Customer Discussions > history discussion forum

Should Britain have allied with Hitler in WW2?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 45 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 29 Jul 2013 13:33:11 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2013 17:12:23 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 27 Mar 2014 00:43:49 GMT]

Posted on 29 Jul 2013 20:39:10 BDT
Last edited by the author on 29 Jul 2013 22:39:23 BDT
gille liath says:
This is a lot of nonsense and projection, Podders. Failing to be impressed by Stalin's Russia - as any sane person would be - does not make us proponents of Hitler's Germany, and the thinking of govt officials at the time is irrelevant to that. In other words, Britain at the time was obliged to some extent to choose between the two; but we, now, are not so obliged. Personally, I don't hate communism; I'd like to think it could work somehow; but unlike you I look at the facts rather than basing my opinion on the party line.

Whose law of internet discussion is it that eventually someone accuses someone else, Basil Fawlty-like, of being surrogate Nazis? And who does that mean has lost the argument?

As for that other thread of yours - it really is pretty low to make use of things like that in the service of personal pique. I thought you were just a little better than that; my mistake, probably comes from almost never reading your posts. Anyway, you have forfeited whatever claim you ever had to being someone worth the trouble of discussing history seriously with.

Posted on 29 Jul 2013 20:43:50 BDT
gille liath says:
Edited to remove the word 'pathetic' - not because it isn't true, but because I don't want to fall foul of the moderators.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2013 20:46:51 BDT
Should you cut off your arm if your finger hurts?

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 10:12:06 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 10:18:40 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 14:23:54 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 27 Mar 2014 00:44:02 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 14:51:56 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jul 2013 16:21:36 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 27 Mar 2014 00:44:12 GMT]

Posted on 31 Jul 2013 09:51:43 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2013 11:52:41 BDT
Last edited by the author on 31 Jul 2013 11:55:53 BDT
Mr Podmore.

When you say:- " It was necessary if Britain was to survive ", you seem to be confusing 'winning the war' with the long term racial/national survival of the British people and culture. The involvement/victory of the British Empire in WWII did nothing but ensure the collapse of the British Empire within eighteen months of the 1945 'victory' celebrations, just as Sir Oswald Mosley and the 'appeaser/pro-fascists you denounce predicted during the 1930s.

The loss of the Empire's supplies of raw materials and cheap labour caused the British economy to enter a decline from which it's never recovered, while the mass immigration used by the employer class to lower wage costs now threatens the genetic replacement of the native British in these islands within only two generations. See the following You-Tube documentaries for confirmation:-

1. Wake up Europe (Islam in Europe). Golden Dawn
2. Islam in Europe-It is time to Wake up. aeuroasia
3. Living in the Last days of Christianity in Britain. aeuroasia
4. Britain 2011 - riots, Britain 2029 - civil war ! . antiantiracist8
5. Europe 2029: Civil War. LaFee700

I personally think history will look back on the 20th Century the way we today look back on the last few decades of Roman civilisation. The twilight years of a once great society that became gripped by greed, jealousy, pride and hubris. WWII did not ensure British survival, it did not even ensure the Soviet Union's survival, which collapsed bankrupt from it's own 'internal contradictions' only a generation later.

Like ancient Rome's Civil Wars, WWII simply massacred Europe's best blood on a scale that could never be made good. All pure folly, for which our children/grandchildren will pay the ultimate price.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2013 12:37:08 BDT
easytiger says:
Well said. Sad but true.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2013 12:56:17 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2013 13:04:31 BDT
Last edited by the author on 31 Jul 2013 13:04:43 BDT
Then please explain the 'benefits' (short or long-term?) you believe involvement in WWII brought the British people, Mr Podmore?

I see none.

Posted on 31 Jul 2013 16:29:44 BDT
Oooh, not being run by the Nazis ...?
Mind you, I think some contributors might have been all too happy to collaborate with the Nazis ...

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2013 23:30:07 BDT
Last edited by the author on 31 Jul 2013 23:41:11 BDT
Mr Podmore,

When you say " not being run by the Nazis ...." was what Britain gained from involvement in the greatest most destructive war in recorded history; I would happily agree with you were it true; but again you seem to be confusing the illusion for the reality.

The true reason Nazism was so instinctively unpopular with so many in the 1930s was not that those masses were inherently left-leaning socialist/Marxists, yearning for a 'workers paradise'. It was that Nazism was a totalitarian tyranny, all but identical to the Soviet tyranny imposed upon Russia. An Orwellian nightmare State within which the hopes, dreams and opinions of individuals meant nothing compared to those of the tiny elite that controlled everything. Thus if Stalin wanted the Baltic/White Sea canal dug, police departments across the USSR were sent arrest 'quotas', with the victims 'legally' condemned to become the slave labour that built it. If Hitler wished to 'Aryanise' Europe, police departments received similar 'quotas' targeting jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc... who were rapidly condemned to Auschwitz in an equally 'legal' manner.

If looked at from this perspective, today's 'liberal' West (although perhaps not as brutal?), is equally totalitarian. Basic freedoms such as those shown below are 'controlled' by Politically Correct legislation.

All private communication, telephone/internet etc... is monitored/recorded by the State.
The streets, shops, pubs etc... bristle with Orwellian style surveillance cameras/eavesdropping equipment.
The Media/entertainment and literature are censored; break the Politically Correct 'guidelines' and you don't get published.
Education is strictly controlled; with non-Politically Correct teaching staff hounded from their posts or sacked.
Parental responsibilities (and many other topics we both know about) are determined by State legislation and strictly controlled by the State; with any dissenting citizenry forced to obey by a large paramilitary Police Force. Having attended both the Coal Miners strike and BNP meetings in my youth, and anti-abortion demonstrations more recently; I can assure you that the 'crowd control' methods employed by the British State frequently differ little from those of the Nazi/Soviet totalitarian regimes, during peacetime.

When it's realised that the British NHS has 'terminated' approx 5,500,000 babies and dispatched another approx 1,500,000 elderly victims up the 'Liverpool Pathway', even the Nazi/Marxist 'social engineering/racial hygiene/euthanasia' programmes can be seen to have direct equivalents in today's 'Liberal' West.

Thus when you say WWII prevented Britain 'being run by Nazis' I can only disagree.
1. The UK's Social Services may not wear black uniforms and armbands; but they can still legally seize children from their parents and incarcerate them within 'Care Homes' such as Bryn Estyn, Haute de la Garenne on Jersey, etc....
2. The UK Police may not sport swastikas/red stars, but they still shoot unarmed suspects with impunity, beat people to death in the cells (occasionally in front of the TV cameras!) all to regularly; and secretly infiltrate 'dissident' organisations such as 'Fathers for Justice'.
3. The Lib/Lab/Con Political Establishment may wear civilian clothes and sport different coloured rosettes, but they are more closely united than the Nazi/Soviet Parties ever were. Witness the fate of Strasser, Trotsky, Roehm and the repeated purges of the 1930s.

To my mind, we are living under Orwellian totalitarianism right now; the only real difference being the ideology enforced:-
1. Nazism enforced racial segregation, Liberalism enforces racial integration.
2. Marxism (theoretically) promoted fair pay for honest labour, Liberalism promotes cheap labour/sweatshops.
3. Nazism promoted family values/high birth rate, Liberalism promotes abortion.
4. Marxism had it's Red Square parades, Nazism it's Nuremburg Rallies; Liberalism abandoned the paramilitary aspects but promotes it's own 'free love' values at the Glastonbury Festival, the Gay Pride marches etc....

PS. If you disagree, try and influence your 'elected representatives' by standing outside Parliament/10 Downing Street etc... with an 'extremist' placard demanding the In/Out referendum on Europe our Prime Minister got elected on the strength of. Just like in Hitler's Reich, the USSR (or even Zimbabwe?) your feet won't touch the ground; and you know it Mr Podmore.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 07:04:43 BDT
easytiger says:
Agreed, and there are thousands out there who see it that way. Some of us have lost jobs through belonging to a perfectly legal political party and for family reasons have had to keep thier heads down or even take work abroad.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 15:11:51 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 27 Mar 2014 00:44:31 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 15:46:13 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 27 Mar 2014 00:44:38 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 16:49:04 BDT
So Churchill got all these strategic judgements wrong, did he?
The Soviet moves pushed the Soviet Union's defence lines further west, increasing the distances that the Wehrmacht had to cover before it could reach Moscow and Leningrad. The Soviet moves made it more difficult for Hitler to beat the USSR. If Hitler had beaten the USSR in 3 months, as forecast by most Western 'experts', he could then have turned his victorious armies against Britain. Do you think that if he had turned those 240 divisions against us, we would have had much chance? We owe the Soviet Union a huge debt of gratitude.
As Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery pointed out, "Russian had to bear, almost unaided, the full onslaught of Germany on land; we British would never forget what Russia went through." But some now prefer to forget ...
As Churchill said, "Russia tore the guts out of the German Army".
President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "the Russian armies are killing more Axis personnel and destroying more Axis material than all the other twenty-five United Nations put together."
US General Douglas MacArthur said, "The hopes of civilization rest on the worthy banners of the courageous Russian army. During my lifetime I have participated in a number of wars and have witnessed others, as well as studying in great detail the campaigns of outstanding leaders of the past. In none have I observed such effective resistance to the heaviest blows of a hitherto undefeated enemy, followed by a smashing counter-attack which is driving the enemy back to his own land. The scale and grandeur of the effort mark it as the greatest military achievement in all history."
Sumner Welles, Under-Secretary in the State Department, asserted, "The achievements represented by the victorious struggle of the Soviet Union have never been excelled by any other nation. They would not have been possible save through the efforts of a united and selflessly patriotic people."
All these great men had the generosity of spirit to acknowledge the Soviet people's achievements - I wish more people had that same greatness of spirit nowadays.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 16:53:03 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 1 Aug 2013 17:29:39 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 27 Mar 2014 00:44:47 GMT]

Posted on 1 Aug 2013 18:38:39 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Nov 2013 20:47:16 GMT
When speaking of 'strategic judgements' made by WWII leaders, it should be realised that (then as now?) politicians frequently said one thing publicly and something completely different privately. Quote from Goebbels diary: June 25, 1940:-

"The Fuhrer... believes that the British Empire must be preserved if at all possible. For if it collapses, then we shall not inherit it, but foreign and even hostile powers take it over." - Page 327 - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchill-Hitler...
____________

"The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to be shed, our two people belong together racially and traditionally - this has always been my aim even if our Generals can't grasp it." - Adolf Hitler (1940, after issuing the 'Halte Order' which permitted/allowed the British to escape at Dunkirk) Page 326 - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchill-Hitler...

"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest." - Winston Churchill, Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill - His Career in War and Peace, p. 145; quoted as per: Adrian Preissinger, Von Sachsenhausen bis Buchenwald, p. 23.

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." - Winston Churchill.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Aug 2013 09:30:26 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Aug 2013 09:30:48 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


ARRAY(0xb0e486a8)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  history discussion forum
Participants:  17
Total posts:  45
Initial post:  29 Jul 2013
Latest post:  15 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions