2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

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.

So you would accept German occupation in the east with it's attendant death camps as long as Britain wasn't affected?

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

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.

Clearly it was not nonsense.

 

Sorry your Nazis lost.

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Clearly it was not nonsense.

 

Sorry your Nazis lost.

They only lost until the UK joined the EU (a united Europe under German rule). Better late than never I suppose.

3 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

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. 

 

The UK may have had its' problems post-WW2 but it beggars belief that anyone can seriously suggest that we would have been better served by being nothing more than a Nazi vassal state.

22 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

They only lost until the UK joined the EU (a united Europe under German rule). Better late than never I suppose.

 

Oh my giddy aunt🤦

39 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So you would accept German occupation in the east with it's attendant death camps as long as Britain wasn't affected?

 

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.

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The UK may have had its' problems post-WW2 but it beggars belief that anyone can seriously suggest that we would have been better served by being nothing more than a Nazi vassal state.

 

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.

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that I think that utter nonsense - do you really believe Jews would have been allowed to live freely in the UK? Their experience in Vichy France suggests otherwise - you do realise that by signing a peace accord with Hitler, the UK would have been tacitly supporting Nazism? You think that would have been morally correct?

14 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Notwithstanding the fact that I think that utter nonsense - do you really believe Jews would have been allowed to live freely in the UK? Their experience in Vichy France suggests otherwise - you do realise that by signing a peace accord with Hitler, the UK would have been tacitly supporting Nazism? You think that would have been morally correct?

 

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

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

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

 

It would have made absolutely no difference. Do you really think that the UK would have been independent? Do you think that Hitler would have allowed Churchill free reign when it came to decisions on defence?

 

The UK would have become a vassal state. It's as simple as that.

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Andrew Roberts, Baron Roberts of Belgravia, FSL, FRHistS, PhD, BA, Gonville and Caius Vollege Cambridge and Wolfson History Prize recipient 2000, a real historian, eviscerates the diatribe that was Darryl Cooper’s offering to Carlson.

 

At the center of Cooper’s stream of ill-informed nonsense and overt misrepresentation of historical facts is an allegation that Churchill was being controlled by Zionists (read Jews), it’s a rehash straight out of the ‘Elders of Zion’ and deserves, together with Cooper who vomits this antisemitic filth, far more critical attention than is being given.

 

https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/no-churchill-was-not-the-villain/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Darryl Cooper is an attention seeking buffoon. 

Just now, RayC said:

 

It would have made absolutely no difference. Do you really think that the UK would have been independent? Do you think that Hitler would have allowed Churchill free reign when it came to decisions on defence?

 

The UK would have become a vassal state. It's as simple as that.

 

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.

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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

It would have once it was strong enough. 

 

Had Hitler had a navy and four-engine bomber things may have turned out much differently. 

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It would have once it was strong enough. 

 

Had Hitler had a navy and four-engine bomber things may have turned out much differently. 

 

No, because why would Hitler occupy Britain, who has no resources and nothing to offer Germany? Hitler wanted living space in the East. Not in Albion.

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, because why would Hitler occupy Britain, who has no resources and nothing to offer Germany? Hitler wanted living space in the East. Not in Albion.

Then why was he in France? 

20 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Then why was he in France? 

 

For the same reason they planned Operation Sealion, to knock France out of the war. Because France and Britain had declared war on Germany.

 

That's another important point. Germany did not declare war on Britain. Or France. But clearly once they declared war Germany had to go to war against them.

33 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Darryl Cooper is an attention seeking buffoon. 

Agreed. But he’s providing cover for  very dangerous ideologies 

 

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

They only lost until the UK joined the EU (a united Europe under German rule). Better late than never I suppose.

Too many black and white war movies as a boy would be my guess.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

 

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.

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

For the same reason they planned Operation Sealion, to knock France out of the war. Because France and Britain had declared war on Germany.

 

That's another important point. Germany did not declare war on Britain. Or France. But clearly once they declared war Germany had to go to war against them.

 

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?

22 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

For the same reason they planned Operation Sealion, to knock France out of the war. Because France and Britain had declared war on Germany.

 

That's another important point. Germany did not declare war on Britain. Or France. But clearly once they declared war Germany had to go to war against them.

So Briton should have allowed Hitler to take Poland and eradicate the Jews? 

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So Briton should have allowed Hitler to take Poland and eradicate the Jews? 

 

In terms of Poland, the Poles had annexed whole swathes of German lands after 1918. Germany tried earnestly to address this situation by negotiation but Poland, encouraged by British support, refused to address them. Germany had legitimate grievances against Poland, and in the end Poland refused to neogiate in good faith. What was Germany to do to ensure its territorial integrity?

 

In terms of the Jews Churchill did not know about the Einsatzgruppen in June 1940 when the peace offer was made, so the point is moot.

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

In terms of Poland, the Poles had annexed whole swathes of German lands after 1918. Germany tried earnestly to address this situation by negotiation but Poland, encouraged by British support, refused to address them. Germany had legitimate grievances against Poland, and in the end Poland refused to neogiate in good faith. What was Germany to do to ensure its territorial integrity?

 

In terms of the Jews Churchill did not know about the Einsatzgruppen in June 1940 when the peace offer was made, so the point is moot.

So Briton should have allowed Hitler to take Poland and eradicate the Jews? 

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

So Briton should have allowed Hitler to take Poland and eradicate the Jews? 

 

Britain did allow Hitler to take Poland. Britain declared war on Germany knowing full well they would not fight to liberate Poland and could not do so.

 

The reason Britain declared war was not to liberate Poland, they did not, it was to ensure Germany does not become too powerful in Europe, a perceived danger to British dominance.

 

As for the final solution in 1939 it was not known by the British leadership so there was no way it could figure in the decision making, and was unlikely it would have had they known.

20 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Britain did allow Hitler to take Poland. Britain declared war on Germany knowing full well they would not fight to liberate Poland and could not do so.

 

The reason Britain declared war was not to liberate Poland, they did not, it was to ensure Germany does not become too powerful in Europe, a perceived danger to British dominance.

 

As for the final solution in 1939 it was not known by the British leadership so there was no way it could figure in the decision making, and was unlikely it would have had they known.

And it is your position that Hitler would start honoring his agreements? 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

In terms of Poland, the Poles had annexed whole swathes of German lands after 1918. Germany tried earnestly to address this situation by negotiation but Poland, encouraged by British support, refused to address them. Germany had legitimate grievances against Poland, and in the end Poland refused to neogiate in good faith. What was Germany to do to ensure its territorial integrity?

 

In terms of the Jews Churchill did not know about the Einsatzgruppen in June 1940 when the peace offer was made, so the point is moot.

But you do know about the Nazi crimes, so what’s your excuse? 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But you do know about the Nazi crimes, so what’s your excuse? 

 

I'm discussing a figure of World War two, not planning the Final Solution, so I don't really need an excuse.

38 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And it is your position that Hitler would start honoring his agreements? 

 

We see even in our modern day with the SALT treaties, where the US withdraw at will, and many others, that treaties between governments are not worth the paper they're written on. However, in the case of the British Empire and Nazi Germany there was a common enemy, Communist Russia. Both Hitler and Churchill were afraid of communism, albeit for different reasons.

 

There was not the same ideological antagonism between Britain and Germany as there was between Germany and Russia.

 

Had Britain given Germany a free hand in Eastern Europe and Germany in turn would have done the same for Britain in the rest of the world, Britain would have retained its Empire. It would not make sense to suggest Germany would have invaded Britain, he never wanted to do that, only to knock Britain out of the war later. Britain had nothing to offer Germany, in terms of resources or living space. There would have been no need to seek a conflict with Britain. How do you think it would have arisen?

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I'm discussing a figure of World War two, not planning the Final Solution, so I don't really need an excuse.

You are obfuscating and excusing the crimes of the Nazis

 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

As for the final solution in 1939 it was not known by the British leadership so there was no way it could figure in the decision making, and was unlikely it would have had they known.

But if your position is that Britain should have accepted Hitler's terms, that would have allowed the Nazis to continue with their destruction of the Jews and other minorities. Whether Churchill knew about it or not. 

You're happy holding that position?