The fortunes of Poland in the 1600's have I think little bearing on the outbreak of world war two......some folks in my own part of the world look back to the late 1600's and get trapped in a mind set so I think I can speak from a little experience on that one !
The out break of W.W.1 and the sorry state of affairs which brought it about and took Europe over the edge unfortunate but now history .
Had Britain made any treaty with Germany would Britain still have been an on looker ? Might Germany have said ..."if you chaps arn't busy could you lend a hand ?" Again no bearing on W.W.2.
The post W.W.1 picture in Europe.......lots of hands on it and mistakes made.....the need to get revenge on Germany and "make her pay" certainly had a hand in the 39-45 conflict.....by no stretch of the imagination was it a fair or reasonable deal.
Look at the boer war and you can see a little of what Empire is all about...money and controlling trade .
Thing about the Empire which died in W.W.1 like all Empires it tended to run roughshod over people who actually live in the lands which form the Empire so all that follows is understandable .
Empires are about ruling people , not democracy. The National problems within the Autrain Empire......all there before W.W.1 nothing created...the ethnic tensions and age old problems......not new.
To say that no changes in national borders would have prevent WW2 is a long shot...who knows what direction things might have gone...underlying thing is Europe was unstable before WW1 , was unstable after WW1, and is still sorting itself out and will continue to do so for some time to come...WW1 was part of that change not an event in isolation.
In short Empire had had its day , be that Austrian , German , British , French or Dutch.
The leader of Vicy France was not France.........had Britain stayed "neutral" we would have had two choices...either to turn a blind eye to all that would have followed a total German victory or sooner or later be drawn into war.
I take from your points that you would have seen no need to re-arm in the later 1930's and that any money spent on our armed forces was money wasted ?
( Britain not being threatened by German no need to spend money on new class of KGV Battleships , no need to develop Radar or home air defence system ).
Perhaps we could at some point have entered into a trade agreement with Germany and sold the Spitfire to the Luftwaffe for use in Russia ?
Regarding the 1930...speculation only thing that can be discused with certainty is fact or this threat belongs in the "what if section".
Had we made a peace with Hitler Russia was next on his list....the Wansee Conference would still have taken place and the Final Solution and all that followed would have been set in train...there is no reason why not.
Millions would still have died and your policy of wanting Britain to have opted out from 39 or made peace in 1940 amounts to giving the Hitler a free hand in Europe based on what you see as being our National Interests.
Russia alone might have gone under......where do National interests take us now.
My earlier point about British bases in the Med.
Why do you think Hitler might have perhaps thought about an axis power having them ?...to ensure that Britain did as she was expected to do.
A very valid point made by Lord Gort......the power of sea trade and communication.....political presure backed up by the threat of force to cede say Gibralter or more likely Malta and Egypt , and say returning italy's "Empire" in the horn of Africa would have placed German interestsvery well in making things difficult for British forces in the Far East.....remember that other Axis partner...Japan...would have helped them out quite a bit as well.
The more I consider your points the more I think that Petain and Lord Halifax would have agreeded with you .
To ask you out right would you in 1939 have said no ...we won't declare war on Germany ?
Would you in 1940 have wanted Halifax to have been made Prime Minister and Britain to have made a peace with Germany ?
Churchill said that if Hitler invaded Hell he would find some kind words with which he could address the House .
Churchill knew Stalin for what he was......the Americans did not.....certainly Truman didn't know what he was up against.
Churchill knew that Stain was the lesser of the two evils...and only just.....
Churchill's Greatest Speech
True. I was only meaning to show how since day 1 Poland has been divided by neighbouring countries, and if Britain and France thought they could somehow stop it they were wrong.The fortunes of Poland in the 1600's have I think little bearing on the outbreak of world war two.
I agree there, the Treaty of Versailles practically put Hitler back in power. The two arguments at Versailles were to give Germany fair peace, and hope they hold no resentment, or to give Germany such a harsh peace that they would be bankrupt for years to come and never again had the chance to return to former power. The compromise made gave Germans enough resentment to elect a fascist war-monger but didn't damage Germany enough to stop it becoming powerful.The post W.W.1 picture in Europe.......lots of hands on it and mistakes made.....the need to get revenge on Germany and "make her pay" certainly had a hand in the 39-45 conflict.....by no stretch of the imagination was it a fair or reasonable deal.
WW2 may not have happened, but certainly there would have been wars. Austria Hungary would have fallen into civil war, and Germany and Russia would probably have attacked sooner or later, and maybe more things in the East would have happened, but I doubt there would have been a war in the west, at least not as big a one as what did happenTo say that no changes in national borders would have prevent WW2 is a long shot...who knows what direction things might have gone...underlying thing is Europe was unstable before WW1 , was unstable after WW1, and is still sorting itself out and will continue to do so for some time to come...WW1 was part of that change not an event in isolation.
Petain was the leader of France. He became their leader after Deladier resigned, and he sought peace with the Germans because he knew he was beat. He was the C-in-C of the French Army in WW1 and therefore you cannot say he was a traitor to his country, or un-patriotic. He did what was best for his country at the time, and probably saved a lot of French lives. Obviously if Britain had turned a blind eye, declared neutrality, Hitler would have gone straight for Russia. After Russia, China & India to help the Japanese. He wanted a Berlin-Delhi rail system, and his priorities were in the East, rather than the West.The leader of Vicy France was not France.........had Britain stayed "neutral" we would have had two choices...either to turn a blind eye to all that would have followed a total German victory or sooner or later be drawn into war.
Certainly, we would need to be prepared for war, and without spending billions repairing war damage and replacing destroyed industry, navy and aircraft we could have assembled a much more powerful RAF and RN. As well as radar. We could have done as Switzerland did and grow rich off the war.I take from your points that you would have seen no need to re-arm in the later 1930's and that any money spent on our armed forces was money wasted ? ( Britain not being threatened by German no need to spend money on new class of KGV Battleships , no need to develop Radar or home air defence system ).
As I said before, neutral, not Germany' ally.Perhaps we could at some point have entered into a trade agreement with Germany and sold the Spitfire to the Luftwaffe for use in Russia ?
Yes, it probably would have happened, but it is not the responsibility of Britain to police the world.Had we made a peace with Hitler Russia was next on his list....the Wansee Conference would still have taken place and the Final Solution and all that followed would have been set in train...there is no reason why not.
Opting out in '39 would have been better than peace in '40. If Hitler hand't have been so impatient, Britain would have been invaded sooner or later and possibly millions of Britons killed. Had we opted out in '39, less people would have died - less British (& ANZACS & Empire) soldiers, sailors and Airmen fighting Germany, less of the German equivalents fighting Britain, less British and German civilians though bombing, no Americans in Normandy, less Germans & Russians in Hitler's last stand '43-'45. Granted elsewhere in the world there may have been more deaths, particularly in the East, but I doubt they would be more than the amount saved had Britain opted out in '39.Millions would still have died and your policy of wanting Britain to have opted out from 39 or made peace in 1940 amounts to giving the Hitler a free hand in Europe based on what you see as being our National Interests.
Not fighting a cold war with Russia anyway. Hitler would have kept himself busy in the East, and besides, I doubt he would have lived past '46 or' 47. Experts agree he was most likely in the tertiary stage of the syphillis virus, which would account for his rapid physical deterioratation, his loss of concentration, the fear his Generals were plotting against him, and complete divorce from reality by the time he went into the Berlin Bunker. Once he was dead, there would be peace. Donitz was not a war-monger.Russia alone might have gone under......where do National interests take us now.
As I said earlier, Hitler didn't care too much about the RN. I am sure he would have happily let us keep hold of Malta and Gibraltar had we agreed to neutrality. As for Egypt, your point was that the Empire days were over anyway. Italy would never try and take it off us without German support, and Germany would never have dragged themselves into a war with Britain over a few millions miles of sand. If we had granted open passage for all nationalities through the Suez, there would be no need for anyone to hold Egypt.My earlier point about British bases in the Med.
remember that other Axis partner...Japan...
What limited power held in the Far East meant little to the British. Japan most likely would have gone for a easier target, such as Eastern Russia or China. The Japanese were a less racially pure than the Germans and British, although purer than Slavs. Hitler respected them only because their culture was based around the idea that death in the name of the Empire was the highest honour.
Whether that is true or not is open to discussion. In my opinion, had Stalin been as prepared and powerful as Hitler in 1939 he would have been the one invading Europe, not Hitler. It was only circumstance which prevented him doing so back then. It wasn't until 1943 that he was able to invade Europe. He had no regard for international law, he even advised Truman to invade through Switzerland and give the knockout blow to the Germans on western front. His policy of rape, pillage and plunder European industry and population as he went through Europe was worse than Hitler when he invaded Russia.Churchill knew that Stain was the lesser of the two evils...and only just.....
The Soviet victory in Europe cause problems way up until 1990. Remeber Kennendy and Krushchev nearly blew the world to pieces, starting with Cuba in the 60's. Had Hitler won in the 40's and had Donitz succeed him then I think eventually Germany would have finished venting it's anger and settled down. Keeping at war with Germany in 1940 could have spelled the end for Britain, but we got lucky. I'm happy the way things ended up, but I am not happy with the way things were likely to end up had Hitler not invaded Russia when he did. Summing up my argument, Britain went down the path to doom in 1939, and it was only thanks to the stupidity of a mustasched Nazi that we were saved, not the leadership of Churchill.
Don't get me wrong though, the guy was a great leader, probably the best Britain has had this century, and he was one hell of a good speaker.