RayC

Very few people would disagree with your first sentence. Unfortunately, I can't find Cooper's interview anywhere, so if you have a link could you please post it. (Thanks). However, from the OP Cooper's main contention are that " (1) Churchill was responsible for spreading the war beyond Poland in 1939 (2) refusing to negotiate with Hitler in 1940 (was a mistake?) and (3) ordering the bombing of German cities (was unnecessary?) (1) Imo absolute nonsense. Hitler broke the Munich Agreement. What choices were left to the UK and France other than to declare war? (2) If the UK had negotiated peace, Europe would have been led by a Nazi dictatorship, the implications of which don't bear thinking abou. Personally, I don't think that any further discussion and/or elaboration is necessary (3) More contentious and there is a strong moral argument to support this view.

Imo complete and utter tosh. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html

Personally, I'd had kept quiet about that but, beauty in the eye of the beholder, etc😉

You need to check your timeline and facts. If you do so, you might avoid looking like a complete fool in the future. Between June 1940 - when France fell - and June 1941 -when Hitler broke the German/Russia pact - the UK (and the Commonwealth) was alone in opposing Germany. No German forces were directed towards Russia, and the US had not yet entered the war. If the UK had succumbed during this period, the world would be a much different place today. The world - or at the very least, Europe - will be forever in the UK's debt for its' fortitude during this period. Churchill had many faults and failures, but his views about Nazi Germany and his role in its' defeat were not among them.

Your link provides an interesting and balanced article. Germany certainly appears to have its fair share of problems and a weak Germany cannot be good for the EU. However, does this foretell the break-up of the EU? Imo no. Firstly, while it is undeniable that right-wing, anti-EU parties are gaining ground, their polling numbers are still relatively small (<40%). Secondly, a number of the more prominent right-wing parties e.g. 'Friends of Italy' and 'National Rally' in France no longer call for their respective countries to leave the EU. Brexit did damage, both to the UK and the EU, but will it be seen as the catalyst for the latter's eventual demise? Time will tell but imo no, as I hope and believe that the EU can survive.

You are confusing me with someone else. I certainly don't see many sunny uplands, either in my dreams or in reality. Has the EU under Von der Leyen failed to lead? Many commentators argue the opposite i.e. that she has been too assertive and headstrong. She does - or should - take her direction from the Council (Heads of State). No nation is free of problems and the UK is no different. From diplomatic, economic and political standpoints, I strongly believe that the UK was better off as an EU member. However, imo the biggest downside of Brexit - or more exactly the referendum - was that it brought the divisions in the country into the open. Some might argue that is no bad thing: best to be open and honest, etc. Imo the empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

I'm a Brit, Are you suggesting that I should give a <deleted>?

@Cameroni: Are you a diplomat? If not, I think that you should consider a change of career. I can't think of any other thread where so many individuals with so many disparate political opinions have been so united in their view. Congratulations. Take a bow, sir. It's down to you and your posts👏

You raise a valid concern, however, your suggested solution is a No-Go. The UK, especially England, is a densely populated nation and unused land is at a premium. Irrespective of any other considerations, we simply lack the space to build US style prison camps away from populated areas.

You've become a EUrophile. I'm delighted.

Probably a wise decision. Most of the Parisians have returned from their summer break. Paris is much better visited in July and August when the Parisians aren't there😉

More wishful thinking, methinks. I wonder what are the odds for a double of 1) Starmer not lasting 4 years as PM and 2) the sunny uplands of Brexit being viewed within the next 4 years? Upwards of 10,000-1 would be my estimate.

You're right of course: Such people will almost certainly benefit the existing EU member states. I don't know why I was being so negative previously, so many thanks for helping me view enlargement in a more positive light.

What this opinion piece fails to do is explain either (1) why the EU's survival is dependent upon its' enlargement or, (2) how the security of the existing EU member states will be enhanced by enlargement? Imo a case can be made that the security of existing members will be compromised by admitting the likes of Albania and Serbia. Throw in the likely large financial costs to existing members in admitting some of the Balkan countries and the case for enlargement - at least, at this point in time - doesn't sound very convincing to me.

Ah yes ... the promised sunny uplands. Maybe they will come into view immediately after the next total solar eclipse occurs in the UK? However, given that I have a positive nature, I might be overly optimistic about the delivery date.

I'm unsure whether you are being flippant, but taking your comment at face value, imo the suggestion has merit although the chances of it happening are very slim. As you say, India is a huge market with great potential. There would be many issues to work through; for example, free movement would have its' disadvantages and well as its' advantages but the potential rewards of an Indian accession to the EU are enormous.

I doubt that many SMEs in the UK who export to the EU share your view about Brexit. Still, there are always winners and losers, and so many others have gained so much from our decision to leave ... Oh, wait ... Btw: I thought that the EU was meant to have fallen apart already given that 'they need us more than we need them'?

I think that you are moving into trolling territory. However, one last time. When Hitler came to power in Germany, he quickly set about dismantling the German constitution. Hitler did not believe in democracy. Surely even you will concede that? Ergo the idea that Hitler would have allowed the UK to remain a democracy and hold a fair and fair general election is absurd. Pushing the absurdity even further, if such elections were, in fact, held the prospect that Hitler would have permitted Atlee - a socialist - or Churchill - his avowed enemy - to form a government is patently ridiculous.

There is nothing in the article to support any of the statements which are made. It is merely Marxist rhetoric. I would suggest that a pertinent question is, 'What use is an Empire if you cannot control it?'. The idea that if Churchill had signed a peace accord with Hitler in 1940, then the UK would have been left with complete autonomy to manage its' - and the Empire's - affairs is imo, at best naive and deluded.

Churchill was an imperialist; no one is denying that. However, he did not view maintaining the Empire as an end in itself. Churchill's prime objective was to maintain the security and sovereignity of the UK. Churchill correctly identified the threat posed by Hitler as early as 1932 and realised - again correctly - that defeating Hitler was of upmost priority. Everything else was tangential to that.

I am struggling to know what point you are trying to make. Whatever it is, your argument appears to rest on the assumption that Churchill's prime objective was to maintain the Empire. Playing devil's advocate and accepting this assumption, there is enough evidence to suggest that Hitler could not be trusted and that entering into a peace treaty with him would not have ensured the security of the UK or the Empire.

I am but that is not the point. The point is that whether by luck, judgement or moral fortitude, Churchill made the correct decision in 1940. Before you object and say that hindsight is a wonderful thing, I really don't understand how - even allowing for the overwhelming desire of Europeans at the time to avoid another war so soon after WW1 - a British politician could ignore what was happening in Germany and think that a Nazi-led Europe would be in any way beneficial.

You are both spot on. While the 'Final Solution' may not have been developed until 1941, enough was known about Nazi aims and the treatment of Jews in 1940. Irrespective of whether it would have in the UK's best interests to sign a peace treaty with Hitler (it wouldn't), Churchill was morally correct in his stance towards Germany.

Let's not beat around the bush. Are supportive of the Nazi party's aims and actions up until June 1940 given what we think was known at that time?

The existence of death camps might not have been known in 1940 but the persecution of Jews started almost as soon as Hitler came to power in 1933 and was well documented. By 1939, the philosophy and aims of the Nazis were common knowledge.