Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thecrashingisles

Guess The Politician..

Recommended Posts

I read somewhere he wanted to go onto Moscow after defeating the Nazis to remove stalin, while he may have disagreed with Hitler, he thought Stalin was actually insane and really didnt care about tens of millions of Russians lives, whereas Hitler certainly cared about german lives.

I kind of wonder what would have happened had we never entered WW2. Would Hitler have re-settled/banished the Jews as was originally intended rather than murdering them, was slave labour only necessary because of our entry into WW2. Was pearl harbour a bankster plot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere he wanted to go onto Moscow after defeating the Nazis to remove stalin, while he may have disagreed with Hitler, he thought Stalin was actually insane and really didnt care about tens of millions of Russians lives, whereas Hitler certainly cared about german lives.

I kind of wonder what would have happened had we never entered WW2. Would Hitler have re-settled/banished the Jews as was originally intended rather than murdering them, was slave labour only necessary because of our entry into WW2. Was pearl harbour a bankster plot?

Where did you read that? Back of a Bacofoil packet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

probably wikipedia. Same difference i guess.

'In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.'

i think that was disreali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should of course be pointed out that the OP is actually a quote mine. Of course, if you search around through everything a person has said and carefully select a sentence out of context, you can easily make them appear to be whatever you want them to be.

The classic is Darwin's

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Which is nice for young earth creationist loonies, but when viewed in context, Darwin's meaning is obviously not so amenable to their world view.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

So in there interests of honesty and fairness, here is what he actually said

I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our right­ful posi­tion among the nations. I am sorry, how­ever, that he has not been mel­lowed by the great suc­cess that has attended him. The whole world would rejoice to see the Hitler of peace and tol­er­ance, and noth­ing would adorn his name in world his­tory so much as acts of mag­na­nim­ity and of mercy and of pity to the for­lorn and friend­less, to the weak and poor.

Since he has been good enough to give me his advice I ven­ture to return the com­pli­ment. Herr Hitler also showed him­self unduly sen­si­tive about sug­ges­tions that there may be other opin­ions in Ger­many besides his own. It would be indeed aston­ish­ing if, among 80,000,000 of peo­ple so vary­ing in ori­gin, creed, inter­est, and con­di­tion, there should be only one pat­tern of thought. It would not be nat­ural: it is incred­i­ble. That he has the power, and, alas! the will, to sup­press all incon­ve­nient opin­ions is no doubt true. It would be much wiser to relax a lit­tle, and not try to frighten peo­ple out of their wits for express­ing hon­est doubt and diver­gences. He is mis­taken in think­ing that I do not see Ger­mans of the Nazi regime when they come to this coun­try. On the con­trary, only this year I have seen, at their request, Herr Bohle, Herr Hen­lein, and the Gauleiter of Danzigand they all know that.

In com­mon with most Eng­lish men and women, I should like noth­ing bet­ter than to see a great, happy, peace­ful Ger­many in the van­guard of Europe. Let this great man search his own heart and con­science before he accuses any­one of being a war­mon­ger. The whole peo­ples of the British Empire and the French Repub­lic earnestly desire to dwell in peace side by side with the Ger­man nation. But they are also resolved to put them­selves in a posi­tion to defend their rights and long-established civ­i­liza­tions. They do not mean to be in anybody’s power. If Herr Hitler’s eye falls upon these words I trust he will accept them in the spirit of can­dour in which they are uttered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FDR really did say this - so I claim my prize.

I'm not 100% that FDR really said that quote I posted but it has been attributed to him. So, yes the virtual fiver is yours.

As for British political figures praising Hitler, Lloyd George is probably a prize winner with his hard hitting Daily Express article 'I talked to Hitler'...

He is as immune from criticism as a king in a monarchical country. He is something more. He is the George Washington of Germany — the man who won for his country independence from all her oppressors. To those who have not actually seen and sensed the way Hitler reigns over the heart and mind of Germany this description may appear extravagant. All the same, it is the bare truth. This great people will work better, sacrifice more, and, if necessary, fight with greater resolution because Hitler asks them to do so. Those who do not comprehend this central fact cannot judge the present possibilities of modern Germany.

On the other hand, those who imagine that Germany has swung back to its old Imperialist temper cannot have any understanding of the character of the change. The idea of a Germany intimidating Europe with a threat that its irresistible army might march across frontiers forms no part of the new vision.

What Hitler said at Nuremberg is true. The Germans will resist to the death every invader at their own country, but they have no longer the desire themselves to invade any other land.

The Duke of Windsor also (allegedly) penned a fair few zingers but (allegedly) a small team of devoted patriots, including Anthony Blunt, followed front line troops into Germany in 1945 hoovering up the archives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I read of Lloyd George, the more he appear a thoroughly self serving repugnant little messianic toad.

I know not why they put that ridiculous statue of him in parliament square.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I read of Lloyd George, the more he appear a thoroughly self serving repugnant little messianic toad.

I know not why they put that ridiculous statue of him in parliament square.

I must confess I haven't warmed to him much either.

Re. this unfortunate business of British political figures occasionally gushing about AH in the 20s and 30s. My understanding is that a chunk of the British establishment took WW1 a little less personally than the French and was of the opinion that the Treaty of Versailles was on the harsh side and that Germans may have had just the hint of a genuine grievance about the burdens they were shackled with. Oh, and in Lloyd George's case apparently, that fascism was great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am however wary of too firmly attributing what a politician says to his actual, firmly held convictions. I believe that to a substantial degree both what WC and LG have been quotes as saying above was in the interests of diplomacy. That means they had to be diplomatic about AH when they might rather not have been.

What poisons me against LG is for example the following quotes/speeches:

The British soldier is a good sportsman. He enlisted in this war in a sporting spirit—in the best sense of that term. He went in to see fair play to a small nation trampled upon by a bully. He is fighting for fair play. He has fought as a good sportsman. By the thousands he has died a goods sportsman. He has never asked anything more than a sporting chance. He has not always had that. When he couldn’t get it, he didn’t quit. He played the game. He didn’t squeal, and he has certainly never asked anyone to squeal for him. Under the circumstances the British, now that the fortunes of the game have turned a bit, are not disposed to stop because of the squealing done by Germans or done for Germans by probably well-meaning but misguided sympathizers and humanitarians...During these months when it seemed the finish of the British Army might come quickly, Germany elected to make this a fight to a finish with England. The British soldier was ridiculed and held in contempt. Now we intend to see that Germany has her way. The fight must be to a finish—to a knock-out.
Haig does not care how many men he loses. He just squanders the lives of these boys. I mean to save some of them in the future. He seems to think they are his property. I am their trustee. I will never let him rest. I will raise the subject again & again until I nag him out of it—until he knows that as soon as the casualty lists get large he will get nothing but black looks and scowls and awkward questions...I should have backed Nievelle against Haig. Nievelle has proved himself to be a Man at Verdun; & when you get a Man against one who has not proved himself, why, you back the Man!

In the first instance we have LG expounding the necessity to continue waging war and in the next we have him berating his general for sending young men to their deaths. If LG fancied himself "their trustee" then he should have stopped the war. Then he could of saved them all for the future. The war was his choice and the blood of the dead and wounded are on his hands, not on his subordinate who was doing a very difficult job at least as well as any of his contemporaries.

Its ironic also that LG is praising Nievelle over Haig, since Nievelle's subsequent offensive was so disastrous that it brought the French army to the point of mutiny, and necessitated the great British offensives of 1917.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I've been jarred by the same apparent inconsistancies in Lloyd George's rhetoric and conduct during WW1.

When I was a kid the occasional references I picked up in TV dramas and the like portrayed him as a more sympathetic character than more detailed study supports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.