[Section Leader]

Long thread...

Happy belated VE day guys. Never forgive, never forget. A day may come when we need to stand side by side in defence of our homelands once again - see you there. WW2 is possibly the only British war of the last century I see as unavoidable. It is interesting that whilst supposedly fighting for nationalism, the fascists and supporters have managed to stir up more pure patriotism than I have seen in a long while. It's good to see so many people still have respect for those who fought, and would be willing to do so again if the time called. Now, back to hating each other, this common ground is creepy!

Unavoidable? That's a laugh, whole thing happened because the Poles refused to submit to Germany's (quite legitimate IMHO) claims to Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia.

Poland should have been abandoned to it's fate and a Japanese victory against the Americans in the Pacific would have been in our best interests.

[Kon]

And the Germans had no intent to invade any other eastern european nations for lebensbraum? You are deluded as fuck, if I was an Englishman I would be ashamed that someone whos grandparents went through hell to fight the Nazis would say something like that.

I can't believe this board lately.

[fuser]

the Poles refused to submit to Germany's (quite legitimate IMHO) claims to Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia.

Legitimacy? Oh, please. If Britain had started caring about legitimacy, it wouldn't had an empire. Even when you are a fascist, why you hate your country? Other than that it was so legitimate, that they had to manufacture reasons (gletwin iirc) for it.
Its indeed weird to see British Fascists on the side of German Nazis, which somehow reinforces my view that they are just kids inspired by cool uniforms, parades and tanks and shits of ww2 era Germany rather than anything.

a Japanese victory against the Americans in the Pacific would have been in our best interests.

Other than that It was an impossibility, Japanese interests were in direct contradiction with British ones.

[Kon]

Anyone who thinks a Japanese victory would be good for the British is smoking some strong crack, they attacked garrisons in Malaysia Singapore and PNG, and intended to take Australia and New Zealand before being repulsed in the Coral Sea.

Somehow I doubt the anglo-saxon inhabitants of Oceania where going to be a part of the greater east asian co prosperity sphere, unless they took the role of slave labourers like the Northern Chinese and Phillipinos.

This thread makes me want to spit, if it was a real world discussion it would have come to blows by now.

[Daktoria]

Unavoidable? That's a laugh, whole thing happened because the Poles refused to submit to Germany's (quite legitimate IMHO) claims to Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia.

Poland should have been abandoned to it's fate and a Japanese victory against the Americans in the Pacific would have been in our best interests.

Why would Britain abandon Poland after supporting Poland's existence at Versailles?

I also don't see why Britain would support Japan against the U.S. The Washington Naval Conference was about achieving balance, and Japan was the weakest of the three main naval powers. This left Japan focusing on land forces rather than naval forces, and it pushed China to look for German support. At the time, American corporations were also collaborating with German industrialists (see: Standard Oil with IG Farben), and scrap metal and oil was being sold to Japan. The British Empire was becoming more and more alone.

No offense, but I'm not sure if your appeasement could sound anymore like Neville Chamberlain.

[Section Leader]

Why would Britain abandon Poland after supporting Poland's existence at Versailles?

National policy changes, absolute support for a foreign nation in return for no benefit to yourself is treason.

I also don't see why Britain would support Japan against the U.S. The Washington Naval Conference was about achieving balance, and Japan was the weakest of the three main naval powers. This left Japan focusing on land forces rather than naval forces, and it pushed China to look for German support. At the time, American corporations were also collaborating with German industrialists (see: Standard Oil with IG Farben), and scrap metal and oil was being sold to Japan. The British Empire was becoming more and more alone.

No offense, but I'm not sure if your appeasement could sound anymore like Neville Chamberlain.

Britain and Japan were traditionally allies and viewed the United States as a common threat, most of the British military were pro-Japanese and would not have declared war on them had Churchill not been at the helm. We had a vested interest in keeping America down (as the whole of Britain's post-war history has demonstrated).

I see absolutely no reason for the war between Britain and Germany to be "inevitable". A strong Germany keeping the peace in Europe and the Soviet Union at bay would have most definitely been in Britain's interests. Much more than absolute economic, political and cultural domination by America while half of Europe lies under Soviet domination, which is what ultimately resulted from the war.

Anyone who thinks a Japanese victory would be good for the British is smoking some strong crack, they attacked garrisons in Malaysia Singapore and PNG, and intended to take Australia and New Zealand before being repulsed in the Coral Sea.

Only after Whiskey Drinker of the Year 1940, Churchill, declared war on them.

[Daktoria]

National policy changes, absolute support for a foreign nation in return for no benefit to yourself is treason.

You understand this is why Britain's relationships with Europe today are tenuous? The amount of diplomatic manipulation Britain engaged in over the centuries has left it very estranged.

Britain and Japan were traditionally allies and viewed the United States as a common threat,

Continuing off the last point, you're also ignoring that America rejected Versailles, lead by Irish and German American sympathizers. There's also the matter of Japan invading British Pacific holdings. I don't know what friendliness you believe Britain had with Japan.

America also sold plenty of arms and supplies to the Entente even before entering WW1. I'm not sure why you believe America was viewed as a common threat. Even Japan had a friendly history since the Meiji Restoration. It wasn't until Japanese militarism took off against China that Japan became greedy against American interests.

most of the British military were pro-Japanese and would not have declared war on them had Churchill not been at the helm. We had a vested interest in keeping America down (as the whole of Britain's post-war history has demonstrated).

You won't get an argument from me there. British Labour's addiction to Marshall Plan subsidies and Tory addiction to upholding the Empire were definitely anchors against American sails.

That said, I'm not sure how a Blackshirt Britain would fare any better.

I see absolutely no reason for the war between Britain and Germany to be "inevitable". A strong Germany keeping the peace in Europe and the Soviet Union at bay would have most definitely been in Britain's interests. Much more than absolute economic, political and cultural domination by America while half of Europe lies under Soviet domination, which is what ultimately resulted from the war.

You'd have better luck if we were talking about the previous World War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Chamberlain#Anglo-German_Alliance_negotiations:_third_attempt

Perhaps you have your Chamberlains switched up.

[Kon]

Only after Whiskey Drinker of the Year 1940, Churchill, declared war on them.

So they intended to leave these areas out of their co-prosperity sphere before this, just like the Germans would stop their lebensbraum at Danzig?

[Section Leader]

You understand this is why Britain's relationships with Europe today are tenuous? The amount of diplomatic manipulation Britain engaged in over the centuries has left it very estranged.

And America isn't manipulative?

Continuing off the last point, you're also ignoring that America rejected Versailles, lead by Irish and German American sympathizers. There's also the matter of Japan invading British Pacific holdings. I don't know what friendliness you believe Britain had with Japan.

America also sold plenty of arms and supplies to the Entente even before entering WW1. I'm not sure why you believe America was viewed as a common threat. Even Japan had a friendly history since the Meiji Restoration. It wasn't until Japanese militarism took off against China that Japan became greedy against American interests.

The United States pressured the British government into terminating the Anglo-Japanese Alliance because they feared that the British and the Japanese would split the markets of Asia into monopolies closed to US trade. The United States had interests in establishing a sphere of influence in East Asia ever since the late 19th century (hence the invasion of the Philippines in the 1890s).

The Japanese also sold arms to the Entente and had been fighting with the Entente ever since 1914.

You won't get an argument from me there. British Labour's addiction to Marshall Plan subsidies and Tory addiction to upholding the Empire were definitely anchors against American sails.

That said, I'm not sure how a Blackshirt Britain would fare any better.

lol.

Winston Churchill crippled our economy by shackling us to the United States in his insanity, in 1939 Britain was the most powerful nation in the world, thanks to Churchill we were a second rate power under your hegemony within the decade. Any sane leader would have made peace when Hitler offered it in 1940 (the entire cabinet wanted to accept Hitler's peace offer, even Churchill was inclined to accept, but in his drunken buffoonery changed his mind in the eleventh hour and kept the insanity rolling for another 5 years).

[Sephardi]

Because we all know that Hitler never breaks treaties amirite?

[Section Leader]

Because we all know that Hitler never breaks treaties amirite?

Hitler attacked west because Britain and France were going after him, if Germany was fighting from a defensive position and had powerful defences along the Franco-German border us and the French would have crushed the Dutch and Belgians ourselves to get at them. If there was a situation in which Hitler did actually threaten Britain or the British Empire I would be happy to hand his Austrian arse to him, but the fact is that it was a completely pointless endeavour that wrecked Europe and bankrupted Britain.

[Sephardi]

Hitler attacked west because Britain and France were going after him, if Germany was fighting from a defensive position and had powerful defences along the Franco-German border us and the French would have crushed the Dutch and Belgians ourselves to get at them. If there was a situation in which Hitler did actually threaten Britain or the British Empire I would be happy to hand his Austrian arse to him, but the fact is that it was a completely pointless endeavour that wrecked Europe and bankrupted Britain.

I was talking about the USSR.

[Section Leader]

The Germans and the Soviets signed the non-aggression pact to give themselves more time to prepare for when one of them broke it, one of them was going to stab the other in the back eventually, don't be taken in by the propaganda. Hitler went on and on endlessly in Mein Kampf about the need for Germany to advance into Russian territory, conversely he only ever spoke favourably of the British Empire as a Nordic bulwark against the "Jewish" United States.

[pugsville]

SectionLeader where do we start we you. Yes History getting it straight.

Japan started the war with Britain. It would have happened regardless of British PM.

The Anglo-Japanese alliance was pretty weak,

Hitler was out to destroy Poland, like Czechoslovakia, he had no intentions of stopping with the ethnic German regions. Hitler was about war and conflict not peace.

The Allies never intended to invade Belgium and Holland, The Germans did so though Churchill did consider occupying the Swedish ore Mines.,

[Varg]

Britain could have maintained it's status of super-power if it did. An alliance between the Third Reich and Britain would mean a future Germany war against URSS and probably the end of Communism.

[Zenno]

Britain could not have sided with Germany because the axis was first and foremost a challenge to the global trade system maintained by the Anglo-Saxons ever since the British defeated the Spanish armada and which in one form or another is continuing to the present day. Poland was just a pretext.

[Potemkin]

Britain could not have sided with Germany because the axis was first and foremost a challenge to the global trade system maintained by the Anglo-Saxons ever since the British defeated the Spanish armada and which in one form or another is continuing to the present day. Poland was just a pretext.

Precisely. A revanchist Germany was inevitably set on a collision course with the British Empire, and had to be put down. And the British didn't give a shit about Poland, and still don't - we allowed it to become a client state of the Soviet Union after the War without even blinking.

[Rich]

Precisely. A revanchist Germany was inevitably set on a collision course with the British Empire, and had to be put down. And the British didn't give a shit about Poland, and still don't - we allowed it to become a client state of the Soviet Union after the War without even blinking.

Exactly how were the British meant to save Poland, even if the American top brass hadn't been riddled with Communist sympathisers: Roosevelt, Marshall, Eisenhowe and King? Poland's fate was sealed with the fall of France. And if the British and Americans had done the right thing and and tried to take on Stalin's war machine, would the left have been praising us? I don't think so. if we'd done the right thing both politically and militarily and landed in the Balkans, as Churchill wanted, we might have been able to keep Bulgaria and Romania out of the soviet bloc. Just possibly we might have been able to liberate the Czech lands. But short of the Soviets being defeated huge Soviet forces were always going to drive down the North European plain through Poland before we could get there. Poland, East Germany the Baltic's, Hungary and Moldavia were lost and there's was nothing we could do about it, without all out war against the Soviet Union which the British and American peoples were just not up for having been drenched for four years in pro Soviet propaganda.

Let's remember that the real issue was not Danzig but the rump Czech state. Hitler's occupation of the Czech state showed what was in store for a Europe under Nazi domination. It also showed that Hitler was demented. If he'd just been prepared to wait he could have taken over the Czechs after defeating Poland without a conflict with France and Britain. They bent over backwards to appease Hitler, but Hitler didn't want peace. He wanted war. He wanted revenge against the French.

Defeating Nazi Germany, not on our own obviously, was a great thing to do. Yeah sure, it would have been even nicer to see all the pro Nazi British aristocrats swing from a lamppost, but it was still wondrous to see the Nazi bully boys crushed.

[Political Interest]

I do not understand why it was not possible for the British and Germans to be allies. Please explain the economic reasons. Didn't Hitler want the Brits as allies?

[fuser]

Didn't Hitler want the Brits as allies?

Hitler was like bible (or any holy book) which said a lot of things which contradicted with almost anything that he said. Taking any of his statement at face value (like I only want brits to be friend) is foolish.

why it was not possible for the British and Germans to be allies

Read "The Hossbach Memorandum"

German politics must reckon with its two hateful enemies, England and France, to whom a strong German colossus in the center of Europe would be intolerable. Both these states would oppose a further reinforcement of Germany, both in Europe and overseas, and in this opposition they would have the support of all parties. Both countries would view the building of German military strong points overseas as a threat to their overseas communications, as a security measure for German commerce, and retrospectively a strengthening of the German position in Europe.

England is NOT in a position to cede any of her colonial possessions to us owing to the resistance which she experiences in the Dominions. After the loss of prestige which England has suffered owing to the transfer of Abyssinia to Italian ownership, return of East Africa can no longer be expected. Any resistance on England's part would at best consist in the readiness to satisfy our colonial claims by taking away colonies which at the present moment are NOT in British hands, e.g. Angola. French favors would probably be of the same nature.

A serious discussion regarding the return of colonies to us could be considered only at a time when England is in a state of emergency and the German Reich is strong and well-armed. The Fuehrer does not share the opinion that the Empire is unshakable. Resistance against the Empire is to be found less in conquered territories than amongst its competitors. The British Empire and the Roman Empire cannot be compared with one another in regard to durability; since the Punic Wars the latter did not have a serious political enemy. Only the dissolving effects which originated in Christendom, and the signs of age which creep into all states, made it possible for the Ancient Germans to subjugate Ancient Rome.

Alongside the British Empire today a number of States exist which are stronger than it. The British Mother Country is able to defend its colonial possessions only allied with other States and NOT by its own power. How could England alone, for example, defend Canada against an attack by America or its Far Eastern interests against an attack by Japan.

The singling out of the British Crown as the bearer of Empire unity is in itself an admission that the universal empire cannot be maintained permanently by power politics. The following are significant pointers in this respect.

a. Ireland's tendency for independence.

b. Constitutional disputes in India where England, by her half-measures, left the door open for Indians at a later date to utilize the nonfulfillment of constitutional promises as a weapon against Britain.

c. The weakening of the British position in the Far East by Japan.

d. The opposition in the Mediterranean to Italy which by virtue of its history, driven by necessity and led by a genius expands its power position and must consequently infringe British interests to an increasing extent. The outcome of the Abyssinian War is a loss of prestige for Britain which Italy is endeavoring to increase by stirring up discontent in the Mohammedan world.

Probably, you should read the whole document, just to take a hint.