Printable View
Actually, the Nazis were very well-known for their book-burnings. And since at least one of Shakespeare's plays (Julius Ceaser) was very critical of Rome (not a nice thing to say around people who said they were bringing back the glories of the Roman Empire, or the "First Reich"), then if his stuff wasn't already on the list it probably would be soon.Quote:
I will assume The Redneck is being sarcastic with his remark.
Oh yes the Nazi's were I know that much. But I was holding most to britain.. and I didn't think britain had a drive in that period to burn shakespeare. 'Cause I truely think Germany would have been stopped regardless of Churchill, though churchill helped.. I guess. I know one of my teachers isn't a very big Churchill fan, says churchill was overplayed. Then again this same teacher isn't the biggest fan of FDR either... he didn't like any of the WWII "leaders". *shrug*
I'm not a big fan of FDR myself, although I assume for different reasons than your teacher...Quote:
Oh yes the Nazi's were I know that much. But I was holding most to britain.. and I didn't think britain had a drive in that period to burn shakespeare. 'Cause I truely think Germany would have been stopped regardless of Churchill, though churchill helped.. I guess. I know one of my teachers isn't a very big Churchill fan, says churchill was overplayed. Then again this same teacher isn't the biggest fan of FDR either... he didn't like any of the WWII "leaders". *shrug*
However--how would Germany have been stopped regardless of Churchill? Remember that by the time America got into the war, Germany had most of Western Europe, a good chunk of eastern Europe, was regularly bombing England, had V2 Rockets that could deliver a payload without risking a plane or pilot, and was working on both the nuclear bomb and another pact with Stalin that, had it succeeded, would have allowed him to focus all his energies on what was pretty much his last obstacle in the conquest of Europe--Britain.
To tell the truth I do not know ALL of what churchill did. But I do realize there was alot that lead to the fall of Germany. And I think Churhill/entrance of the US only played a part in it. If you take out one part many things can still work. And I think while it would have hurt the allied cause to have Churchill out of the picture I still think the whole machine would have worked.. even if the casulties had been worse.
Then again Churchill could have done something super stupendous that I do not know about.
As for why my teacher is not a BIG fan of FDR(teacher still says FDR was a *good* president but thinks he is too played up) I ain't 100% sure. But I know the overall dealings with pre-WWII and WWII didn't please teacher too much.. which is why he doesn't really like any leader during that time.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned John Locke.
Take care all.
churchil actully never prevented ab invasion of britain because none was ever planned.
before the war hitler had a jolly old plan for taking over most of earope and some of northern africa (he had a demented idea that the map of germany should look like an eagle for a while) and most of all he would like to bestest buds with britain. after all we had a jolly old empire nad he admired us very much. but after the sudentland stuff and the alliance wih poland he thought that he might not get to bestest buds with britain because they didn't seem to like him anymore. so he made a plan. he still wanted poland because it had lots of people to kill but fighting france and britain and russia all at the same time would have been a right problem. so he made a pact with the russians to scare away the british. it didn't work and for a while nothing happened, until dunkirk and we started bombing each other. this was often called the blitz short for blitzkreig but is very wrong. the blitzkreig refers to the use of an all out assualt using tanks and dive bombers to very quickly take a country as seen in france and spain and poland and lots of other places. as this never happened in britain it was not a blitz. it was lots of bombing to make us surrender and be nice to hitler again so he could get on with killing lots of russians. if we had surrendered during the battle of britain then almost certainly hitler would have went on with fighting russia and being able to take africa without a problem. britain was never in his plans for invasion he liked his third reich the way it was.
on that point just to point out that the first reich was not the roman empire. it was the holy roman empire which is different. the holy roman empire was the collectiuon of individual states that napeolen trampled on that existed until the german and italian revolutions with bismarck and all that stuff. the second reich was the german empire until 1918.
anyway enough of history lesson while churchil was not directly responsible for the victory in the second world war. he was a man who knew how to bolster morale and confidence in the darkest hours and won the war in that respect in that our civillian population didn't crumble under the pressure.
I've heard that half-way through the war, one of Hitler's war leaders tried to negotiate without Churchill, and told him that if Germany and Britian joined forces, they could rule the world.
They declared him mentally ill, and he spent the rest of his life in Scottish mental asylum.
That might be a load of rubbish, but I've definatly seen that somewhere.