Thread context
4 posts in path
Root
@Kang_Kong3@poa.st
Open
@Kang_Kong3@poa.st
@Punished_Potatus @BroDrillard Nooooo! You don't get it! When you're fighting a war in the face of a possible or even probable invasion, the morally correct position is to strengthen your enemy's nava
Ancestor 2
@Gelert@poa.st
Open
@Gelert@poa.st
@Kang_Kong3 @Punished_Potatus @BroDrillard Invasion could have been avoided by accepting the numerous white peace proposals from Germany. This is a critique of Churchills character and motivation, not
Parent
@Kang_Kong3@poa.st
Open
@Kang_Kong3@poa.st
@Gelert @Punished_Potatus @BroDrillard I'm not arguing on churchill's character. The same decision would have been made by any leader in that strategic and tactical situation. Obviously both world war
Current reply
@Kang_Kong3 @Punished_Potatus @BroDrillard *Any leader who's object was not a desirous victory for their own country*
Which is the rub. It's not like Denmark in the Napoleonic wars, there was no continental system where being blocked from the Baltic risked the last market for British trade, the existential threat was prosecuting the war.
View full thread on poa.st
0
0
0