Could Hitler have forced Britain to make peace?

[gipper]

He offered Churchill very nice terms

History made it pretty clear that Herr Hitler's 'promises' promise absolutely nothing.

There is no way Britain as we know it would have survived a treaty with Hitler.

Not correct. Do you think US promises mean anything? Lol.

They did in World War II. The US gave billions in aid to Britain, Billions more in loans. Over one million soldiers came to the UK to spearhead the invasion of Europe. 104,000 Americans died liberating Europe.

I would say America exceeded its promises and then some.

What? Lol. What promises did our criminal warmongering government make to Britain during WWII?

I believe FDR made promises to Poland before the war. All quickly forgotten.

Talk to the Indian tribes about US government promises.

 

[Picaro]

He offered Churchill very nice terms

History made it pretty clear that Herr Hitler's 'promises' promise absolutely nothing.

There is no way Britain as we know it would have survived a treaty with Hitler.

Not correct. Do you think US promises mean anything? Lol.

They did in World War II. The US gave billions in aid to Britain, Billions more in loans. Over one million soldiers came to the UK to spearhead the invasion of Europe. 104,000 Americans died liberating Europe.

I would say America exceeded its promises and then some.

What? Lol. What promises did our criminal warmongering government make to Britain during WWII?

I believe FDR made promises to Poland before the war. All quickly forgotten.

Talk to the Indian tribes about US government promises.

Every single 'nation' of degenerate savages broke their word; they were no different then they are now, exactly like Arabs and 'Palestinians' are now, worthless liars.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Ok, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.

I think the Brits under Churchill and the other pols were pretty obstinate and had been at this game a long long time. They also weren't stupid about Stalin, but Hitler made them shift their priorities temporarily. They went right back to The Great Game of surrounding Russia with enemies as soon as Germany was finished. Leopards don't change their spots, as the old say8ing goes, and the Russians were always expansionists; becoming 'Reds' didn't change that fundamental fact about them. They still are today as well. All the dictatorships are.

Perhaps but, shortly after the end of the war, the British voters largely opposed Churchill and his fellow conservatives. I maintain my belief that, had Hitler pulled his forces out of western Europe and made peace, the British people would NOT have supported all-out war against Germany. They would rightly ask, why should hundreds of thousands (or millions) of British boys die for Poland? The fact that the conservatives did so poorly in the elections right after the end of WW2 lends credence to my theory, or so I believe.

Churchill lost that election because Labour had better policies. Homes fit for heroes,NHS, welfare state. All of these transformed the UK from a near feudal backward society. Having fought two world wars the British working class were keen to win the peace as well. It was no comment on Churhills work in the war.

 

[gipper]

Ok, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.

I think the Brits under Churchill and the other pols were pretty obstinate and had been at this game a long long time. They also weren't stupid about Stalin, but Hitler made them shift their priorities temporarily. They went right back to The Great Game of surrounding Russia with enemies as soon as Germany was finished. Leopards don't change their spots, as the old say8ing goes, and the Russians were always expansionists; becoming 'Reds' didn't change that fundamental fact about them. They still are today as well. All the dictatorships are.

Perhaps but, shortly after the end of the war, the British voters largely opposed Churchill and his fellow conservatives. I maintain my belief that, had Hitler pulled his forces out of western Europe and made peace, the British people would NOT have supported all-out war against Germany. They would rightly ask, why should hundreds of thousands (or millions) of British boys die for Poland? The fact that the conservatives did so poorly in the elections right after the end of WW2 lends credence to my theory, or so I believe.

Churchill lost that election because Labour had better policies. Homes fit for heroes,NHS, welfare state. All of these transformed the UK from a near feudal backward society. Having fought two world wars the British working class were keen to win the peace as well. It was no comment on Churhills work in the war.

It should have, since the old bulldog was a maniacal bloodthirsty warmonger.

 

[K9Buck]

...suggesting the US should have sided with Hitler & Nazi Germany,

"The French Navy was left untouched."

You have the reading comprehension of an 8-year-old. Nobody "suggested" that the U.S. "should" have "sided" with Hitler.

As for the French Navy, the Germans never touched the French fleet. I said that "The French Navy was left untouched" in the context of how Germany seized French tanks, artillery, rifles, ammunition, oil, and aircraft. Learn context, dumbass.

 

[K9Buck]

Hitler was an ally of Russia...

Are you serious, Clark? LOL. They were never "allies". They signed a bullshit agreement to not kill each other. They were not "allies".

 

[K9Buck]

Ok, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.

I think the Brits under Churchill and the other pols were pretty obstinate and had been at this game a long long time. They also weren't stupid about Stalin, but Hitler made them shift their priorities temporarily. They went right back to The Great Game of surrounding Russia with enemies as soon as Germany was finished. Leopards don't change their spots, as the old say8ing goes, and the Russians were always expansionists; becoming 'Reds' didn't change that fundamental fact about them. They still are today as well. All the dictatorships are.

Perhaps but, shortly after the end of the war, the British voters largely opposed Churchill and his fellow conservatives. I maintain my belief that, had Hitler pulled his forces out of western Europe and made peace, the British people would NOT have supported all-out war against Germany. They would rightly ask, why should hundreds of thousands (or millions) of British boys die for Poland? The fact that the conservatives did so poorly in the elections right after the end of WW2 lends credence to my theory, or so I believe.

Churchill lost that election because Labour had better policies. Homes fit for heroes,NHS, welfare state. All of these transformed the UK from a near feudal backward society. Having fought two world wars the British working class were keen to win the peace as well. It was no comment on Churhills work in the war.

Fortunately, the British-left abandoned Churchhill the moment they no longer needed him and pursued policies that eventually made Great Britain a minor nation in the world.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Ok, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.

I think the Brits under Churchill and the other pols were pretty obstinate and had been at this game a long long time. They also weren't stupid about Stalin, but Hitler made them shift their priorities temporarily. They went right back to The Great Game of surrounding Russia with enemies as soon as Germany was finished. Leopards don't change their spots, as the old say8ing goes, and the Russians were always expansionists; becoming 'Reds' didn't change that fundamental fact about them. They still are today as well. All the dictatorships are.

Perhaps but, shortly after the end of the war, the British voters largely opposed Churchill and his fellow conservatives. I maintain my belief that, had Hitler pulled his forces out of western Europe and made peace, the British people would NOT have supported all-out war against Germany. They would rightly ask, why should hundreds of thousands (or millions) of British boys die for Poland? The fact that the conservatives did so poorly in the elections right after the end of WW2 lends credence to my theory, or so I believe.

Churchill lost that election because Labour had better policies. Homes fit for heroes,NHS, welfare state. All of these transformed the UK from a near feudal backward society. Having fought two world wars the British working class were keen to win the peace as well. It was no comment on Churhills work in the war.

Fortunately, the British-left abandoned Churchhill the moment they no longer needed him and pursued policies that eventually made Great Britain a minor nation in the world.

The NHS made the UK a beacon in the modern world. Far better than killing loads of blacks and asians in order to steal their riches.

 

[K9Buck]

Ok, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.

I think the Brits under Churchill and the other pols were pretty obstinate and had been at this game a long long time. They also weren't stupid about Stalin, but Hitler made them shift their priorities temporarily. They went right back to The Great Game of surrounding Russia with enemies as soon as Germany was finished. Leopards don't change their spots, as the old say8ing goes, and the Russians were always expansionists; becoming 'Reds' didn't change that fundamental fact about them. They still are today as well. All the dictatorships are.

Perhaps but, shortly after the end of the war, the British voters largely opposed Churchill and his fellow conservatives. I maintain my belief that, had Hitler pulled his forces out of western Europe and made peace, the British people would NOT have supported all-out war against Germany. They would rightly ask, why should hundreds of thousands (or millions) of British boys die for Poland? The fact that the conservatives did so poorly in the elections right after the end of WW2 lends credence to my theory, or so I believe.

Churchill lost that election because Labour had better policies. Homes fit for heroes,NHS, welfare state. All of these transformed the UK from a near feudal backward society. Having fought two world wars the British working class were keen to win the peace as well. It was no comment on Churhills work in the war.

Fortunately, the British-left abandoned Churchhill the moment they no longer needed him and pursued policies that eventually made Great Britain a minor nation in the world.

The NHS made the UK a beacon in the modern world. Far better than killing loads of blacks and asians in order to steal their riches.

Yea, in 50 years England will be ruled by an Islamic caliphate. Congratulations.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

...suggesting the US should have sided with Hitler & Nazi Germany,

"The French Navy was left untouched."

You have the reading comprehension of an 8-year-old. Nobody "suggested" that the U.S. "should" have "sided" with Hitler.

As for the French Navy, the Germans never touched the French fleet. I said that "The French Navy was left untouched" in the context of how Germany seized French tanks, artillery, rifles, ammunition, oil, and aircraft. Learn context, dumbass.

Yes well, that was because there wasn't much of the French fleet left to 'touch' after the British had destroyed it.
You make it sound like there was still a viable French fleet.

 

[K9Buck]

...suggesting the US should have sided with Hitler & Nazi Germany,

"The French Navy was left untouched."

You have the reading comprehension of an 8-year-old. Nobody "suggested" that the U.S. "should" have "sided" with Hitler.

As for the French Navy, the Germans never touched the French fleet. I said that "The French Navy was left untouched" in the context of how Germany seized French tanks, artillery, rifles, ammunition, oil, and aircraft. Learn context, dumbass.

Yes well, that was because there wasn't much of the French fleet left to 'touch' after the British had destroyed it.
You make it sound like there was still a viable French fleet.

The British attacked AFTER Germany had conquered France. It's debatable whether Churchill's actions were necessary.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

Ok, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.

I think the Brits under Churchill and the other pols were pretty obstinate and had been at this game a long long time. They also weren't stupid about Stalin, but Hitler made them shift their priorities temporarily. They went right back to The Great Game of surrounding Russia with enemies as soon as Germany was finished. Leopards don't change their spots, as the old say8ing goes, and the Russians were always expansionists; becoming 'Reds' didn't change that fundamental fact about them. They still are today as well. All the dictatorships are.

Perhaps but, shortly after the end of the war, the British voters largely opposed Churchill and his fellow conservatives. I maintain my belief that, had Hitler pulled his forces out of western Europe and made peace, the British people would NOT have supported all-out war against Germany. They would rightly ask, why should hundreds of thousands (or millions) of British boys die for Poland? The fact that the conservatives did so poorly in the elections right after the end of WW2 lends credence to my theory, or so I believe.

Churchill lost that election because Labour had better policies. Homes fit for heroes,NHS, welfare state. All of these transformed the UK from a near feudal backward society. Having fought two world wars the British working class were keen to win the peace as well. It was no comment on Churhills work in the war.

Fortunately, the British-left abandoned Churchhill the moment they no longer needed him and pursued policies that eventually made Great Britain a minor nation in the world.

The NHS made the UK a beacon in the modern world. Far better than killing loads of blacks and asians in order to steal their riches.

Yea, in 50 years England will be ruled by an Islamic caliphate. Congratulations.

It's bad enough when Trumpsters spout scrap about their own country, but when they go global they really show their ignorance.
Muslims make up 4.4% of UK pop. Of them, there are 9 subgroups ranging from Pakistan, Bangladeshi, Arab, White British, etc. There are no Muslim political parties that could take power and they would have to do some serious breading, but as all research shows that having moved to the UK they tend to fall into line with their fellow Brits and reduce the numbers of offsprings.

Just because you hear on Fox News that Sadiq Khan (a Muslim) had been elected Mayor of London and is being overrun. You need to consider that even in London Muslims represent only 12% of the pop. So he was elected mainly non-Muslims.

So keep your Trumpster anti-Muslim racist shit out of our country you disgusting a-hole.

 

[gipper]

Hitler was an ally of Russia...

Are you serious, Clark? LOL. They were never "allies". They signed a bullshit agreement to not kill each other. They were not "allies".

Yet Russia supplied Nazi Germany with lots of material, prior to Operation Barbarossa.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Ok, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.

I think the Brits under Churchill and the other pols were pretty obstinate and had been at this game a long long time. They also weren't stupid about Stalin, but Hitler made them shift their priorities temporarily. They went right back to The Great Game of surrounding Russia with enemies as soon as Germany was finished. Leopards don't change their spots, as the old say8ing goes, and the Russians were always expansionists; becoming 'Reds' didn't change that fundamental fact about them. They still are today as well. All the dictatorships are.

Perhaps but, shortly after the end of the war, the British voters largely opposed Churchill and his fellow conservatives. I maintain my belief that, had Hitler pulled his forces out of western Europe and made peace, the British people would NOT have supported all-out war against Germany. They would rightly ask, why should hundreds of thousands (or millions) of British boys die for Poland? The fact that the conservatives did so poorly in the elections right after the end of WW2 lends credence to my theory, or so I believe.

Churchill lost that election because Labour had better policies. Homes fit for heroes,NHS, welfare state. All of these transformed the UK from a near feudal backward society. Having fought two world wars the British working class were keen to win the peace as well. It was no comment on Churhills work in the war.

Fortunately, the British-left abandoned Churchhill the moment they no longer needed him and pursued policies that eventually made Great Britain a minor nation in the world.

The NHS made the UK a beacon in the modern world. Far better than killing loads of blacks and asians in order to steal their riches.

Yea, in 50 years England will be ruled by an Islamic caliphate. Congratulations.

Why are you so unwilling to take learning from people who are your betters ? You spout shit,get schooled and then lash out with gibberish. Perfect example of a trumper.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

Ok, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.

I think the Brits under Churchill and the other pols were pretty obstinate and had been at this game a long long time. They also weren't stupid about Stalin, but Hitler made them shift their priorities temporarily. They went right back to The Great Game of surrounding Russia with enemies as soon as Germany was finished. Leopards don't change their spots, as the old say8ing goes, and the Russians were always expansionists; becoming 'Reds' didn't change that fundamental fact about them. They still are today as well. All the dictatorships are.

Perhaps but, shortly after the end of the war, the British voters largely opposed Churchill and his fellow conservatives. I maintain my belief that, had Hitler pulled his forces out of western Europe and made peace, the British people would NOT have supported all-out war against Germany. They would rightly ask, why should hundreds of thousands (or millions) of British boys die for Poland? The fact that the conservatives did so poorly in the elections right after the end of WW2 lends credence to my theory, or so I believe.

Churchill lost that election because Labour had better policies. Homes fit for heroes,NHS, welfare state. All of these transformed the UK from a near feudal backward society. Having fought two world wars the British working class were keen to win the peace as well. It was no comment on Churhills work in the war.

Fortunately, the British-left abandoned Churchhill the moment they no longer needed him and pursued policies that eventually made Great Britain a minor nation in the world.

The NHS made the UK a beacon in the modern world. Far better than killing loads of blacks and asians in order to steal their riches.

Yea, in 50 years England will be ruled by an Islamic caliphate. Congratulations.

It's bad enough when Trumpsters spout scrap about their own country, but when they go global they really show their ignorance.
Muslims make up 4.4% of UK pop. Of them, there are 9 subgroups ranging from Pakistan, Bangladeshi, Arab, White British, etc. There are no Muslim political parties that could take power and they would have to do some serious breading, but as all research shows that having moved to the UK they tend to fall into line with their fellow Brits and reduce the numbers of offsprings.

Just because you hear on Fox News that Sadiq Khan (a Muslim) had been elected Mayor of London and is being overrun. You need to consider that even in London Muslims represent only 12% of the pop. So he was elected mainly non-Muslims.

So keep your Trumpster anti-Muslim racist shit out of our country you disgusting a-hole.

.
And just to add, - your thread title is a dumb contradiction you can't "force" peace on an unwilling recipient.

 

[K9Buck]

Hitler was an ally of Russia...

Are you serious, Clark? LOL. They were never "allies". They signed a bullshit agreement to not kill each other. They were not "allies".

Yet Russia supplied Nazi Germany with lots of material, prior to Operation Barbarossa.

That's true. Soviet trains had dropped off supplies just hours before the Germans attacked. Nevertheless, nobody in Hitler's circle nor in the Kremlin considered the other to be an "ally".

 

[fncceo]

And just to add, - your thread title is a dumb contradiction you can't "force" peace on an unwilling recipient.

Au contraire, mon frere.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

And just to add, - your thread title is a dumb contradiction you can't "force" peace on an unwilling recipient.

Au contraire, mon frere.

View attachment 398210

Except it wasn't that, that compelled the Japanese to surrender but the knowledge that two weeks prior the Soviets had declared war on Japan routed them in Manchuria and had their tanks on the coast of the Sea of Japan within the distance of invasion. The decision facing Hirohito was unconditional surrender to Americans, but keep Emperor, or suffer invasion by the Soviets and goodbye Emperor?
In Hirohito's shoes, what would you have chosen?
It's about time the US acknowledged the part the USSR played in Japan's surrender to them.

You couldn't have succeeded in the Manhatten project without the input from British scientists....but then neither could the USSR without those same British scientists.

 

[fncceo]

it wasn't that, that compelled the Japanese to surrender but the knowledge that two weeks prior the Soviets had declared war on Japan

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

Ok, so you gents are confident that, in spite of all of western Europe making peace with the Germans, that the British people would have remained committed to all-out war with Germany. That may be correct, although we'll never know for sure, which is what makes these types of speculative threads interesting.

I think the Brits under Churchill and the other pols were pretty obstinate and had been at this game a long long time. They also weren't stupid about Stalin, but Hitler made them shift their priorities temporarily. They went right back to The Great Game of surrounding Russia with enemies as soon as Germany was finished. Leopards don't change their spots, as the old say8ing goes, and the Russians were always expansionists; becoming 'Reds' didn't change that fundamental fact about them. They still are today as well. All the dictatorships are.

Perhaps but, shortly after the end of the war, the British voters largely opposed Churchill and his fellow conservatives. I maintain my belief that, had Hitler pulled his forces out of western Europe and made peace, the British people would NOT have supported all-out war against Germany. They would rightly ask, why should hundreds of thousands (or millions) of British boys die for Poland? The fact that the conservatives did so poorly in the elections right after the end of WW2 lends credence to my theory, or so I believe.

Churchill lost that election because Labour had better policies. Homes fit for heroes,NHS, welfare state. All of these transformed the UK from a near feudal backward society. Having fought two world wars the British working class were keen to win the peace as well. It was no comment on Churhills work in the war.

Churchill was a great orator and frontman and a true world statesman, but he was an imperialist at the end of empire born into privilege, and ruling through privilege.
Atlee's role in the war has never been recognised, it was he who organised the logistics and was the mechanic who engineered Hitler's defeat. He was Britain's greatest Prime Minister.