Cameroni

It would not make a difference in terms of being able to pressure authorities to round up jews if you're occupying the country or not? I beg to differ. The offer that was made in 1940 clearly allowed the UK to remain independent, and to retain all its colonies. The war could have ended then. Churchill chose not to accept the offer and 4 more years of brutal fighting ensued. Again, what Hitler envisaged would have been a relationship of equals, Germany with its colonies in the East and Britan with its Empire colonies. The UK DID become a vassal state. It's a vassal state of the US now.

Trump did not lose the debate. Not in a million years.

You're completely missing the point, Germany occupied France. It would not have occupied Britain.

Britain would not have been a "vassal" state. It would have retained its Empire. It would have been a relation among equals, Germany with its colonies in the East and Britain with it's world Empire. As it was, Churchill fought to retain the Empire, and lost everything so now Britain is a vassal state of the United States. Just like Germany.

Did you accept the Allies killing 23,000 women, children and the elderly in one night, like in Hamburg or 100,000 like in Tokyo or 150,000 like in Hiroshima? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo It's not a question if we accept it. Neither Churchill nor Chamberlain knew of the death camps or Einsatzgruppen in June 1940 when the German peace offer was rejected.

That wasn't why Churchill opposed making peace with Germany. Churchill was anti-German already in 1933. He was concerned that Germany was becoming too strong, and if it had conquered Europe Britain would have been in danger. But that was nonsense, Britain had nothing to offer Germany, an invasion of Britain would have been costly, for no benefit. Hitler wanted living space in the East, not on some islands.

Why? On what basis? There was no compelling underlying ideological struggle between Germany and Britain. On the contrary,both sought to combat socialism at the time. Hitler had repeatedly expressed the Empire was needed as a bulwark against Communism. He had written approvingly of the Empire in Mein Kampf.

No, that's nonsense. Germany's initial success can't mask the fact that looking at the total number of tanks, plans, artillery etc Russia far outnumbered Germany. They never had a chance to defeat Russia. Yes, German tactics were superior at the start, but the Russians quickly copied the German tactics. One only has to look at the "strength" section here to see how outnumbered Nazi Germany was in terms of tanks and planes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

Certainly Trump showed his vigour and mental acuity are still at top level. However, since most Americans think Biden and Harris did not handle the economy or immigration very well, Trump could have hit a home run focusing on their failures. Even though he did bring up immigration a lot, this was also ancillary, and rarely about their policies. Of course this was caused by the structure of the debate, which gave far too much power to the moderators, who in effect dictated the direction of the debate. However, the debate allowed Harris to make the debate, in large part, about Trump's record, when it should have been about Biden and Harris' record. Despite her annoying nasal voice, and fake smirking and laughter, Harris did not fumble the ball as badly as Biden. I never thought she would, as a qualified lawyer she's used to arguing. She did lie a lot, and was rarely called out by the moderators. I still thought Trump outargued her, but maybe too much, taking all of her points, and thus making it about his own record, rather than hers. The pet eating thing was an unncessary fumble. Harris did not set out much of her policy and did not give voters much reason to vote for her. In the end you can call this debate a tie and it won't matter much in the election. They said Trump lost 3 debates against Clinton, which he didn't. And he still won

You know, to be fair, I don't think Germany would have won against the USSR. If you look at the number of tanks, airplanes, artillery etc the Russians had, they far, far outnumbered Germany. I do not think there was ever a chance to beat the USSR. It was a massive mistake to attack Russia, based on Fremde Heere Ost's faulty assessment of Russia's strength. Hitler's only hope would have been to conquere the small, disjointed and exposed Arab oilfields, but then he would have been in conflict with the British empire. But I take your point, the war with Russia was inevitable.

In a debate there is seldom as clear a winner as Trump was against Biden. Certainly this did not happen here. The moderators were very biased and called out Trump, but not Harris when she lied about so many things, for instance Trump's 2025 agenda, when he has nothing to do with it. To be fair, both sides lied so much to call out all the lies would have taken hours. Trump was very vigorous, whilst Harris came across as a smirking fake person. Almost nothing in the way of Harris' policies was put up, when Trump mocked her that he'd send her a MAGA hat even she had to laugh. As Trump predicted the media claiming Harris slayed Trump just shows the total bias and outright lies the mainstream media resorts to. Trump just edged it perhaps, but there was no crystal clear winner. A tie, would be the fair assessment.

Yes, he should have. Had Churchill accepted the peace offer Germany made in 1940 the world would have been spared 20 million deaths and horrific suffering, not to mention cultural and economic destruction. World War II, as it happened, happend the way it did in large part due to the decision of Winston Churchill not to accept Germany's peace offer of 1940. Churchill of course wanted to save the British Empire. That was his whole purpose. However, by continuing the war Churchill lost the British Empire for Britain. Churchill was a loser of WWII just as he was in WWI. His only hope to retain the British Empire was indeed to make peace in 1940. Hitler, whose book Mein Kampf Andrew Roberts mentions, had written in it admiringly of the British Empire. He had repeatedly declared that the British Empire was necessary as a bulwark against the Communist threat. Whilst everyone, even at the time, knew the Nazi Soviet pact was disingenous and just buying time for both sides, and it was a matter of time before the conflict erupted due to massive ideological antagonism (Nazism really came into being to combat the socialist threat). However, between Germany and Britain there was no ideological conflict and Hitler had said he would guarantee the existence of the Empire.

You probably forgot to read your article. Andrew Roberts concedes that Jewish financier Bernard Baruch saved Churchill from financial ruin: "Winston Churchill faced a possible lifetime of debt and the end of his political career in 1929 but was saved by financier Bernard Baruch from a ruinous day playing the stock market, a historian said today." https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1987/01/27/churchills-rescue-from-ruin/efff4a31-1473-45d6-8e8f-226f1d977310/ Churchill also received financial gifts from jewish banker Sir Henry Strakosh "Files declassified in the 2000s showed that Strakosch provided large financial gifts to Churchill in 1938 and 1940, which enabled Churchill to pay off his vast debts and to withdraw his Kent home Chartwell from sale at a time of severe financial pressures" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Strakosch Even Churchill's father already received financial patronage from the Rothschilds: "Churchill was a friend of Nathan Rothschild, 1st Baron Rothschild, and received "extensive loans" from the Rothschilds. He reported on the mining industry in South Africa on their behalf, where their agent" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Randolph_Churchill#:~:text=Churchill was a friend of,the creation of De Beers.

That's a false argument, Hitler only invaded the Benelux to defeat France. But France only declared war on Germany after British assurances and persuasion. France was very reluctant to declare war. Again the British influence. That Churchill was not PM then is irrelevant, he had been agitating for a coalition against Germany since 1938.

America was unwilling to be dragged into the war. However the British reached out until they found someone who was well inclined towards the British cause, FDR and worked on him to provide massive economic aid, protection for convoys etc. FDR readily obliged and indeed the Brits had plenty of connections with America to make contact with and persuade a number of Americans to provide assistance in WWII. This is exactly what they did.

This is what's called a "red herring" argument. Cooper never claimed that Churchill forced Hitler to unleash Blitzkrieg in the Benelux countries. That would be a ridiculous claim, very obviously. That was NOT Cooper's argument. His argument was that Hitler did not want to fight France and Britain. This is documented and well established. His argument was that Hitler had exepcted Britain and France not to fight over Polland, as they had refused to do over Bohemia and Moravia. There is first hand evidence that Hitler was stunned the British and French declared war. We also know that Churchill since 1938, long before he became Prime Minister, has agitated for a coalition against Germany. Roberts proceeds to agree with Cooper that Churchill did all he could to bring the USA into the war. I still think Cooper has a point that it was Britain which worked hard to make a local European war into a world war.

Even Andrew Roberts sees it that way and agrees with Cooper on this fact: "Cooper was correct in saying that Churchill and Britain did as much as possible to engage the United States in the war," https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/no-churchill-was-not-the-villain/

Both Stalin and Hitler knew they would fight each other, it was just a question who would make the first move and when. There was an underlying ideological antagonism between Russia and Germany, but not between Germany and Britain.

We have no evidence that he would have, all we have is his statements on record that he believed the British Empire was a crucial bulwark against the threat of communism, his admiration expressed in his writings for the British empire and his peace offer to the British where he guarantees the Empire. Where is the evidence that he would have attacked Britain had they accepted?

The fact is that LONG before this declaration of war the United States had effectively been aiding the British. So Churchill succeeded in dragging the Americans into the conflict LONG LONG before the December 1941 declaration of war. The mood in America was very isolationist, and only British overtures to FDR to try and get the US involved resulted in massive amounts of military aid, protection for convoys etc from America. Long before December 1940.

Actually Roberts' article is so nonsensical that he also drags in Poland, when Cooper had never said the Polish war was due to Churchill. I am not ignoring the fact that Cooper blamed Churchill for atttempting to drag the US and Russia into essentially a European war, I am saying the record is clear, and Churchill did try to do that, both before and after he became Prime Minister. Let's not forget that yes Germany invaded the Benelux countries in order to defeat France, and again ,the British had a major influence on France declaring war in the first place.

As early as Mein Kampf Hitler had expressed his admiration for the British Empire. He repeatedly stated on record that he believed the British Empire was necessary to defend against the Communist menace. His peace offer provided guarantees that the British could keep the empire, something which Hitler saw in Germany's interest, or rather the interest of germanic people generally. Invading Britain would have been nonsensical, since Britain offered nothing to Germany in terms of resources, but the invasion would have been extremely costly. Had Britain accepted it would have been almost certain Germany would not have invaded Britain or the empire. Why would he have done that?

That's extremely debatable. Hitler had always been consistent in expressing his view that the British Empire was needed to defend against the Communist menace. In his peace offer to Britain in 1940 Hitler's famous "appeal to reason" speech, he offered Britian that it can retain all its colonies. Going back as early as the book he wrote in prison, Hitler had expressed his admiaration of the British empire. It is not clear at all if Hitler would have tried to conquer the British empire. Arguably his decision NOT to mop the smaller Middle Eastern states and get his oil from there was influenced by his desire not to attack the British Empire.

No, what I am saying is that Churchill becoming Prime Minister in May 1940 has no real impact on Cooper's argument that Churchill could have accepted Hitler's peace offer, Hitler's "appeal to reason" speech came after Churchill was prime minister. Robert's argument also has no impact on Cooper's argument that Churchill went out of his way to try and get other nations involved in what was essentially a local European conflict, from the US to Russia. Indeed Churchill had been calling for this since 1938. It also does not change Cooper's assesment of Churchill that he authorised strategic bombing and launched the greatest terrorist campaigns in history designed to kill women, children and the elderly (since the British knew the men were away at war). Andrew Roberts, is grasping at straws to try and defend his idol Churchill, alas, he is not being terribly successful.

It is rather amusing that you would trot out, of all people, Andrew Roberts, to defend Churchill. Andrew Roberts of course "...defended acts such as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the Second Boer War concentration camps for Afrikaners during the Second Boer War, and mass internment in Northern Ireland (Operation Demetrius). Hari also wrote that Roberts made a speech at the expatriate South African Springbok Club, which flies the apartheid-era flag of South Africa and calls for "the re-establishment of civilised [i.e. white] rule throughout the African continent". Roberts claims that he did not realise the Springbok Club was racist when he took on the speaking engagement, despite the apartheid era flag, and the fact that the event was a commemoration of the 36th anniversary of UDI." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Roberts,_Baron_Roberts_of_Belgravia But Andrew Roberts is not just the worst kind of ultra nationalist, ie English nationalist but his historical writing itself has been extremely suspect. Although Roberts's 2006 work A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900 won critical acclaim from some sections of the media,[44][45] The Economist drew attention to some historical, geographical, and typographical errors, as well as presenting a generally scathing review of the book. The newspaper referred to the work as "a giant political pamphlet larded with its author's prejudices". More generally, Reba Soffer described him in 2009 as "devoted ... to public, polemical conservatism as well as to historical revisionism". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Roberts,_Baron_Roberts_of_Belgravia Andrew Roberts also accused another historian of "blood libel" in one of his books and lost this dispute, being completely humiliated due to his faulty historiography: One claim made by Roberts in A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900 was that Harvard historian Caroline Elkins had committed "blood-libels" in her Pulitzer Prize-winning book Imperial Reckoning on British actions during the Kenya Emergency. Elkins was subsequently vindicated when files released by the UK's National Archives showed that abuses were described as "distressingly reminiscent of conditions in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia" by the Solicitor General of the time. The Foreign Secretary William Hague subsequently announced compensation for the first round of victims with statements that the British government "recognises that Kenyans were subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment" and "sincerely regrets that these abuses took place" during the Kenya Emergency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Roberts,_Baron_Roberts_of_Belgravia So Andrew Roberts speaks at white supremacist clubs that want to re-establish apartheid, had his history books torn apart by reviewers, and libelled a Harvard historian before then being found completely wrong on his history. Personally, I consider Andrew Roberts one of the worst historians of our lifetime, whose life's work has been to diminish the atrocities comitted by the British Empire, going so far as to speak at a white supremacist pro Apartheid club. He was himself accused of being a historical revisionist because of this. His scholarship, as the British Economist pointed out, is so biased and laden with inaccuracies that his books are political pamphlets at best. But anyway, let's look at the actual argument. Whilst it's true that Churchill became prime minister in 1940, he was of course a member of government and a high ranking member of the Conservative Party long before that. In 1938 already Churchill called "...for a mutual defence pact among European states threatened by German expansionism,". "...Following the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, Churchill and his supporters called for the foundation of a national coalition." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill For a long time the German hating Churchill had been agitating for a coaltion against Germany, long before his ascent to Prime Minister. When Churchill did become Prime Minister he then DID do all he can to drag the US and then Russia into a war with Germany, when the British could no longer fight Germany on their own. Churchill could have accepted peace terms with Germany, that were offered in 1940, but he did not. The date of Churchill's appointment as prime minister clearly has no impact on Cooper's argument that Churchill conspired to drag the US and Russia into a war that could have ended in 1940, had it not been for Churchill's decision to continue the war and reject the German peace offer.