Italy did not enter the war until they thought not only France but also Britain had already been knocked out. If Britain had sought peace at that time, any settlement would hardly have left Britain with a free hand to go on fighting other wars against Hitler’s allies, or to provide support to resistance movements on the continent, or to offer any resistance over the Middle East oilfields.
I don’t think so. England had transferred significant technology to the US so Hitler would have seen Jets from the US and Canada escorting B-36 bombers with nuclear bombs. It would have been Dresden Groundhog Day.
If Hitler had never declared war on the US, why would the US be sending bombers with nuclear bombs to bomb Germany?
So you’d have preferred living under Hitler? Or the Imperial Japanese? :rolleyes:
I did not in any way or shape say that racism was right. I said it was the reality. There’s a difference between an excuse and an explanation. History is full of shit like this.
Hell, why do you think Ireland stayed neutral?
(I’m Irish on my Dad’s side, so I’m not exactly a fan of the British Empire)
But sometimes, you have to go with what you have. We wouldn’t have won without the Soviets, either – and there’s no way in HELL I’m going to defend Stalin and Co.
Keep in mind that the attitude at the time was to avoid war. Nobody wanted another world war, and Churchill was in the minority.
I believe FDR did as well – isn’t he the one who came up with the nickname “Uncle Joe”? To try and sell the guy to the American public?
Other than Germany and Japan were taking over the world. No idea.
If you start a thread on Kevin Spacey’s acting accomplishments, his sexual misconduct allegations are bound to show up.
Greatness and Villainy can be embodied in the same person.
Times have changed and there is a statue of Gandhi next to Churchill in Parliament square.
Yes, but as noted, when the other side has Adolf fuckin’ Hitler, Genocidal Racist, Winston fuckin’ Churchill, paternalistic racist is no doubt an improvement.
But they have little relevance to a discussion on the specific qualities of the performances and the films themselves.
And our side had fuckin’ Stalin, who was as bad if not worse than Hitler, though he was more an equal opportunity murderer so maybe that’s not as bad as Hitler’s more focused slaughter. At any rate, when comparing Churchill’s (and Roosevelt’s for that matter) racism, you have to be able to put it in some context and do comparison with the other leaders at the time. Pretty much ALL of the Axis leadership were monsters. Certainly several of the allied ones were as well. But Churchill (and Roosevelt) weren’t in the same league as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo or even Chiang Kai-shek, let alone Mao (though, to be fair, Mao was more a bit player at this stage…he wouldn’t get into Stalin and Hitler’s league for another decade).
None of this excuses Churchill, or attempts to whitewash what he did or was. But you have to weigh the positive things he did as well, not just focus on the negative as if those negatives take away from his contribution. Like I said, even fucking Stalin had positive contributions wrt winning the war…and the dude was an out and out monster.
True, but “our side” didn’t include Stalin during the worst of the Battle of Britain, correct? Which is the period in question asked for by the OP.
No, arguably Stalin was on his own side and working WITH Hitler and Germany at that stage. It’s why Churchill’s contribution was so meaningful…at that time, pretty much Britain was on it’s one against the only other coalition of nations out there. It would have been SO easy for Britain to sue for peace, especially since Hitler’s terms were pretty generous, all things considered. And especially since at that point there was no guarantee that Britain would get other allies, or even be able to stand on it’s own and hold the home islands. There was talk of moving the government to Canada…that’s how desperate things looked.
I guess I’m not seeing the relevance of Churchill’s problematic views to the very real impact he had over that period.
Referencing those views seeks to answer a different question than that asked by the OP.
They were doing so all through 1941 and the isolationists didn’t care. They tried to squash Roosevelt’s every move. The nuclear program was always intended for use against Hitler. We wouldn’t have even started it without Germany in the war.
And an amazing percentage of Americans would have been just fine if the Fascists won.
We let GB take over the world.
Look, if Germany didnt attack us or declare, we would have gone to war against them. Especially if the Brits wouldnt be asking for or needing our aid.
Wasn’t Great Britain well on the way with the British Empire before the USA was a country of it’s own?
Yeah, they were. It’s literally why the US was a British colony. Have zero idea what DrD is saying there - the British Empire was an empire long before the United States could do anything about it.
Sure it was. But the point is, the USA back then only concerned itself with the Americas. It let Europe do it’s own thing.
No you didn’t, your country exists because you fought to stop the UK having control of you :smack:
In exchange for the Americans keeping the Americas for itself, a policy which was beneficial for England. Had England not supported the Monroe Doctrine, there wasn’t a damned thing the US could have done about it.
I am a bit confused as to how American reaction to the formation of the British Empire from 1609-1776 (or beyond) is relevant for this topic, however.
A timely digression.