British-German peace - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The Second World War (1939-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Preston Cole
#14234059
I'm sort of interested in this. What was the situation on the British homeland during the first years of WWII? Was there any significant portion of the political class/population that was pro-German and wanted a peace deal with Germany (maybe even an alliance), or was the majority decidedly against German appeasement? And I'm well aware of the BUF.

What would the implications of a British-German alliance be? Some have suggested that Germany might even win on the Eastern Front because they'd have a surplus of British soldiers to help them, although I highly doubt the British would agree to contribute to the downfall of Russia and thus the strengthening of Germany. On the other hand, Germany would have unlimited oil from the Middle East, which could go a long way in Russia.

All in all, though, the Brits were too concerned with world power to consider Germany a friend.
User avatar
By fuser
#14234065
Without reversing all the gains made in Europe (specially western Europe), there was no real chance of Peace between Germany and Britain. And without the continental Europe at Germany's disposal, the chances of success against USSR was very thin only.
#14234079
Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about. What the chances were of Britain making peace with Germany without challenging its European conquests and whether there were any non-Fascist members of the British political class that wanted peace for whatever ideological or strategic reason - i.e. common anti-communist bloc, Germanic solidarity, that sort of thing. But yeah, strategically, Britain would only see its global dominion severely weaken if allied or at peace with the Grossdeutsches Reich.
By pugsville
#14234089
Short answer no. There were pockets but most of those were anti war than pro German. there is no chance most of these groups could work together or that most of them would countenance working with Germany if that involved Britain in conflict with British soldiers dying.
User avatar
By ThirdTerm
#14234376
Chamberlain's foreign policy was similar to Obama's diplomacy with rogue states such as Iran and North Korea and Poland was the red line that Nazi Germany crossed and Britain and France were at war with Germany after it invaded Poland in 1939, defying its treaty obligations as expected. The infamous Mitford sisters were known supporters of the Nazis and Diana married to the leader of the British Union of Fascists and she was imprisoned in London for three years under Defence Regulation 18B after the outbreak of the Second World War and any fascist figures in Britain were treated like enemy aliens under Churchill. Edward VIII was another Nazi sympathiser but he was deposed after marrying the American socialite Wallis Simpson and dispatched the Bahamas by Churchill, where he served as Governor of the Bahamas. His abdication changed the course of history and he was the only hope for the Nazis to secure friendly relations with Britain.

Image
Jessica, Nancy, Diana, Unity and Pamela Mitford in 1935.
By pugsville
#14250220
There is absolutely no chance that a weak personality like Edward would have any effect on British foreign policy. The British monarch had very little powers and it was mainly through the use of influence they could have an effect. Edward just wasn't a really pervasive person and had alienated far to many people and was just pretty weak to boot, Wallis was not a diplomatic asset when dealing with the British ruling class. When there are different groups reasonably balanced in british policy the Monarch might be able to have some influence, but when the British parliament was pretty much unified there was absolutely nothing the Monarch could do. bThere were various pockets of Nazi or pro german sympathies but there influence was isolated in different domains, they didnt combine at all to form a stronger force in particular sphere of action.

Churchill rise to be PM was effect of the change in mood in Britain not the cause of it. CHurchill had no party , no following. he didnt get the job because he took it in some fashion. The Descion makers had already decided the policy then chose the man to carry it out.
By Rich
#14292201
pugsville wrote:There is absolutely no chance that a weak personality like Edward would have any effect on British foreign policy. The British monarch had very little powers and it was mainly through the use of influence they could have an effect. Edward just wasn't a really pervasive person and had alienated far to many people and was just pretty weak to boot, Wallis was not a diplomatic asset when dealing with the British ruling class. When there are different groups reasonably balanced in british policy the Monarch might be able to have some influence, but when the British parliament was pretty much unified there was absolutely nothing the Monarch could do. bThere were various pockets of Nazi or pro german sympathies but there influence was isolated in different domains, they didnt combine at all to form a stronger force in particular sphere of action.

Churchill rise to be PM was effect of the change in mood in Britain not the cause of it. CHurchill had no party , no following. he didnt get the job because he took it in some fashion.
True Indeed

The Decision makers had already decided the policy then chose the man to carry it out.
I don't think that's correct. My understanding is that it could very easily have gone to Halifax. It was labour party backing that helped Churchill not support from the establishment. Our modern day Libertarian friends would have us believe that the Nazis were some sort of left socialist movement when they rose to power in Germany. The Conservative backed them solidly and the last independant Conservatives went into coalition with them. The classical Liberals all went along with the enabling act it was only socialists and Communists that opposed the Nazis. Churchill was an unusual Conservative Classical Liberal in his vigorous opposition to Hitler even in Britain at the end of the thirties and before that he had been s sympathiser of Mussolini And Hitler. It was the Labour party that called for increased arms expenditure to confront Hitler and the Conservatives and Classical Liberals who wanted appeasement or even out right collaboration.
Do we owe reparations to LGBT?

No, I do not care if you are convinced about anyt[…]

EU-BREXIT

@snapdragon mcdonnel is now pushing for full on […]

Atheism is Evil

@SSDR As mentioned before, there is no fixed h[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

Deficit $22 Trillion and rising. I rest my case.