Looking back do you think we should have agreed terms with hitler

Absolutely not. The world would be a better place however the west hadn't let itself be turned over the last decades into a bunch of soft bleeding heart pansies, but that's not the result of the good guys winning.

Lets be honest great britain is a sh1t hole and going downhill fast i fear for the kids aged between 1 and 5 i really do

I think if the people of the 1940s saw what great britain has become today they would have voted to agree terms with germany

No, they'd have sent the sort of pr*cks who write for the Guardian to an island and made sure the BBC wasn't filled with hand wringing lefties who have used it for decades as their own propaganda channel.

We had already agreed terms with Hitler. It was something like "If you invade Poland...we will be at War" So he did. So we were. Bit late to change yer mind.

So Britain lost the war because it did not secure Poland the freedom it went to war to protect?

Merkel will go down in history as another lousy German politician who led Germany into disaster.

Fred. I don't understand your post. However Britain and France went to war against Hitler because he invaded Poland. France and Poland had a 'mutual defence' agreement so that if either was invaded by Germany, then the other would Attack Germany...effectively creating a war on two fronts. We were allied to France.
Hitler hoped they were bluffing (because nobody wanted a war), but they were not bluffing. And so began Britain's involvement in what became known as WW2.

^^^^ World at war repeats, FFS

CH 19 on freeview. ^^

Hopefully, Fred will see your useful links. Channel 19? I'll make a note of that. Thanks.

Guys, DON'T feed the troll.

.
https://youtu.be/0F0s3vxl2xQ

naydam

Fred's point is both simple and accurate. Britain and France guaranteed the Poles that they would fight to maintain Polish sovereignty. We failed. The Poles lost their sovereignty to both the Germans and Russians and, at the end of the war with Germany, refused to honour the agreement with respect to Russia. I think it is well documented that Churchill did seek to push the Americans on the issue but even so fail is what we did. In fact so grievous was our kow towing to the Russkies that we didn't allow the Poles to take part in the post victory parades despite them fighting valiantly on our side throughout the war because it may offend the Soviets.

EO, I left a post for you on the Islamphobes fred yesterday 5.55pm.

Dr Atkins

I guess there are a lot of what if's but assuming Hitler stayed in power in Germany throughout that period then the most likely event would have been that war would still have happened with us being belated entrants in one shape or another.

The crucial question would have been whether Pearl Harbour would still have happened? Had it done so then there is a possibility that our strategic interests would have been enhanced by the war because I predict a series of events would have unfolded something like this:

War breaks out between France and Germany as a result of Germany invading Poland. Once again France makes the fatal error of not hitting Hitler with everything it has in its own lightning strike whilst his main army is quelling the Poles. Hitler deals with the Poles and proceeds as he did in the real war to the west. France falls. Instead of the Battle Of Britain which caused what many see as the fatal delay he is able to instigate Operation Barbarossa much earlier and marches deeper and more quickly into Russia. Moscow falls as does much of Western Russia. Stalin has retreated well beyond the Urals and instead of harassing German lines hundreds of miles to the west he does it hundreds of miles to the east.

Because he hasn't needed to commit as many troops to the west he isn't yet losing but Hitler reaches a point where he isn't winning. Stalemate. Stalin is more patient and in some senses stable than Hitler. Eventually the same outcome. Hitler, like Napoleon before him has to accept that you cannot create safe supply lines deep enough into Russia to win. The question is can he reach another agreement with Stalin having already betrayed him once?

If he can he must go west again? Likely destination London.

If Pearl Harbour happens then ultimately things are likely to play out very similarly with one caveat. Who gets the bomb quicker Germany or America? Is there a likely scenario because Hitler hasn't exhausted his country fighting on two fronts whereby his scientists beat the Americans to the bomb? If so who is safe? There are no four world powers. Just one.

Actually, Stalin had a non aggression pact with Poland but reneged and jumped into bed with the Nazis following the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement. Poland was betrayed by the lot of them.

The British and French done nothing to help the Poles. Sat in the Maginot Line and done nowt. The Phoney War.

If Mussolini hadn't invaded and got bogged down in the Balkans, Barbarossa would have taken place 6 weeks earlier and the Russians would have been defeated.

So many ifs and buts.

Back to the original question, tbf the aristocracy tried their best to reach an agreement with Hitler and the Germans intended putting the Duke of Windsor back on the throne. The deputy Fuehrer even dropped in to seal the deal. Pity the documents won't be released during our lifetime to prove the depth of the conspiracy. Hess got murdered because he knew too much and was about to be freed by Gorbachev.

You're wrong to say it was because of a French-Polish pact and we backed up France, the UK also had an agreement to defend Poland in its own right.

You may be confusing things with WW1, which was different, in that case we also had said we'd defend neutral Belgium, so by Germany going through Belgium that act pulled us in. If in WW1 Germany had been smarter and avoided Belgium and just attacked France, then it might have been more interesting as we had no formal agreement, though some verbal discussion. But I digress..

[   This image is no longer available.   ]

Copy this Boxy..

Evening MM..

Its amazing how often this forum comes back to WW2. We had no option to drive Russia out of Poland, Churchill was f*cked off about it but it wasn't possible. Unless perhaps we threatened them with nukes but the US wasn't going to do that. He at least felt he'd freed Europe and Stalin wasn't as bad as Hitler, it was best we could do.

g2d, that's the one!!. I must learn to do photos on here.

Right click on it then  save it to your docs or pics. Then i will tell ye what to do about here.

answer the question i think the world would be better place if we had made a agreement with germany sad to say

I was referring to their previous agreement in my hypothetical mighty:

The question is can he reach another agreement with Stalin having already betrayed him once?

In my view it doesn't matter when you start Barbarossa. You cannot defeat Russia with conventional forces if their policy is based on ceding and harrassing. They would have retreated all the way to Siberia scorching earth and stretching the German lines if that is what it took. Stalin had existing plans for retreat beyond the Urals should Moscow fall.

Sorry boxing. Didn't see that comment. I've replied.

Exactly. The Japanese made their beds and chose to lie on it. Their fighting within the islands would have been like nothing seen previously and they had refused to surrender. I wouldn't have committed to allow another single one of my own troops under those circumstances. They got what was coming to them. Very sad for their civilians but America didn't start it with Japan and we didn't start it Hitler.

I'm no historian, but I reckon the second half of the twentieth century was the best period of all time for many parts of the world. I can't say that appeasing Germany would have led to the same state of affairs, and there are many ways it could all have really gone tits up (e.g. Hitler getting the bomb).

I believe we did the right thing.

dr atkins

I think you are forgetting something. Like Stalin and Mao, Hitler was a cold calculating lying murdering son of a biitch. An agreement with him wouldn't have been worth a squirt of pi55 as his old mate Uncle Joe found out.

Just because you think things are bad now doesn't mean there wasn't infinite scope for things being a whole lot worse under that maniac.

If it wasn't for the Russians you would be speaking German.

Britain and Poland signed a mutual assistance pact 2 days after the Nazi-Soviet pact and France done the same with them. Agreed to give each other military assistance if one was attacked. Poland got no military assistance. You don't know what you are talking about.

When did we drive Russia out of Poland? They controlled Poland unil Gorbachev "allowed" Perestroika which led to their withdrawal from Eastern Europe. The Poles were betrayed by Russia, France and Britain before the war and again by America, France and Britain after the war.

That was for JC not you EO

Evening g2d. U watching nfl?

Jan 9, 2016 -- 11:26PM, Eeternaloptimist wrote:

Sorry boxing. Didn't see that comment. I've replied.

Cheers EO replied, .

Yip. Chiefs romping home..

Thanks mighty. I was just about to have an attack of the vapours.

Not wanting to get in the middle of a good spat but I think he was kind of making your point mighty. It doesn't exactly read like it but he was saying what I'd said earlier that without American assistance the option to hep Poland regain its sovereignty wasn't there post 45.

EO

Yes, one way traffic g2d. If it was a boxing match they would stop it.

Don't know why you are bringign up JApan and nukes to me, I've not even touched the subject.

And we've went through the whole "weren't the russians great" thing to do with forum communist b***-end Alias, and I'm not up for it again. Suffice to say they carved up Poland with Hitler pre war, invaded poland starting a second front themselves (convieniently forgotten), were Hitlers allies and gave Britain precisely zero assistance until Hitler attacked them, and were a bucnh of murdering r*ping savages when they swept across and occupied Europe. They were in no way the good guys, quite the opposite. **** Russia under Stalin.

A great people the Poles treated abominably.

Oh and I forgot Russia also aggressively invaded the baltic states and tried to do over Finland as well as their invasion of Eastern poland. A great bunch of guys.

I've sent ye a pm; MM ..

JC Your problem is that you are so obsessed with your right wing views and anti socialist bias that you talk shyte. I am not a Stalin apologist, like you are a Hitler apologist. They were both nutters, with Stalin beating him on points. The fact remains, if it wasn't for the Russians, Hitler would have won the war. Churchill knew this, that is why he jumped into bed with them. If you can't see that, there is no point in debating the matter. The Poles were treated abysmally by everybody, before and after the war, like EO says.

Ok g2d

Jan 9, 2016 -- 11:48PM, Eeternaloptimist wrote:

A great people the Poles treated abominably.

I offer One Joseph Conrad as proof.

A great people that is,!!!.

The Nígger of the Narcissus should be made into a film..

" I am not a Stalin apologist, like you are a Hitler apologist. "
Where is that utter sh*te coming from. Are you alias in disguise? I'm not even right wing, I'm a liberal.
I utterly despise Hitler and the nazis, I've always said so. I've the first reply in this very ****ing thread saying categorically that we should never cut a deal with that scumbag, what does that tell you?

If you think I'm a nazi because forum troll Alias said so, is this your first day on the internet?

g2d. .

Poland is largely irrelevant to the question of whether Britain should have done a deal with Hitler.

The optimum time for an understanding between Britain and Germany was between July 1940 and June 1941. Neither country seemed to have a realistic way of finally defeating the other . Both had other things they could use their armed forces for .

Hitler offered peace in July '40 , Churchill rejected this  . Ever since the propaganda of Churchill and his supporters was to emphasise that Britain had to fight the Nazi or surrender to them . That there was a 3rd option is inconvenient to the established narrative of Britain's role in WWII.

Hitler's trustworthiness , or lack of , is not relevant . The Nazi-Soviet Pact was founded on mutual convenience for the forseeable future  , not trust . A Nazi-UK pact would have been the same , and probably more viable long term.

Great fun tonight. Going off like Golota/Bowe 2. Now that was one crazy Polish dude. Twice giving the champ a right going over and twice disqualified for continually smashing him in the jewels. Once was unfortunate. Twice was sadism. Even after the fight was stopped Golota continued fighting with the crowd.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. GN tmm/guys

For those of us in the West, (and Japan), who have had 70 years of peace and prosperity and freedom there is only one country to thank and that is America.

This was our great good fortune, that the 20th century was the American century.

Indeed lfc. Despite some profound wrongs America has arguably been the kindest great power in history. One can only hope the next one is equally benign.

Yes EO, I believe that people will look back on the secondand half of the 20c as a kind of golden period and America as the greatest nation in mankinds history.

It's a typical Western narrative to say America won the war when it's far from the truth, what happened on the western front was nothing compared to what happened in USSR where the war was really won, American triumphalists have been peddling the we won the war line since the day they didn't, with brainwashing, history changing Hollywood films and video games. The Soviets destroyed over 500 German divisions, took over 80% of all casualties in the alliance and by the time the Yanks decided to swing into town helping Britain, they were met with a depleted, weakened, understrength and demoralised enemy already shattered on the Eastern front with little fuel to fight aerial batters, the powerful Luftwaffe had mostly already been destroyed. America had an isolationist policy at the time, the war in the East was a cataclysmic bloodbath, Normandy was puddle in comparison.

Inclined to agree in some ways. They've done some wrongs but mostly got it right.

Given the technological bar for awful weapons is a constant and the technological level of all countries is always rising, and humans are often a fairly stupid violent species with brainwashed madmen in the mix... Golden period might be right.

I meant I agree with the posts above scandanavian_haven, who I note completely misses out the US/UK African, Middle Eastern, Asian or Pacific theatre of operations and Japan.

Though to be fair to him his point about the horrific nature of the fighting on the eastern front and toll it took has merit. One thing he omits to mention is the efforts of the allies in seeking to supply the Russkies to keep them going.

On D-Day the Eastern Front was 700 miles from Berlin . And 300 miles from Moscow.

What the US and Britain gave the USSR in terms of material:
"The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars."

"Between June 1941 and May 1945, Britain delivered to the USSR:
    3,000+ Hurricanes
    4,000+ other aircraft
    27 naval vessels
    5,218 tanks
    5,000+ anti-tank guns
    4,020 ambulances and trucks
    323 machinery trucks
    2,560 Universal Carriers
    1,721 motorcycles
    £1.15bn worth of aircraft engines
    600 radar and sonar sets
    Hundreds of naval guns
    15 million pairs of boots"
---
I wonder how well the russians would have done without that? They were so into brainwashing apparently they would tell the Russian troops that the trucks were actually Russian trucks..

The simple fact is once America entered the war no power on earth could stop the West winning that war, not Berlin, not Moscow, not Tokyo, Rome or any combination of these powers.

America was for a few years the most powerful military and technological nation the world has ever seen. It was America who made the decisions...all of them.

Think people get a bit carried away arguing one side or the other.

Germany would not have been defeated without all the 3 main allies opposing.

If either Britain or the Soviet Union were defeated in 1941 there is nothing America can do.

You are getting it back to front, there is only one reason that Britain and Russia were not defeated and that was because the US entered the war.

How was Britain being defeated in December 1941 ?

Britain was not defeated due to having won The Battle of Britain and having the most powerful Navy .

Russia was not defeated due to having won the Battle of Moscow .

Americans contributions to those things were pretty negligible.

And how is America going to defeat Germany if Britain is conquered by or in alliance with Hitler ? What is America - with or without Britain -  going to do against Germany if they have defeated the USSR ?

Lets look at it this way. Britain had managed successfully to fight its way right out of Europe and back home and was not going back anytime soon. 100,000 . of its troops had surrendered to Japan in the far East. Hitler, if the US had not entered the war would have been able to concentrate on defeating the soviets, along with his Japanese allies. Had Ger,many been able to through its full might , along with Japan into the Eastern campaign then no one could have stopped Germany and Japan in the East.

Iseem to recall that the US managed to defeat Japan without using Britain as a staging post. All roads led to Washington.

So America beat Japan on it's own as well ?

More Japanese soldiers were killed by British forces than by Americans . And a lot more by Chinese.

Pacific Islands would have been good staging posts to defeat Germany with

I agree Germany would not have been defeated without America . You are saying that America could have defeated Germany without Britain or Russia , which is crazy .