I was shocked today to read in Karl Jasper's The Question of German Guilt (lectures he gave at Heidelberg in late 1945), reference to a letter from Winston Churchill to Adolph Hitler, which was published in the London Times and read as follows: "

"Were England to suffer a national disaster comparable to that of Germany in 1918, I should pray God to send us a man of your strength and will ..."

This was published in 1938, when much was known about Hitler's fanatical brutality and paranoia. I could never have imagined Churchill saying such a thing, let alone putting it in writing.

Apparently there is reference to the letter in Roy Jenkins' biography of Churchill, one I haven't read. I can't find when he wrote the letter, only when it was published, but if he wrote it close to the publication date, it seems to me to be quite extraordinary.

I used to have a world history book published in the 1930's. Hitler was presented in a much more favorable way than how we grew up knowing him. Then the world learned what a monster he was and it has been considered unthinkable to say anything nice about the man or what he did. But, I am not afraid! I will say something nice about Hitler - he built good highways. I think that's about it.

Churchill was probably drunk when he wrote it, but he learned his lesson about Hitler later.

You lot had a Nazi loving King for a bit too, innit?

A lot of people in Europe welcomed Hitler as a relief after the Weimar Republic. Nobody objected to the Olympics being held in Berlin in 1936. And remember Chamberlain coming back from Munich waving the paper, saying "Peace in our time!" People simply didn't realise what he was up to until he invaded Poland. And they didn't realise how mad he was until later.

Looking back, we can say they should have realised... but they didn't. The Duke of Windsor knew nothing. When he was King, he never read the State papers anyway; we were well rid of him.

Maybe people were in denial. Maybe they couldn't believe that Germany would be led by someone like Hitler and his cohort.

People just couldn't come to terms with what was happening. Maybe Churchill, whether alcohol fueled or not, tended to look for the best in people. After all, he spoke well of Chamberlain, regarding him as perhaps the best among his peers because he actually took a stance while others shilly-shallied about.

William Dodd, the US ambassador in Berlin, came to realize by 1934 what Hitler was up to, and his Consul-General, George Messersmith, had been sending strident warnings to the State Department since at least 1933, but his warnings fell on deaf ears, perhaps in part because senior State Department officials were more than a touch overtly anti-Semitic themselves as well as being naturally and diplomatically cautious about intervening in another country's affairs (yes, they actually did think that way then).

Karl Jaspers, who was a liberal (European-style), was sacked from his post at Heidelberg in 1935, but stayed in Germany and spent the next 10 years writing from his home. He argues that plenty of German people could have told the allied nations by the mid-1930s what the Nazis were up to and what they were like. He says that Churchill and the others did in fact know what they were like, but they all, not just Chamberlain, appeased Hitler because they didn't want to go to war, even when the Wehrmacht was weak, and, frankly, most of them didn't care much if the Jews were suffering anyway.

Jaspers said that by the mid-1930s Germany had become a prison and the people had lost the chance to fight it. To do so would result in death to oneself and suffering for one's family, and people just didn't think they could achieve anything by that. The country had become a totalitarian state after all, and you just didn't know who to trust. He said in his lectures (and none of this was intended to deny German guilt, which Jaspers accepted) that the only people who could release Germans from this prison were the other European nations, but they chose to vacillate and appease instead.

There were even German Jewish supporters of Hitler. They didn't believe he was serious about his rhetoric. (Fools!) Kind of like gay American republicans today.

There were even German Jewish supporters of Hitler. They didn't believe he was serious about his rhetoric. (Fools!) Kind of like gay American republicans today.

I don't suppose you could try just a little bit to quit turning each thread into a gay thread? You already got one thread here closed in the past few hours because of it now you are trying to do the same with this one. Give it a rest already.

Maybe people were in denial. Maybe they couldn't believe that Germany would be led by someone like Hitler and his cohort.

People just couldn't come to terms with what was happening. Maybe Churchill, whether alcohol fueled or not, tended to look for the best in people. After all, he spoke well of Chamberlain, regarding him as perhaps the best among his peers because he actually took a stance while others shilly-shallied about.

William Dodd, the US ambassador in Berlin, came to realize by 1934 what Hitler was up to, and his Consul-General, George Messersmith, had been sending strident warnings to the State Department since at least 1933, but his warnings fell on deaf ears, perhaps in part because senior State Department officials were more than a touch overtly anti-Semitic themselves as well as being naturally and diplomatically cautious about intervening in another country's affairs (yes, they actually did think that way then).

Karl Jaspers, who was a liberal (European-style), was sacked from his post at Heidelberg in 1935, but stayed in Germany and spent the next 10 years writing from his home. He argues that plenty of German people could have told the allied nations by the mid-1930s what the Nazis were up to and what they were like. He says that Churchill and the others did in fact know what they were like, but they all, not just Chamberlain, appeased Hitler because they didn't want to go to war, even when the Wehrmacht was weak, and, frankly, most of them didn't care much if the Jews were suffering anyway.

Jaspers said that by the mid-1930s Germany had become a prison and the people had lost the chance to fight it. To do so would result in death to oneself and suffering for one's family, and people just didn't think they could achieve anything by that. The country had become a totalitarian state after all, and you just didn't know who to trust. He said in his lectures (and none of this was intended to deny German guilt, which Jaspers accepted) that the only people who could release Germans from this prison were the other European nations, but they chose to vacillate and appease instead.

I can confirm that the letter you allude to is genuine, I've studied the life of Churchill in some detail. Some of his thoughts were of their time, and others were prescient beyond belief. It would be easy to go in and dissect his writings with the benefit of history. We don't know the context of the letter, though we do know the content. As a stand alone article, yes it looks surreal to think that Churchill had any admiration for Hitler.

Equally it's now surreal to think that the US actively supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. International diplomacy sometimes seems to be a object lesson in cleaning up past mistakes. Churchill was a back-bench MP at this time, if anything he was vilified by his own political party and regarded as a Cassandra. He was cat called many times when he rose to speak in the Commons and all round, was regarded as a relic, a pest, a nonentity.

His letter to Hitler would have been regarded with mild amusement or contempt, you can be sure that Hitler did not believe in 1938 that Churchill would ever be a major player. There is no doubt that the diplomatic cables were flashing back and forward between Germany, London and Washington, and there is no doubt that many people, including Churchill, warned of the Rise of Germany.

The Brits had a dreadful fear of War, I was looking last night at a photo of my Great Grandfather who had fought in WW1, and remembering that this war was only 20 years before, you could see why people would do anything to not have to fight another one.

( My Great Grandfather was born in 1900, he served in France, died a silent man in 1988 ).

In as much as we can dissect with the benefit of hindsight, all we really need to understand is that men like Churchill, FDR, and millions of others rose above when called upon. For that I thank them all.

There were even German Jewish supporters of Hitler. They didn't believe he was serious about his rhetoric. (Fools!) Kind of like gay American republicans today.

Puleeze..

There were even German Jewish supporters of Hitler. They didn't believe he was serious about his rhetoric. (Fools!) Kind of like gay American republicans today.

I don't suppose you could try just a little bit to quit turning each thread into a gay thread? You already got one thread here closed in the past few hours because of it now you are trying to do the same with this one. Give it a rest already.

I bring my identity into my life and into my posting. That's my option. I am not trying to change this into a gay thread. That's ridiculous. Of course, talking about a Hitler, a man who committed genocide against Jews and mass murdered gays, both Jewish and gay aspects are perfectly relevant. I think it is very interesting and instructive to our modern times that it is an absolute fact that Hitler enjoyed some Jewish support.

Consider this, so many times people inject their personal identity into their posts. My wife this. My Thai gf that. My kids this again. NOBODY objects to them for doing that and tries to bully them into leaving their personal identity out of their posting. Nobody suggests they are trying to hijack the thread into heterosexuality. But for some reason, some of you feel like you need to confront me (or even respond about it) when something gay is mentioned in a thread not explicitly about gay stuff. That is a double standard and that is wrong.

Maybe people were in denial. Maybe they couldn't believe that Germany would be led by someone like Hitler and his cohort.

People just couldn't come to terms with what was happening. Maybe Churchill, whether alcohol fueled or not, tended to look for the best in people. After all, he spoke well of Chamberlain, regarding him as perhaps the best among his peers because he actually took a stance while others shilly-shallied about.

William Dodd, the US ambassador in Berlin, came to realize by 1934 what Hitler was up to, and his Consul-General, George Messersmith, had been sending strident warnings to the State Department since at least 1933, but his warnings fell on deaf ears, perhaps in part because senior State Department officials were more than a touch overtly anti-Semitic themselves as well as being naturally and diplomatically cautious about intervening in another country's affairs (yes, they actually did think that way then).

Karl Jaspers, who was a liberal (European-style), was sacked from his post at Heidelberg in 1935, but stayed in Germany and spent the next 10 years writing from his home. He argues that plenty of German people could have told the allied nations by the mid-1930s what the Nazis were up to and what they were like. He says that Churchill and the others did in fact know what they were like, but they all, not just Chamberlain, appeased Hitler because they didn't want to go to war, even when the Wehrmacht was weak, and, frankly, most of them didn't care much if the Jews were suffering anyway.

Jaspers said that by the mid-1930s Germany had become a prison and the people had lost the chance to fight it. To do so would result in death to oneself and suffering for one's family, and people just didn't think they could achieve anything by that. The country had become a totalitarian state after all, and you just didn't know who to trust. He said in his lectures (and none of this was intended to deny German guilt, which Jaspers accepted) that the only people who could release Germans from this prison were the other European nations, but they chose to vacillate and appease instead.

I can confirm that the letter you allude to is genuine, I've studied the life of Churchill in some detail. Some of his thoughts were of their time, and others were prescient beyond belief. It would be easy to go in and dissect his writings with the benefit of history. We don't know the context of the letter, though we do know the content. As a stand alone article, yes it looks surreal to think that Churchill had any admiration for Hitler.

Equally it's now surreal to think that the US actively supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. International diplomacy sometimes seems to be a object lesson in cleaning up past mistakes. Churchill was a back-bench MP at this time, if anything he was vilified by his own political party and regarded as a Cassandra. He was cat called many times when he rose to speak in the Commons and all round, was regarded as a relic, a pest, a nonentity.

His letter to Hitler would have been regarded with mild amusement or contempt, you can be sure that Hitler did not believe in 1938 that Churchill would ever be a major player. There is no doubt that the diplomatic cables were flashing back and forward between Germany, London and Washington, and there is no doubt that many people, including Churchill, warned of the Rise of Germany.

The Brits had a dreadful fear of War, I was looking last night at a photo of my Great Grandfather who had fought in WW1, and remembering that this war was only 20 years before, you could see why people would do anything to not have to fight another one.

( My Great Grandfather was born in 1900, he served in France, died a silent man in 1988 ).

In as much as we can dissect with the benefit of hindsight, all we really need to understand is that men like Churchill, FDR, and millions of others rose above when called upon. For that I thank them all.

My grandfather fought in France in WWI as well. He came back damaged, beyond the recognition of anyone who'd known him before. We appreciate your thanks, but in my view he should have never been there at all. What was the point in emmigrating if you're still called to fight in those wars of the places you found inhospitable to begin with.

Maybe people were in denial. Maybe they couldn't believe that Germany would be led by someone like Hitler and his cohort.

People just couldn't come to terms with what was happening. Maybe Churchill, whether alcohol fueled or not, tended to look for the best in people. After all, he spoke well of Chamberlain, regarding him as perhaps the best among his peers because he actually took a stance while others shilly-shallied about.

William Dodd, the US ambassador in Berlin, came to realize by 1934 what Hitler was up to, and his Consul-General, George Messersmith, had been sending strident warnings to the State Department since at least 1933, but his warnings fell on deaf ears, perhaps in part because senior State Department officials were more than a touch overtly anti-Semitic themselves as well as being naturally and diplomatically cautious about intervening in another country's affairs (yes, they actually did think that way then).

Karl Jaspers, who was a liberal (European-style), was sacked from his post at Heidelberg in 1935, but stayed in Germany and spent the next 10 years writing from his home. He argues that plenty of German people could have told the allied nations by the mid-1930s what the Nazis were up to and what they were like. He says that Churchill and the others did in fact know what they were like, but they all, not just Chamberlain, appeased Hitler because they didn't want to go to war, even when the Wehrmacht was weak, and, frankly, most of them didn't care much if the Jews were suffering anyway.

Jaspers said that by the mid-1930s Germany had become a prison and the people had lost the chance to fight it. To do so would result in death to oneself and suffering for one's family, and people just didn't think they could achieve anything by that. The country had become a totalitarian state after all, and you just didn't know who to trust. He said in his lectures (and none of this was intended to deny German guilt, which Jaspers accepted) that the only people who could release Germans from this prison were the other European nations, but they chose to vacillate and appease instead.

I can confirm that the letter you allude to is genuine, I've studied the life of Churchill in some detail. Some of his thoughts were of their time, and others were prescient beyond belief. It would be easy to go in and dissect his writings with the benefit of history. We don't know the context of the letter, though we do know the content. As a stand alone article, yes it looks surreal to think that Churchill had any admiration for Hitler.

Equally it's now surreal to think that the US actively supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. International diplomacy sometimes seems to be a object lesson in cleaning up past mistakes. Churchill was a back-bench MP at this time, if anything he was vilified by his own political party and regarded as a Cassandra. He was cat called many times when he rose to speak in the Commons and all round, was regarded as a relic, a pest, a nonentity.

His letter to Hitler would have been regarded with mild amusement or contempt, you can be sure that Hitler did not believe in 1938 that Churchill would ever be a major player. There is no doubt that the diplomatic cables were flashing back and forward between Germany, London and Washington, and there is no doubt that many people, including Churchill, warned of the Rise of Germany.

The Brits had a dreadful fear of War, I was looking last night at a photo of my Great Grandfather who had fought in WW1, and remembering that this war was only 20 years before, you could see why people would do anything to not have to fight another one.

( My Great Grandfather was born in 1900, he served in France, died a silent man in 1988 ).

In as much as we can dissect with the benefit of hindsight, all we really need to understand is that men like Churchill, FDR, and millions of others rose above when called upon. For that I thank them all.

My grandfather fought in France in WWI as well. He came back damaged, beyond the recognition of anyone who'd known him before. We appreciate your thanks, but in my view he should have never been there at all. What was the point in emmigrating if you're still called to fight in those wars of the places you found inhospitable to begin with.

All he did by emigrating was swap one set of loyalties and obligations for another. It's a brutal and undeniable truth.

I used to have a world history book published in the 1930's. Hitler was presented in a much more favorable way than how we grew up knowing him. Then the world learned what a monster he was and it has been considered unthinkable to say anything nice about the man or what he did. But, I am not afraid! I will say something nice about Hitler - he built good highways. I think that's about it.

after moving from Switzerland to Germany, being a little boy, i had to listen to the highway shit from all sides including from some of my teachers even though it was dangerous for them to say anything positive about Hitler and Nazism. what is barely known outside Germany is the fact why he had initially the big success which enabled him to establish a dictatorship that was virtually impossible to challenge.

it wasn't the Autobahns which he built for military purposes but the fact that within less than a year 7½ million jobless had a job and could feed themselves, respectively their families. a dozen years later even 14 and16 year old boys had a job. the young ones handling flak ammunition and the slightly older ones handling bazookas to ensure the "Endsieg"

I used to have a world history book published in the 1930's. Hitler was presented in a much more favorable way than how we grew up knowing him. Then the world learned what a monster he was and it has been considered unthinkable to say anything nice about the man or what he did. But, I am not afraid! I will say something nice about Hitler - he built good highways. I think that's about it.

after moving from Switzerland to Germany, being a little boy, i had to listen to the highway shit from all sides including from some of my teachers even though it was dangerous for them to say anything positive about Hitler and Nazism. what is barely known outside Germany is the fact why he had initially the big success which enabled him to establish a dictatorship that was virtually impossible to challenge.

it wasn't the Autobahns which he built for military purposes but the fact that within less than a year 7½ million jobless had a job and could feed themselves, respectively their families. a dozen years later even 14 and16 year old boys had a job. the young ones handling flak ammunition and the slightly older ones handling bazookas to ensure the "Endsieg"

That's true Naam, and in reality it was all rooted in the Treaty of Versailles, Churchill warned about making the reparations too high, he was right. The US wasn't up for making the same mistake twice hence the Marshall Plan.

People with interest should study the social history of Germany from Versailles through till at least 1950, it would make people think twice about revenge justice.

I'm just reading the 12 volumes of the memoires of Winston Churchill of the second world-war. He start to wrote them in 1949, and they start with the Agreement of Versailles. That's why I can write with 100% certainty that the sentence is completely out of context.

"Were England to suffer a national disaster comparable to that of Germany in 1918, I should pray God to send us a man of your strength and will ..."

That line is not from a letter that he wrote to Hitler, but from a speech he gave in the British parliament; where he blamed the government for their leniency towards Germany.

What he did wrote, and he even start his memoires with it, that WW2 was the most unnecessary war in history, and it could be prevented not one but dozen of times, even till 1938.

But what is rather unknown that he put a lot of the responsibility for what happened on the US. Because the where the culprit of the collapse of the Reichsmark, who gave Hitler the opportunity to come to power. Because in contrary to the UK and some other countries they did not cancel the war debt and compensations Germany had to pay. On the contrary they provide them the loans to pay them to the US knowing that Germany could never pay them back, so they cashed in two times. And this was the main reason why the Reichsmark collapsed. So even before the war the US made big bucks. Big bucks, has and still is the biggest motive in US foreign politics. They even go to war for it.

Many in the US like to forget that the US never declared war to Germany, It was Hitler who declared it to the US. And what is even more unknown by the American public, is that the US never declared war to Vichy France even they where German allies. They even had very close diplomatic relationships and prevented that Britain took several actions against them, and this till 1943. Even after the allied forces invaded the Vichy France colonies in Northern-Africa they put the Vichy generals and government in charge their. This to the disgust of the British public opinion and the allies, but Winston Churchill could not prevent it, because he need the US weapon production capacity. Their is a reason why De Gaulle hated the Americans, because the did everything to keep him away from power, because he was too independent and the y could not control him, Roosevelt hated De Gaulle gutts.

Instead of focusing to produce things out of context. It would be much better to talk about Henry Ford. Joseph Kennedy and Sosthenes Behn of ITT. This American company was 25% owner of Focke Wulff by his subsidiary Lorenz, who produced Nazi Bombers. All the German Army radar and radio equipment was produced by Huth and Company, G.m.b.H, 100% owned by ITT. So the bombing of London and many other countries were dun by American Bombers, guided by American radio and radar signals. Also American bombers were detected by American radar signals en shot down, again tenthousand of Americans died by equipment developed en produced by American companies.

And the perversity off it all, is unbelievable. Because in the 1960's ITT even received $27 million compensation for the bombing of their Focke Wulf factory by American Bombers. All the submarines who attacked the North Atlantic convoys who costs ten thousand of life's where guided by American radio's en radar. Better focus on that. In the book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, written by Antony C. Sutton is claimed dat ITT Subsidairies made cash payements to Reichsfurher SS Heinrich Himmler.

And the reason that Japan attacked Manchuria in 1931, and the reason why they got involved in WW2 is also a 100% responsibility of the US. You just have to do some historical research to find that out. And the reason as always was economical suffocation of Japan by the US and this since beginning the 1920's. And it was all about blocking access to minerals and oil. Strange how history repeat itself in US wars.

In short,hanks to WW2 the US became an economic en military superpower, and became the rogue state what it is today.

I'm just reading the 12 volumes of the memoires of Winston Churchill of the second world-war. He start to wrote them in 1949, and they start with the Agreement of Versailles. That's why I can write with 100% certainty that the sentence is completely out of context.

"Were England to suffer a national disaster comparable to that of Germany in 1918, I should pray God to send us a man of your strength and will ..."

That line is not from a letter that he wrote to Hitler, but from a speech he gave in the British parliament; where he blamed the government for their leniency towards Germany.

What he did wrote, and he even start his memoires with it, that WW2 was the most unnecessary war in history, and it could be prevented not one but dozen of times, even till 1938.

But what is rather unknown that he put a lot of the responsibility for what happened on the US. Because the where the culprit of the collapse of the Reichsmark, who gave Hitler the opportunity to come to power. Because in contrary to the UK and some other countries they did not cancel the war debt and compensations Germany had to pay. On the contrary they provide them the loans to pay them to the US knowing that Germany could never pay them back, so they cashed in two times. And this was the main reason why the Reichsmark collapsed. So even before the war the US made big bucks. Big bucks, has and still is the biggest motive in US foreign politics. They even go to war for it.

Many in the US like to forget that the US never declared war to Germany, It was Hitler who declared it to the US. And what is even more unknown by the American public, is that the US never declared war to Vichy France even they where German allies. They even had very close diplomatic relationships and prevented that Britain took several actions against them, and this till 1943. Even after the allied forces invaded the Vichy France colonies in Northern-Africa they put the Vichy generals and government in charge their. This to the disgust of the British public opinion and the allies, but Winston Churchill could not prevent it, because he need the US weapon production capacity. Their is a reason why De Gaulle hated the Americans, because the did everything to keep him away from power, because he was too independent and the y could not control him, Roosevelt hated De Gaulle gutts.

Instead of focusing to produce things out of context. It would be much better to talk about Henry Ford. Joseph Kennedy and Sosthenes Behn of ITT. This American company was 25% owner of Focke Wulff by his subsidiary Lorenz, who produced Nazi Bombers. All the German Army radar and radio equipment was produced by Huth and Company, G.m.b.H, 100% owned by ITT. So the bombing of London and many other countries were dun by American Bombers, guided by American radio and radar signals. Also American bombers were detected by American radar signals en shot down, again tenthousand of Americans died by equipment developed en produced by American companies.

And the perversity off it all, is unbelievable. Because in the 1960's ITT even received $27 million compensation for the bombing of their Focke Wulf factory by American Bombers. All the submarines who attacked the North Atlantic convoys who costs ten thousand of life's where guided by American radio's en radar. Better focus on that. In the book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, written by Antony C. Sutton is claimed dat ITT Subsidairies made cash payements to Reichsfurher SS Heinrich Himmler.

And the reason that Japan attacked Manchuria in 1931, and the reason why they got involved in WW2 is also a 100% responsibility of the US. You just have to do some historical research to find that out. And the reason as always was economical suffocation of Japan by the US and this since beginning the 1920's. And it was all about blocking access to minerals and oil. Strange how history repeat itself in US wars.

In short,hanks to WW2 the US became an economic en military superpower, and became the rogue state what it is today.

Although I agree with many of your points - the Versailles Treaty crippled the German economy - it was more punishment than restitution in nature - your attack on American industrialists is more of a rant than a reasoned argument.

Yes, American industry owned German subsidiaries. It also owned British subsidiaries, Italian subsidiaries, so on and so on. As did the major British and French industry giants. But these did not return profits to their ultimate owners during the war, as the German-owned subsidiaries in the UK and US did not repatriate funds to Germany.

I am not sure of the state of American development of radar during the war - my father spent most of his war years instructing the US troops on the uses of radar. He was a manufacturer of radio and TV and served in the RAF, but saw very little action due to his specialised knowledge. But he had very little respect for the US troops knowledge of electronics (I remember during the war I had ice-cream once - in hospital when I had my tonsils out. He had it in the mess every week.) (In order to show solidarity with the Brits, the American troops had a 'meatless' day every week, when only chicken was served)

I have many stories he told about his life in the RAF, but they may now be distorted by time. He never reminisced about his war-time life, too busy later rebuilding the factory and developing new models.

your attack on American industrialists is more of a rant than a reasoned argument.

I would put the whole post in that category. Mixing valid facts with a lot of opinion to make a very questionable point has always been popular with propogandists.

Looks like a troll thread to me. But then, there are some people that hate the US enough to start something like this.

Maybe it's some sort of penis envy?

Looks like a troll thread to me. But then, there are some people that hate the US enough to start something like this.

Maybe it's some sort of penis envy?

This snappy retort by me was aimed at post number 16, not the originator of the thread.

Apologies offered if anyone offended...except post number 16.

If some call me a troll , its up to them. The facts I give are historical correct. Even this remark is correct.

Yes, American industry owned German subsidiaries. It also owned British subsidiaries, Italian subsidiaries, so on and so on. As did the major British and French industry giants. But these did not return profits to their ultimate owners during the war, as the German-owned subsidiaries in the UK and US did not repatriate funds to Germany.

The fact that these subsidiaries who contributed to the German war effort, and therefore responsible for the killings of ten thousands of people, where compensated after the world for the damaged caused by allied bombings is in my eye a perversity. Not any German owned company got such compensation. And they got not any economical sanctions like German companies had. And they where not dismantled like German companies. They even received compensations.

The collapse of the Reichsmark had is origin in the fact that the US did not cancel the war debts and compensations agreed in the Versailles agreement like the UK and others did. The perversity was that the US lent the money on high intrest rate, because Germany was virtual broke, to make it possible for Germany to pay them back to the US. This was called by Winston Churchill in his memoires, one of the main reasons why Hitler could come to power. Some could call that good Business. I call this perversity. Especially when this being loans between states.

Its an historical fact that the US never declared war to Germany, and that they had very close en warm relationships with the Vichy regime till 1943.

Its an historical fact that Henry Ford, Joseph Kennedy and Sosthenes Behn of ITT had very strong sympathetic feelings towards Hitler and his Nazi party.

Its an historical fact that the US even before the invasion of Manchuria denied Japan free access to minerals and oil. This was a big problem for Japan to become an industrialised state. Even Japan was an ally during WW1 the US denied them full participations during the Versailles meeting. Even worse the Versailles agreement was very unfair to Japan, they felt threaten like a second class nation, this was caused by the US. who was afraid of an Japanese industrial influence and power in the Pacific region. By the US regarded as there own playground.

Its just too easy to make easy remarks that I'm a troll, so they can close their eyes for historical facts, and its even more easy to accuse me of US bashing.

How unpleasant it can be, the truth as his virtue and must be told en revealed..

Henry, you say that, from your reading of Churchill's memoirs, you've found that the letter Karl Jaspers referred to was not in fact a letter but a passage in a speech by Churchill to the House of Commons.

I have no ground on which to dispute what you say, but am curious that the text Jasper quoted was in the first and second person, not in the third person, as would be appropriate for a speech referring to a third party. First and second person would be appropriate for a letter.

"Were England to suffer a national disaster comparable to that of Germany in 1918, I should pray God to send us a man of your strength and will ..."

Karl Jasper was a very cautious man, not one to carelessly repeat rumours or second-hand claims, though of course he could have been careless and in error on this occasion (it was late 1945).

Can you provide any detail as to when the speech was made in the parliament, and perhaps a little about the context. For example, was it in response to a speech by Chamberlain or perhaps Halifax or Eden? That would be helpful. As I said in my initial post, I was shocked to hear of it and wonder about the context in which these words were written or uttered.

If some call me a troll , its up to them. The facts I give are historical correct.

Yes, you have included some historical facts, but you have cobbled them together with a lot of very questionable opinions and come to conclusions that most credible hstorians would disagree with.

I am not sure of the state of American development of radar during the war - my father spent most of his war years instructing the US troops on the uses of radar. He was a manufacturer of radio and TV and served in the RAF, but saw very little action due to his specialised knowledge. But he had very little respect for the US troops knowledge of electronics (I remember during the war I had ice-cream once - in hospital when I had my tonsils out. He had it in the mess every week.) (In order to show solidarity with the Brits, the American troops had a 'meatless' day every week, when only chicken was served)

The resonant cavity magnetron (the device which allowed the H2S radar to be made small enough to be fitted in planes and small escort vessels) was invented by Randall and Boot at Birmingham (UK) university in 1940. It was given to the USA for free as part of the Tizard Mission. Roosevelt later said that it (the cavity magnetron) was 'the most important cargo ever brought to American shores'.

Henry, you say that, from your reading of Churchill's memoirs, you've found that the letter Karl Jaspers referred to was not in fact a letter but a passage in a speech by Churchill to the House of Commons.

I have no ground on which to dispute what you say, but am curious that the text Jasper quoted was in the first and second person, not in the third person, as would be appropriate for a speech referring to a third party. First and second person would be appropriate for a letter.

"Were England to suffer a national disaster comparable to that of Germany in 1918, I should pray God to send us a man of your strength and will ..."

Karl Jasper was a very cautious man, not one to carelessly repeat rumours or second-hand claims, though of course he could have been careless and in error on this occasion (it was late 1945).

Can you provide any detail as to when the speech was made in the parliament, and perhaps a little about the context. For example, was it in response to a speech by Chamberlain or perhaps Halifax or Eden? That would be helpful. As I said in my initial post, I was shocked to hear of it and wonder about the context in which these words were written or uttered.

Give me some time, i will look it up, But as I mentioned its 12 volumes so it will take some time. But In promise I wil l give the answer.

Looks like a troll thread to me. But then, there are some people that hate the US enough to start something like this.

Maybe it's some sort of penis envy?

This snappy retort by me was aimed at post number 16, not the originator of the thread.

Apologies offered if anyone offended...except post number 16.

You can deny the facts all you like, and live in the fairy tale that the Americans are always good and right.. Well the reality is different..Sometimes..

On november 7 1938 Churchill wrote indeed an open letter in The Times, he did this after Hitler accused him to be a warmonger.

First he retaliated this attack in the house of commons on november 6th 1938

I am sur­prised that the head of a great State should set him­self to attack British mem­bers of Par­lia­ment who hold no offi­cial posi­tion and who are not even the lead­ers of par­ties. Such action on his part can only enhance any influ­ence they may have, because their fellow-countrymen have long been able to form their own opin­ion about them and really do not need for­eign guidance.

And on November 7th he wrote an open letter in The Times on page 12.

And judge for yourself if this is a letter of admiration

I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our right­ful posi­tion among the nations. I am sorry, how­ever, that he has not been mel­lowed by the great suc­cess that has attended him. The whole world would rejoice to see the Hitler of peace and tol­er­ance, and noth­ing would adorn his name in world his­tory so much as acts of mag­na­nim­ity and of mercy and of pity to the for­lorn and friend­less, to the weak and poor.

Since he has been good enough to give me his advice I ven­ture to return the com­pli­ment. Herr Hitler also showed him­self unduly sen­si­tive about sug­ges­tions that there may be other opin­ions in Ger­many besides his own. It would be indeed aston­ish­ing if, among 80,000,000 of peo­ple so vary­ing in ori­gin, creed, inter­est, and con­di­tion, there should be only one pat­tern of thought. It would not be nat­ural: it is incred­i­ble. That he has the power, and, alas! the will, to sup­press all incon­ve­nient opin­ions is no doubt true. It would be much wiser to relax a lit­tle, and not try to frighten peo­ple out of their wits for express­ing hon­est doubt and diver­gences. He is mis­taken in think­ing that I do not see Ger­mans of the Nazi regime when they come to this coun­try. On the con­trary, only this year I have seen, at their request,

Herr Bohle

,

Herr Hen­lein

, and the

Gauleiter of Danzig

, and they all know that.

In com­mon with most Eng­lish men and women, I should like noth­ing bet­ter than to see a great, happy, peace­ful Ger­many in the van­guard of Europe. Let this great man search his own heart and con­science before he accuses any­one of being a war­mon­ger. The whole peo­ples of the British Empire and the French Repub­lic earnestly desire to dwell in peace side by side with the Ger­man nation. But they are also resolved to put them­selves in a posi­tion to defend their rights and long-established civ­i­liza­tions. They do not mean to be in anybody’s power. If Herr Hitler’s eye falls upon these words I trust he will accept them in the spirit of can­dour in which they are uttered.

Churchill was a great Oratorical talent and writer, just look to the context of this letter and you will understand that it was no admiration in any kind of form. .

Even the quote given by Karl Jasper was not correct.

Source

hardlangworth.com/did-churchill-praise-hitler

Confirm' t by exact the same words in the memoires of Churchill, WW2, Volume 1 1919-1939, page 412.

I do offer my apology for the mistake I made to think this was out of a speech in the House of commons, I was mixed up by his speech on november 6th.

Its an historical fact that the US never declared war to Germany, and that they had very close en warm relationships with the Vichy regime till 1943.

.

The combined Houses of the United States Congress passed a resolution on December 11. 1941, declaring war on Germany and Italy, exactly three days after declaring war on the Japanese nation.

This resolution was signed by President Roosevelt that day and Germany surrendered unconditionally on May 8, 1945.

Those are the REAL historical facts and they are indisputable. The remainder of your post doesn't even warrant a response.

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Its an historical fact that the US never declared war to Germany, and that they had very close en warm relationships with the Vichy regime till 1943.

.

The combined Houses of the United States Congress passed a resolution on December 11. 1941, declaring war on Germany and Italy, exactly three days after declaring war on the Japanese nation.

This resolution was signed by President Roosevelt that day and Germany surrendered unconditionally on May 8, 1945.

Those are the REAL historical facts and they are indisputable. The remainder of your post doesn't even warrant a response.

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DECWAR.htm

after that the US responded

http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga3-411211.htm

Vichy France - US relationships

http://www.aboutjerusalem.com/vichy-france/

The collapse of the Reichsmark had is origin in the fact that the US did not cancel the war debts and compensations agreed in the Versailles agreement like the UK and others did. The perversity was that the US lent the money on high intrest rate, because Germany was virtual broke, to make it possible for Germany to pay them back to the US. This was called by Winston Churchill in his memoires, one of the main reasons why Hitler could come to power. Some could call that good Business. I call this perversity. Especially when this being loans between states.

I agree wholly with the paragraph above,

With regards to 'compensation' after the Second World War, it is correct that much of the remaining German factory equipment was taken by the Allies to replace that destroyed by bombing or looted from mainland European factories. Something of the 'To the victor the spoils' attitude.

But this rebounded on the UK and France in particular, when US aid (e.g. the Marchall Plan) allowed Germany to retool with 1950s equipment, when the UK and France could only continue with used/refurbished 1930s plant. I was using 1930s lathes and presses in the 1960s and we had no money to retool at that time (General Electric - UK version). This enabled Germany to get back on it;s feet very quickly in comparison to the situation after the Great War. I know that in the late 1940s their situation was dire, but with hard work and determination the Germans developed a prosperity envied by the Brits and French by the mid-1960s. I saw it first hand, and went abroad to try to earn my share of it as well. Been abroad ever since - and in many ways the UK is still behind Germany in the prosperity stakes, although with the economies set up differently, it may just be the things that I prioritise that are better in central Europe.