YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
1744297472780.png



Trump worse than Wilson now.
 
Rome's rightful successor said:
Wilson may have increased segregation, violated the rights of World War I protestors, empowered wall street arms dealers, founded the Federal Reserve, got 100,000 americans killed in Europe, and began these long military occupations in the Caribbean but how dare Trump do the thing that every other country does to us.
Click to expand...

 
Rome's rightful successor said:
Wilson may have increased segregation, violated the rights of World War I protestors, empowered wall street arms dealers, founded the Federal Reserve, got 100,000 americans killed in Europe, and began these long military occupations in the Caribbean but how dare Trump do the thing that every other country does to us.
Click to expand...

The prerequisite for being worst president should require having at least 1 genocide under your belt.

No... the "trans-genocide" is not a genocide.
 
Amerikaner Teddybär said:
Churchill did nothing wrong, I will not elaborate.
Click to expand...

- Gallipoli was a good strategy. Knockout the Ottomans and secure some oil. Churchill got unlucky and faced one of the greatest commanders in history. The terrain was awful, but they had good reason to underestimate the Turks. They were comically incompetent and disorganized with the exception of Attaturk.

- Indian famines. You cannot blame one man for this as British rule and precolonial India setup a system where peasants paid rents to landlords who did not care about them. It was an export based economy that relied on imported rice. That rice being cutoff only happened after the British got basically their entire army in Asia destroyed at the Battle of Singapore. The army was well equipped and had alot of soldiers. It was just caught by surprise.

-France 1940. British and French were well prepared to hold the Germans back like in ww1. The politicians (including Chamberlain) did everything that could be reasonably be done. The commanders failed. Churchhill did a good job at salvaging the France debacle and not surrendering. Some here support a British surrender, but why surrender to somebody who has broken every agreement they have ever made?

-Strategic bombing. Pretty much every military historian I have read agrees that had it minimal impact on he war, but at the time they did not know that. Nobody could predict that the Germans would somehow increase production by moving factories into the forest. At the time they did predict that it would strengthen German resolve, but that was hardly the goal anyway. Regardless, this decision was the right call. The Germans had already been doing strategic bombing against the allies so there was literally no reason not to bomb them back.

-Italy. Dunno why this campaign gets so much hate. The allies were not ready for D-Day and had to do something. Italy was a place where they could practice for D-Day, use their naval supremacy to the fullest, and actually divert some units away from the Eastern Front.

- The British Empire. People love the British Empire, but it sucked. It cost the govt alot of money just to enrich a small few elites with stocks and properties across the empire. You can get the resources without owning the places.
 
Slap47 said:
- Gallipoli was a good strategy. Knockout the Ottomans and secure some oil. Churchill got unlucky and faced one of the greatest commanders in history. The terrain was awful, but they had good reason to underestimate the Turks. They were comically incompetent and disorganized with the exception of Attaturk.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the Royal Navy decided to send the battleships in without clearing the area of mines.

Slap47 said:
-France 1940. British and French were well prepared to hold the Germans back like in ww1. The politicians (including Chamberlain) did everything that could be reasonably be done. The commanders failed. Churchhill did a good job at salvaging the France debacle and not surrendering. Some here support a British surrender, but why surrender to somebody who has broken every agreement they have ever made?
Click to expand...
This is what the "Hitler wanted peace" crowd fail to see. If Hitler truly wanted peace, why did he invade the rest of Czechia? Why did Memel get occupied? Why didn't the Germans heed the British and French calls to withdraw from Poland?
 
Amerikaner Teddybär said:
Churchill did nothing wrong, I will not elaborate.
Click to expand...
Well people can criticize Churchill for this, that, and the other thing regardless of how you feel about this admittedly complex British head of state, but considering Churchill himself was very much right wing in more ways than one, I figure a lot of right wing people of different right wing political camps can probably find a bit of themselves in that gruff old Bulldog. People tend to lionize him (considering the ten million hagiographies of him that are out there) or act like he was the devil (dissident right types as well as Marxist/Indian historians) while not really stopping to take a closer look at the man himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom