What if Churchill made peace with Germany and then after a few years, after we had been lulled into a false sense of security an even stronger Germany suddenly attacked, blitzes left right and centre launched from German bases along the North Sea from Germany to Poland and we were invaded and were now living under German occupation and being made to suffer?
In my opinion Churchill never went far enough. He should have totally annihilated Germany and the Krauts. Wiped them off the face of the earth. Nothing good is ever achieved by making compromises in war because one day, the very existence of your enemy will come back to haunt you in one way or another.
That's not to say I enjoy people getting killed, only that in war total wipe-out is the only sure conclusion. It's nasty but it's effective. If we'd totally destroyed Germany in the first world war then we'd never have had what was the second world war. Can anyone deny that? Germany are almost dominating Europe again, albeit in the guise of the EU. If they'd been totally wiped out in the second world war then we wouldn't be in the position we are today with the EU.
...if Germany had been totally destroyed any sort of European Union would be a lot different to the one now. Any European Union should have been created by us and on our terms, not one where we had to wait to be allowed in by our traditional enemies and who then went on to make laws for us!
...while we were at war we should have gone all out for total annihilation. There should have been many many more Dresdens, and then after the war destroy everything (especially anything written in German and make it an offence to speak the language), give the land to the surrounding allied or neutral countries, sterilise or castrate those males who survived the war and give all the females to the surrounding nations. There you have it - Germany gone for good, but the females could still reproduce white kids but not German.
I wonder how long before Germany totally dominates the EU? If we stay in they will dominate us and if we get out then it won't be long before a German dominated Europe will try and impose it's will on us by force. And why? Because we allowed Germany to exist!
I'm not saying that Britain was a land of saints and Germany a land of demons or passing righteous judgment on either.
War began and people started killing each other. That is what you set out to do when there is war. If no civilians were ever meant to get killed then why don't armies meet in somewhere like the Antarctic, fight it out there and the victors come back and do what they set out to do to the enemy country? If there are going to be rules of engagement why not just settle things over a few games of chess?
We go to war allowing for the prospect of civilian deaths because that is the most effective way of destroying the enemy; so that a new front does not appear somewhere else from amongst the civilian population. Now if we accept that then you go all out to defeat the enemy. If both countries involve civilians then civilians are also an enemy to the opposition. Your aim is then to kill them. Surely that is logical!
Death is death, no matter if the killing is done according to certain rules or not.
The fact that two nations start fighting and are prepared to accept some rules means that they were simply not prepared to put in place other rules which restricted fighting solely to armies and well away from any civilians (ie.going to Antarctica to sort out their differences).
When you go to war accepting that your civilians will be involved, then it is logical to just kill all the enemy. Kill, kill, kill till you win. Something may be regarded as an attrocity but the aim is to kill. Civilians included.
Britain and Germany did not choose a neutral battlefield therefore they are agreeing to their civilians being a part of the war. If civilians are part of the war you try and kill them also. It is logical, then, to kill them in any way you can.
In case anyone may be thinking that we did not give Germany the chance to settle this on a neutral playing field with no civilians involved, remember that Germany had already chosen to involve civilians by invading other countries.
Now, if the most effective way of destroying your enemies is to commit attrocities then so be it. Death is death.
We may have been killing fellow white people but war had started. Once it starts, for whatever reason, then you have to do what has to be done to win - or else you risk losing!
If the name of the game is to kill then rules are for mugs, for an enemy can not be trusted. You go out to kill and destroy until you have won. Is that not common sense? You do things by half measures and you run the risk of the enemy getting the upper hand and destroying you.
Once two countries agree to wage war where civilians are going to be killed then neither Dresden, Coventry or any act resulting in enemy deaths should be regarded as a 'war crime'.