain was fighting Nazi Germany alongside the Soviet Union from 1941 to 45. However Churchill was never very fond of Stalin either, for obvious reasons though, but he was hardly the only one here. I just had this picture in my mind, of Churchill shaking hands with Hitler, to beat Stalin.
Now that you said 'Operation Unthinkable', I know what you mean. But I find this (...)he wanted to re-arm the Nazis? Very missleading, because for all purposes, there was no Nazi state or Regime after the 8th of April 1945 anymore. It simply gives me this feeling, like Churchill had no qualms to work with the Nazis to fight the Soviets, which I think, is not true. Not after 6 years of fighting the Nazis. Even if the West would have enganged in a war against the Soviets and their allies, in 1945 or 46, there would have been no Nazi or Third Reich fighting along side America or Britain. It would have been the German people, and the Wehrmacht, but with different leaders and Generals. Particularly as the Brits had most of their Generals and military leadership as prisoners, and they had a pretty good idea of who was close to the ideology of Nazi Germany and who was simply an opportunist and actually hated the Nazis, and there was quite a lot of resentment in the Wehrmachtleadership against the Nazis.
Without the intention to get to deep in this, Germany was not Nazism - because it really wasn't, only a relatively small core within the German society and military was trully believers in the Nazi-Ideology, a remarming of Germany, would have happend under a whole different premise with pretty much ALL of the prominent Nazi figures and leaders out of the picture. What many confuse, is nationalism with National Socialist. While there are many similarities, it is not exactly the same. Particularly as not every German was an extremist. The Nazi-Leaders would have faced their trial, no matter what. It wouldn't have been the same kind of army nor following the same kind of ideology or idea behind it. I mean Germany HAS been rearmed at some point, West-Germany that is, which ended up with the Bundeswehr, but east Germany followed right after that. The preasure of the Cold War and the political changes during that time definetly had as much to do with it, like the idea that Germany should become a sovereign state at some point.
I am not so much disagreeing with you, just saying that the Nazis have been pretty much dead and out of the picture after 1945.
Now that you said 'Operation Unthinkable', I know what you mean. But I find this (...)he wanted to re-arm the Nazis? Very missleading, because for all purposes, there was no Nazi state or Regime after the 8th of April 1945 anymore. It simply gives me this feeling, like Churchill had no qualms to work with the Nazis to fight the Soviets, which I think, is not true. Not after 6 years of fighting the Nazis. Even if the West would have enganged in a war against the Soviets and their allies, in 1945 or 46, there would have been no Nazi or Third Reich fighting along side America or Britain. It would have been the German people, and the Wehrmacht, but with different leaders and Generals. Particularly as the Brits had most of their Generals and military leadership as prisoners, and they had a pretty good idea of who was close to the ideology of Nazi Germany and who was simply an opportunist and actually hated the Nazis, and there was quite a lot of resentment in the Wehrmachtleadership against the Nazis.
Without the intention to get to deep in this, Germany was not Nazism - because it really wasn't, only a relatively small core within the German society and military was trully believers in the Nazi-Ideology, a remarming of Germany, would have happend under a whole different premise with pretty much ALL of the prominent Nazi figures and leaders out of the picture. What many confuse, is nationalism with National Socialist. While there are many similarities, it is not exactly the same. Particularly as not every German was an extremist. The Nazi-Leaders would have faced their trial, no matter what. It wouldn't have been the same kind of army nor following the same kind of ideology or idea behind it. I mean Germany HAS been rearmed at some point, West-Germany that is, which ended up with the Bundeswehr, but east Germany followed right after that. The preasure of the Cold War and the political changes during that time definetly had as much to do with it, like the idea that Germany should become a sovereign state at some point.
I am not so much disagreeing with you, just saying that the Nazis have been pretty much dead and out of the picture after 1945.
Last edited:
Dr Fallout
Centurion
He wanted to re-arm them after the suicide of Hitler, giving Doenitz's forces weapons and supplies in the aim of creating several military divisions against the Soviet Union. For all intents and purposes, they were Nazis, though under a much less radical leader. Yes, Hitler did indeed choose a successor, Admiral Doenitz to continue the legacy of the third Reich. Churchill wanted to arm the remaining Nazis but the US and much of the British General staff refused seeing it pointless (the remaining strength only appeared on paper, many of the remaining German soldiers were tired of the war and wanted to go home) and too much of an aggressive action against the Soviets. Basically you're right, the remnants of the Third Reich was just a submarine base and so pretty much nothing, meaning that Churchill had really nothing to arm.
Illuminati Confirmed!
Banned
Doenitz wasn't a chosen successor, he was just the guy who wound up in charge after Hitler and those party members closest to him died/escaped/went to create an Aryan utopia colony in South America.
And what's so bad about liberating eastern Europe from the Soviets? You do realize that not a lot of people wanted them there, and that fifty years of their rule turned some quite developed regions into shitholes?
As for Churchill, other than his charisma and good writing, his record leaves a lot to be desired.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
No Hitler did choose him, at least that's what I'm aware of.
Replace them with Nazis? No thank you.
Yeah, it was part of Hitler's political testament. Hitler explicitly cut out Göring and Himmler due to him thinking that they were planning on making peace and taking over Germany.