Co-Host

So Churchill is the one that turned this narrow war, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, into a global one. Is that accurate?

So Churchill is the one that turned this narrow war, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, into a global one. Is that accurate?

So the thing you mentioned initially is sort of the idealist perspective of, well, Britain can't allow... sort of this warmonger to break all these pacts and be undemocratic, murder a large number of people and do conquest of territory. Okay, that's idealistic, but if we look at the realist perspective, what decisions would minimize the amount of suffering on the continent in the next 50 years?

So the thing you mentioned initially is sort of the idealist perspective of, well, Britain can't allow... sort of this warmonger to break all these pacts and be undemocratic, murder a large number of people and do conquest of territory. Okay, that's idealistic, but if we look at the realist perspective, what decisions would minimize the amount of suffering on the continent in the next 50 years?

So the thing you mentioned initially is sort of the idealist perspective of, well, Britain can't allow... sort of this warmonger to break all these pacts and be undemocratic, murder a large number of people and do conquest of territory. Okay, that's idealistic, but if we look at the realist perspective, what decisions would minimize the amount of suffering on the continent in the next 50 years?

So one of the arguments that he's making, I happen to disagree with it, to put it mildly, is that Churchill increased the amount of suffering. So Churchill's presence and decisions. So we're not talking about idealistic perspective. We're talking about the reality of the war, of Stalin, of Hitler, of Churchill, of France and FDR. Did Churchill drag Hitler into a world war?

So one of the arguments that he's making, I happen to disagree with it, to put it mildly, is that Churchill increased the amount of suffering. So Churchill's presence and decisions. So we're not talking about idealistic perspective. We're talking about the reality of the war, of Stalin, of Hitler, of Churchill, of France and FDR. Did Churchill drag Hitler into a world war?

So one of the arguments that he's making, I happen to disagree with it, to put it mildly, is that Churchill increased the amount of suffering. So Churchill's presence and decisions. So we're not talking about idealistic perspective. We're talking about the reality of the war, of Stalin, of Hitler, of Churchill, of France and FDR. Did Churchill drag Hitler into a world war?

Did he force Hitler to invade the Soviet Union? Did he force Hitler to then invade, attack Britain?

Did he force Hitler to invade the Soviet Union? Did he force Hitler to then invade, attack Britain?

Did he force Hitler to invade the Soviet Union? Did he force Hitler to then invade, attack Britain?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And France, most likely, yes, also. He would have done a deal with Britain. Britain could have coexisted. So actually, there is a possible reality. I don't know. Maybe you can correct me on this. where Hitler basically takes all of Europe except Britain.

And France, most likely, yes, also. He would have done a deal with Britain. Britain could have coexisted. So actually, there is a possible reality. I don't know. Maybe you can correct me on this. where Hitler basically takes all of Europe except Britain.

And France, most likely, yes, also. He would have done a deal with Britain. Britain could have coexisted. So actually, there is a possible reality. I don't know. Maybe you can correct me on this. where Hitler basically takes all of Europe except Britain.

Yeah, I think it should be said, if we measure human suffering... if there was not Britain on the other side, if it was not a two-front war, that the chances of Hitler succeeding in the Soviet Union is much higher, or at least a more prolonged war, and there would be more dead, and more enslaved, and more tortured, and all of this.

Yeah, I think it should be said, if we measure human suffering... if there was not Britain on the other side, if it was not a two-front war, that the chances of Hitler succeeding in the Soviet Union is much higher, or at least a more prolonged war, and there would be more dead, and more enslaved, and more tortured, and all of this.

Yeah, I think it should be said, if we measure human suffering... if there was not Britain on the other side, if it was not a two-front war, that the chances of Hitler succeeding in the Soviet Union is much higher, or at least a more prolonged war, and there would be more dead, and more enslaved, and more tortured, and all of this.