Duke and Duchess of Windsor (1894-1972) and (1895-1986)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Whether it was for good or bad, noble or selfish, I do think David abdicating did pave for modern royals to choose whether or not to pass the legacy onto their children. Witness Princess Anne. Witness Princesses Caroline and Stephanie. Not to mention marrying a commoner (William certainly wasn't the first, even if the media completely glossed over it). Not to mention marrying a divorcee (I'm sure Charles is secretly grateful to his late great-Uncle for paving the way). Not all that long ago, it was unthinkable for royalty to do any of those things, but now it's commonplace (or at least not that scandalous).

Much as I love royalty, I do think it is an outmoded idea that has served its purpose. Which is why I can't feel angry at David for abdicating. The world had changed from his parent's day, his grandparent's day: royalty don't rule but rather serve as figureheads.

I do take issue with David being a playboy, for devoting his whole life to aesthetism. However, I don't think it was fair for him (or any royal) to have to "serve" just because they were born into the position.


I completely agree. David standing up to the institution and choosing his own way did force some changes to occur in England and in the institution of the BRF, despite the fact that they tried to maintain the status quo for awhile. Just 2 decades after Wallis and David, Princess Mary was faced with the same situation.
Another thing the David situation proves is just because someone is born into a family as the oldest, doesn't mean they should be running a country...or reigning a country as is the case in England.
 
I completely agree. David standing up to the institution and choosing his own way did force some changes to occur in England and in the institution of the BRF, despite the fact that they tried to maintain the status quo for awhile. Just 2 decades after Wallis and David, Princess Mary was faced with the same situation.
Another thing the David situation proves is just because someone is born into a family as the oldest, doesn't mean they should be running a country...or reigning a country as is the case in England.

How did David's leaving force the BRF to change the status quo? If you are referring to the members of the BRF being able to marry divorced persons, I am sorry but that has nothing to do with David but more with the time are a changing. Both Charles, Anne and Michael of Kent benefited from that not because of David.

As it stands now, the first born male is still the lead in succession even if an older sister is already born. And I disagree that David's situation proves that just because someone is born into a family is the oldest, doesn't mean that they should not be running the country, or become King of England.

David is the exception not the rule. Can you imagine if Anne, Edward, and/or Andrew had to fight with Charles to become to prove who was the right person to be King or Queen? Who determines the next ruler --- that isn't based on jealous, games, manipulations, fighting, etc. We don't need to go off topic with that but I think you get my point.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion about David and they cant sweeten or overlook his flaws by saying that he had a right to be happy, a right to pick his wife, etc. Well, that's all good and true if he was plain Mr. David Windsor. But he was not. He was the Princes of Wales, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, and he had a duty .....period. No ifs and buts about it. And he chucked for his own personal happiness. And not only did he chuck it but he was burning bridges on the way out. You can talk about love all you want, all I see is Selfishness.

Lying to the King about his personal fortune. Selfish. Worrying about being received by the BRF and a title for Wallis, while Europe was fighting a madman. Selfish. Talking about being President of an English Republic. Treason and Selfish. I don't agree but understand that alot of upper classes supported Facism and Communism (why when they had the most to lose but whatever) but even after the news about the concentration camps came out still maintaining that Hitler wasn't all that bad. Selfish, Sad, Loving (to his wife and mother) Deluded, Cunning, Treacherous.....all aspects of the personality of Edward VIII.

So we can agree to disagree about the love affair of the century. That's all well and good. But I am sorry...this man was horrible. And again, England was well off without him.
 
Last edited:
I seriously think you need a revamp on what a horrible man really is. David might have been selfish (no duh England) but he was in no way horrible. I do truly believe that what he and Wallis went through along with what Margaret and Peter went through influenced Prince Charles and his decision to not give up Camilla. Is Charles selfish as well because he refused to give up the woman he loved, or is he even more selfish because not only did he refuse to give her up but he also refused to give up his inherited rights?
David loved Wallis and it is no surprise that he wanted what was best for her and for her to be respected as the wife of the Duke of Windsor.
And here again lies the point I am trying to make, that because Edward VIII chose to abdicate and live with the woman he loved as opposed to being King, he is somehow regarded as a Nazi traitor who was virtually in bed with Adolf Hitler. I will never understand people's willingness to jump to such conclusions so easily about a man simply because he did a selfish thing that made him happy. This is definitely the fault of that documentary calling Edward the Traitor King.
I admire both George and Edward for different reasons, I admit George is higher on my list because of his courage; but no amount of smear against Edward will make my admiration to him for living his life the way he wanted to live it, falter.
 
Why people associate Edward with Hitler is simple - the photo of them together after the abdication is one indication. Edward's own words in support of Hitler another and his attitude to the idea of being a puppet leader of Britain under Hitler a third.

Simply really - he is associated through his own words and deeds.

Charles wouldn't be with Camilla now if society's attitude to divorce hadn't changed over the latter part of the 20th C.

Remember in the 1930s one party or the other had to be found at fault in a divorce but that changed in the 1970s with society and the government of the day accepting the fact that marriages breakdown because they breakdown - through equal fault on both sides - so now we have 'no fault' divorces.

Another 20 years on and the CoE agreed that it would be wrong to continually deny divorced people the right to remarry within the Church - that is when it became possible for Charles to marry Camilla (although they didn't actually marry in a church it was by 2005 possible).

It had nothing to do with Edward but had everything to do with societal changes.

In the 1930s a number of people wouldn't allow divorced people in their homes - and I am not talking about royalty but ordinary people. That wouldn't be the case now.
 
I don't base my decision on David based on his love for Wallis. I base my decision/opinions on Wallis for things that I have mentioned in my previous posts. He was a horrible and selfish person, which I also stated. And yes, I think Charles was selfish in regards to his relationship with Camilla. But Charles played within the system and in the end he got what he wanted. And while I don't like how it all went down, I respect that the fact they are in love, are good for each other and are married. You can't compare Charles with Edward IMO because of a key difference: while both Wallis and Camilla were non negotiable ---- Charles wanted the system to accept Camilla,and he did the necessary steps and time period for that to happen. Edward was so impatient and unmoving that he didn't. Now while I respect and agree with Edward's opinion that he couldn't get crowned knowing that he wanted to marry Wallis and make her Queen (doing so would be bad faith), he basically tried to do the system in on his way out. That I can't accept.

You really can't even compare the situation to Margaret's, as she gave up Peter --- and while the rest of her life wasn't that great with respect to love and companionship --- she knew her duty (or at least where the checks and lifestyle were coming from).

It would be different if he fell in love with an unsuitable person, gave up the throne and went quietly into the night but he didn't. While parts of that isn't his fault (there was definitely a lot of press coverage of him and Wallis not all of his making), a lot of it was. And no great love story of the century is going to change that. He lied to the brother who adored him about how much money he had, basically using emotional blackmail since he held the leases to Balmoral and Sandringham (they were given to him directly by the late King George V they didn't belong to the Crown), after being King and NOT reading his red boxes because he was so busy entertaining Wallis, in his attempt to "help" King George VI, he often gave contradictory advice that the ministers were giving the King, he never missed an opportunity to haggle for more money and Wallis's title (which lets be honest if he hadn't lied in the beginning George might have been a bit more flexible); you have Churchill trying to get him and Wallis out of France before it falls to the Nazi's and he is arguing about which member of the BRF is going to greet them, etc.

So yes to me he is a horrible man. Not horrible in sense of a murder or Adolf Hitler but horrible and selfish nonetheless.

And not to be rude, but I think you don't have an understanding of Edward's relationship or whatever you want to call it (relationship is too strong of a word) with Hitler. While he certainly wasn't in Oswald Moseley, his going to Nazi Germany wasn't a wise move. First of all, the British government didn't want him to go, and this was before the war started, and the atrocities started and became well known. The British government (not his brother, not his mother) didn't want him to go and he went anyway. That says it all to me. All about Edward.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Edward shook Hitler's hand, that automatically makes him Hitler's butt boy from start to finish. I am sick of discussing this with people who will hate Edward and always believe the worst about him. You want to believe he would willingly send Jews to their deaths in the concentration camps, then be my guest. I am done debating this with people.
As for Charles being allowed to marry Camilla only because of society, I find it very ironic that the British public were on Edward's yet he was still forced to abdicate; so why didn't society work in that situation? Elizabeth lived during the fiasco's of Edward III, Princess Margaret and Peter, and later the divorce of her 3 children. I am a firm believer that all of these events, and those she loved around her being refused the right to marry whom they loved did influence her and even Charles as well. He knows what happened to his great uncle and his aunt, and instead of choosing to do what they did, he stood his ground and wouldn't give in to pressure.
But again, if you are unwilling to give David any sort of consolation or credit for anything good, then we really will just have to agree to disagree.
 
Bundtrock, you mentioned that you have admiration for those who give up their lives and happiness for the good of others yet see the side of the Duke of Windsor. I completely agree which is why I respect yet at the same time want to smack almost everyone involved, Bertie, David, Wallis, and Elizabeth.Edward was selfish but admirable and courageous, George was loyal (actually to both sides because he tried to stand up for his brother) and even more courageous than Edward. Elizabeth was closeminded and old school, but also loyal and loving and strong. Wallis was independent, a woman ahead of her time (ala Anne Boleyn), a little selfish (but she did try to prevent Edward from abdicating) but also loyal to the man she loved.
I admire all four parties for their decisions and think it worked out the best for everyone.
As for this Nazi nonsense, I have read of many aristocratic peoples who either liked or admired Hitler prior to 1939 so I don't blame Edward for falling into the trap like many other rich white men. As to what was going on during and after the war is still open to debate and I find is usually defined by how people feel about Edward and Wallis personally. I have even read recently that Wallis was a German spy for crying out loud!
 
Last edited:
Yes, Edward shook Hitler's hand, that automatically makes him Hitler's butt boy from start to finish. I am sick of discussing this with people who will hate Edward and always believe the worst about him. You want to believe he would willingly send Jews to their deaths in the concentration camps, then be my guest. I am done debating this with people.
As for Charles being allowed to marry Camilla only because of society, I find it very ironic that the British public were on Edward's yet he was still forced to abdicate; so why didn't society work in that situation? Elizabeth lived during the fiasco's of Edward III, Princess Margaret and Peter, and later the divorce of her 3 children. I am a firm believer that all of these events, and those she loved around her being refused the right to marry whom they loved did influence her and even Charles as well. He knows what happened to his great uncle and his aunt, and instead of choosing to do what they did, he stood his ground and wouldn't give in to pressure.
But again, if you are unwilling to give David any sort of consolation or credit for anything good, then we really will just have to agree to disagree.

Have you ever read a biography about Edward? Not a pro or anti book about him but one that shared his positive and negative qualities?

I am not sure what you mean by society? At first the upper classes supported and loved Wallis and David. It could have been because he was the Top Dog but they did. They didn't turn on them until it became apparent that he was determined to make Wallis Queen. Someone said (trying to find the actual quote) but here is a paraphrase: The upper classes don't like her because she is an American and the lower classes don't like her because she has two husbands living.

Some key points from Wikipedia (sometimes information from Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt but this is pretty accurate:


  • Although the pre-war British media remained deferential to the monarchy, and no stories of the affair were reported in the domestic press, foreign media widely reported their relationship.

  • The monarch of the United Kingdom is Supreme Governor of the Church of England—at the time of the proposed marriage, and until 2002, the Church of England did not permit the re-marriage of divorced people who had living ex-spouses. So you really can't compare the situation of Charles and Camilla with David and Wallis. Until 9 years ago, Charles couldn't have married Camilla in the church ----unless he did an Anne (who remarried in the Church of Scotland)

  • Furthermore, the British and Dominion governments felt that Wallis, as a two-time divorcée, was politically, socially and morally unsuitable as a prospective consort.[She was perceived by many in the British Empire as a woman of "limitless ambition",who was pursuing the King because of his wealth and position.

  • In November, the King consulted with the Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, on a way to marry Wallis and keep the throne. The King suggested a morganatic marriage, where the King would remain King but Wallis would not be Queen, but this was rejected by Baldwin and the Prime Ministers of Australia and South Africa.[ If the King were to marry Wallis against Baldwin's advice, the Government would be required to resign, causing a constitutional crisis.
If you read biographies on Edward and Wallis, its pretty much the same thing repeated. And this is also written by private secretaries, people who knew them via their social circle, etc. Its not us just hating on Edward.
 
Last edited:
Ya'll have to remember too, that Both Edward and Wallis were Nazi sympathizers/supporters. There was alot going on during their time together.

MM
 
I'm not certain that Edward ever developed emotionally and intellectually beyond the stage of prepubescence, that in his eyes, his needs came before all else-including his Country-and would throw his toys out of the pram when those needs were denied.
 
Ya'll have to remember too, that Both Edward and Wallis were Nazi sympathizers/supporters. There was alot going on during their time together.

MM

Don't think I'll remember something that might not be true.
 
Check out some documentaries about Edward...there's video and pictures supporting that. Even doing some online research will probably verify it as well.

It's not exactly hidden information.

MM
 
I have, I have researched this in depth as it was part of my History A-Level, I still don't believe it.
 
I have, I have researched this in depth as it was part of my History A-Level, I still don't believe it.


What don't you believe?

That he saw Hitler - no question.

That he supported the Nazi approach to the problems of the country in the 1930s - again no question - he said as much a number of times.

That he said he would agree to being a puppet of Hitler - probably - there is evidence in Germany of them having contact with him on this issue but there isn't any definitive evidence that he agreed but would the Germans have been reporting privately amongst themselves this idea - not publicly or for propaganda but in diaries?

That he still supported many Nazi ideals during the 1940s - again from his own words - definitely.

A-Levels are a good level of study but hardly in depth (I use A-level texts for my Year 12 students but need to supplement them as they are rather just an introduction to the topics I teach in Year 12 here).

Having studied this time period in depth at Masters level I have studied it in rather more depth than you have and I have no doubts that the man was a Nazi sympathiser throughout and a borderline traitor to Britain in 1940. If any other officer had acted as he did in 1940 they would probably have faced a court martial for desertion in the face of the enemy (which I think still meant the death penalty in the British army in 1940).
 
In the 1930s it would have been perfectly permissable-however distasteful we find it now-for the ruling classes to hold racist views. Some of them may have made money through the slavetrade, mines or cotton mills where conditions were hellish and employees were treated like human detritus. When Hitler first came to power he pulled Germany out of the mire. Building homes, creating jobs, he was responsible for a network of fine, new roads-I won't go into his agenda because at the time it was unknown-Germany had a new pride in itself. Then, so what, if he wants rid of a few undesirables? The aristocracy, let alone Edward whose aunts, uncles and cousins were German, probably wouldn't even have turned a blind eye, at that time they would probably have supported what he was doing.
 
In the 1930s it would have been perfectly permissable-however distasteful we find it now-for the ruling classes to hold racist views. Some of them may have made money through the slavetrade, mines or cotton mills where conditions were hellish and employees were treated like human detritus. When Hitler first came to power he pulled Germany out of the mire. Building homes, creating jobs, he was responsible for a network of fine, new roads-I won't go into his agenda because at the time it was unknown-Germany had a new pride in itself. Then, so what, if he wants rid of a few undesirables? The aristocracy, let alone Edward whose aunts, uncles and cousins were German, probably wouldn't even have turned a blind eye, at that time they would probably have supported what he was doing.


Whenever people get on their high horses about the Jews I always think about the ship of Jews that sailed the world and was denied entry to Britain, the US and Australia amongst other countries that supposedly had less racist views. The Australian foreign Minister said something along the lines of 'why should be take their problems?' - which sums up much of the world's attitude to the Jews at the time - they were Germany's problem - let them deal with them. Horrible - yes but typical of the times.
 
I think its fair to say that Edwards infatuation/love/dependence on Wallis made him blind to the realities of the situation he was in. Had he any real understanding of the constitutional powers/limitations of the monarch he would never have allowed the situation to get out of control as it did. He would have known that Wallis could never be more than the Kings mistress. He should certainly have known that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England could not marry a woman who had 2 ex husband still living. Wallis, as an American, probably never really understood that the king reigned but did not rule. It was a case of putting personal desires before duty to naton and family. That was his failing.

Also he was pretty lax in performing his duty as monarch, cancelling engagements to be with Wallis, failing to read his boxes and leaving state papers around for others to read. Not really understanding that the monarch acts on the advice of the government not the other way around.
It is said that Wallis did the nation a great favor when Edward abdicated to be with her and that is likely true. Edwards actions post abdication (visit to Nazi Germany, failing to leave Paris when ordered to, running off to Spain/Portugal, money dealings, lifelong arguments over her HRH etc) provide ample evidence that he had poor judgement.
I think he was emotionally dependent on her for the rest of his life. From what I have read their life together was fairly empty, they had little to talk about, but she realized she could never leave him after what he had given up for her. If she was hated after the abdication, could you imagine what it would have been like if they had later divorced? He would have been a broken man and she would have been the most hated woman in the world.
 
He certainly should have known...

(snip)... Had he any real understanding of the constitutional powers/limitations of the monarch he would never have allowed the situation to get out of control as it did. He would have known that Wallis could never be more than the Kings mistress. He should certainly have known that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England could not marry a woman who had 2 ex husband still living.... (snip)
.... Not really understanding that the monarch acts on the advice of the government not the other way around.
(snip)

But why didn't he have this understanding? He had been the heir for about 40 years. He had the benefits of staff and counselors, and his own father was surely engaged with his education as a future King. I just can't believe he didn't know these things. He just assumed that because he had been an immensely popular POW he would be able to have his way with the government and the people. Didn't work out that way.
 
But why didn't he have this understanding? He had been the heir for about 40 years. He had the benefits of staff and counselors, and his own father was surely engaged with his education as a future King. I just can't believe he didn't know these things. He just assumed that because he had been an immensely popular POW he would be able to have his way with the government and the people. Didn't work out that way.

Perhaps it was not something that was brought up or discussed with him, why would it be?

What I find very puzzling is the mixed morality and standards for the Royal family. It is perfectly acceptable for members of the Royal family to have mistresses, lovers, while they are married or not, but it is a huge No-No for divorce? The UK, even in the 1930s did not have draconian divorce laws, so the people's representatives in Parliament evidently approved of simple divorce and remarriage, they allowed it by law?

The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, "Protector of THE faith," yet the UK claims and did claim with pride in the 1930s to be a diverse culture with tolerance and acceptance of differences?

I will state, since my moniker distinctly shows that I am American, I KNOW MY OWN COUNTRY is guilty OF THE SAME THINGS, I am not throwing stones at my British friends here on this board or elsewhere.
 
Perhaps it was not something that was brought up or discussed with him, why would it be?

What I find very puzzling is the mixed morality and standards for the Royal family. It is perfectly acceptable for members of the Royal family to have mistresses, lovers, while they are married or not, but it is a huge No-No for divorce? The UK, even in the 1930s did not have draconian divorce laws, so the people's representatives in Parliament evidently approved of simple divorce and remarriage, they allowed it by law?

The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, "Protector of THE faith," yet the UK claims and did claim with pride in the 1930s to be a diverse culture with tolerance and acceptance of differences?

I will state, since my moniker distinctly shows that I am American, I KNOW MY OWN COUNTRY is guilty OF THE SAME THINGS, I am not throwing stones at my British friends here on this board or elsewhere.

My dear Bundtrock,

But you are looking at the events of the 1930s through a prism fashioned in 2011. The King (or Queen) is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and the Church forbade divorce. As the head of the church, the King could have mistresses (although not all people would have been in favor of this, or even liked it) but the idea of marrying a twice-divorced woman would be totally unacceptable. You are understandably confusing morality with Church law and while it may appear hypocritical, it is just the way it was. Mistress, tolerated; divorcee, never! As some Englishman reputedly said, "We can't have some bloke going around saying he slept with the Queen of England."
 
In addition, during this time divorced people (men and women) were not allowed to be received at Court. Some exceptions were made, however, you had to prove that the person being received at Court was the injured party. So when Wallis was presented at Court (while still marred to Simpson) she had to prove that Spencer had done her wrong (i.e. the reasons for the divorce being his fault). Divorce was something that happened but it wasn't looked on like it is today.

Heck, even in the States, I remember it being a deal (not a big deal but something that was discussed) that Ronald Reagan was the 1st divorced American President. And this was the 1980's.

I do agree that some people are judging the the time period of the 1930's by the same attitudes as of now. Even during the crowning of George VI, there was concern about the event being on the radio because people would listen to it in pubs and not take off their hats. This sounds ridiculous to us today but that back than it was a serious concern.
 
Last edited:
In addition, during this time divorced people (men and women) were not allowed to be received at Court. Some exceptions were made, however, you had to prove that the person being received at Court was the injured party. So when Wallis was presented at Court (while still marred to Simpson) she had to prove that Spencer had done her wrong (i.e. the reasons for the divorce being his fault). Divorce was something that happened but it wasn't looked on like it is today.

Heck, even in the States, I remember it being a deal (not a big deal but something that was discussed) that Ronald Reagan was the 1st divorced American President. And this was the 1980's.

I do agree that some people are judging the the time period of the 1930's by the same attitudes as of now. Even during the crowning of George VI, there was concern about the event being on the radio because people would listen to it in pubs and not take off their hats. This sounds ridiculous to us today but that back than it was a serious concern.

There was also discussion about Gerald Ford being the first president to marry a divorced woman!
 
:previous: Exactly! I forgot Betty Ford was divorced.
 
Thank you Vasillisos Markos and Zonk for your excellent clarifications, I really hadn't considered the time period carefully enough.

Then I would think that HM Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother truly did step out of her traditional cultural comfort zone in the mid 1960s and did in fact plow new ground when she warmly greet HRH The Duke of Windsor with a cheek kiss in public while accompanied by his wife, the Duchess of Windsor at the plaque dedication for his mother, Queen Mary.
 
Well, the Queen Mother did like the Duke when he was Prince of Wales. He used to come over to their home, play with the Princesses etc. The Yorks used to socialize with them at the Fort, they liked Thelma Furness, etc. He was close to Bertie --- not as close as he was when they were children and as David aged he became closer to the Duke of Kent due to similar interests, but Elizabeth did like him.. So her kissing him isn't a surprise.

Unfortunately for the Duchess of Windsor, Elizabeth never warmed to her (rightly or wrongly). In general I like the Queen Mother, but she was a bit of a snob ---- its all about knowing your place. She liked Thelma, who was David's mistress but had no aspirations to be anything other than that to David. If Wallis had known her place (or if David had shown her the correct way to act) things might have been different. Wallis was an American, she didn't have an inkling to the way that the English behaved as it relates to social classes. They thought she was forward for wearing a color that stood out at the Kent engagement party, how she allowed David to introduce her to his parents and family, how she took it upon herself to act as hostess at Balmoral, etc. She didn't know her place.

Like I said in the past...I think Wallis took a lot of the blame for some of the things that David did. David was brought up in the system, he knew how they thought and operated ---- he should have helped her out a bit. Some of the nastiness and negative feelings could have been avoided IMO.
 
I have, I have researched this in depth as it was part of my History A-Level, I still don't believe it.


Well I don't know about your research but I know the documentary I saw was very clear. There are numerous pictures of them with Nazis, video and still photos.

You can deny it if you like but it's still a fact.


MM
 
I don't think he was any worse than the other upper class/polticians who believed in what Hitler was doing. I'll take the researched work of my History professor as my knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Whilst I can't speak for others, I think it likely that they are saying, as I, that Edward was no different in his mindset, from others of his class. The difference lays in that those others were not seen to be on "easy terms" with the man who was responsible for the murder of all those he deemed "undesirable" and with whom we went to war.
 
Whilst I can't speak for others, I think it likely that they are saying, as I, that Edward was no different in his mindset, from others of his class. The difference lays in that those others were not seen to be on "easy terms" with the man who was responsible for the murder of all those he deemed "undesirable" and with whom we went to war.

Exactly!

Okay....Edward like most of his kind (by this I mean his age and social status) supported the concept of Hitler in the beginning (i.e. Facism), shared similar anti Semitic feelings (which I can't support) and didn't want another world war (I believe the horrors of the first World War confirmed Edward's belief that appeasement towards Hitler was the only way that another war could be avoided). You have all of that and you might think that he got a bad rap as he wasn't the only person to have a picture taken with Hitler or have taken a meeting with him pre WWII. I am not even going to take into consideration all the treacherous things he is alleged to have done during WWII. So I am going to (for the purpose of this post) give him a bye: we all make mistakes in judgement. You acknowledge your error, consider the proof of why you were wrong and move on.

But IMO, its very telling that YEARS after the war he says "I never thought Hitler was such a bad chap". He said this in the 1960's. Years after the world knew about the concentration camps, the deaths of the Jews, Gypsies, and other undesirables (as coined by the Nazi's).

All those people died (in the camps, in the bombs, casualities of war) and that's all you have to say about the man? That pretty much says it all IMO.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

The Duke should have added "in the beginning" to his 60's statement and then I'd agree with him.
"I don't think Hitler was such a bad chap in the beginning"......
OR -
"In the beginning I never tho8ught Hitler was such a bad chap"....

Now of course, I think Hitler was one of the worst monsters ever known to man...
I find it incomprehensible that the Duke couldn't come to that same conclusion in the 60's.
Was the man that stupid?

Larry
 
Back
Top Bottom