A deal with Hitler: Was Churchill wrong?

happybob

If Britain had not gone to war we would be living in a far more powerfull country today, it was not in Britains interest at all.

More powerful? When faced by a superpower in two continents?

Reply 23

Giliwoo

Zebedee do you really have to hijack every discussion with Fascist and National Socialist talk? I personally think a deal with Hitler would be reasonable if Hitler had been anybody else. By that, I mean Hitler didn't read from the same hymn sheet as everybody else in international relations. This is what made him dangerous. But if it had been one of his predecessors, say von Papen or Schleicher, I really do believe that a Second World War may not have occurred (at least not in the way it did). Anyway, I think that's beyond the point here, and conjectural. I still can't help thinking that Churchill's attitude was excessively bellicose and idealistic, and his intransigence very nearly killed this country. I'm not sure a deal - at least temporary - would have been so utterly unthinkable, nor am I convinced that the reasons for not seeking one, were informed by anything other than arrogance.

Hijack? i'm really sorry if you feel i did. Bearing in mind this is a topic about hitler i can't see how i could not talk about fascism and national socialism.

Well, lets say that in 1940 we did strike a deal with the germans. What would be the result in history? its very difficult to say. Hitler would probably have invaded the soviet union anyway. Presumably we would then have had to either help the nazi's against the communists (feasible), or help the soviet union against the nazi's.

With such a deal its unlikely america would have entered the war against germany. It was pretty much because we were fighting them that they eventually did, as part of the world wide battle against fascism (italy, germany, japan). Even if they did then they would not have been able to hav a european base for their efforts, its quite unlikely i think that america could have had a war against germany without britain.

If such a deal had taken place i think germany/britain would probably have become a big power together - all depending on whether or not the Soviets were invaded. if they were succesfully invaded the nazi empire could have covered practically the whole worlds exlcuding america. (condiering all the imperial possesion of europe).

However, i can't imagine such a deal would have lasted for long. Britain would eventually have to yield to the nazi demands i would have thought... all depends on the germans. We could have ended up with an alliance between the eurasian nazi empire, and the british colonial one.

It would be a very different world.

I have my doubts though that the nazi's could have ever kept their conquests, i mean no empire has ever controlled such a number of european peoples since the Romans.

Reply 24

Goddess Fury

8

Apagg

More powerful? When faced by a superpower in two continents?

If Britain had not gone to war the British Empire would have been a third super power.

Reply 25

happybob

If Britain had not gone to war the British Empire would have been a third super power.

You think the Empire was sustainable? Are you joking? Not to mention that Japan would probably have seized our assets in the East anyway.

Reply 26

Apagg

You think the Empire was sustainable? Are you joking? Not to mention that Japan would probably have seized our assets in the East anyway.

that only happened because we were very pre-occupied in europe. If we had been at peace with germany then we could have probably had some major naval battle in the pacific theatre and that would be that.

This is all guesswork anyway, either of us could be right.

Reply 27

OP

Zebedee

I have my doubts though that the nazi's could have ever kept their conquests, i mean no empire has ever controlled such a number of european peoples since the Romans.

The French Empire did alright.

I'm suspicious of seeing WW2 as a fight against Fascism, to be honest. So there would have been no need for the US to fight Germany if Britain were not at war with her, and if Germany did not have a pact with Japan. Also, "what if" history is inherently difficult, so I am going to try to see if we can answer this question with hindsight and in the historical context rather than hind-foresight. Hitler would likely have invaded the Soviet Union (this was his one most consistent policy), but I doubt that the resulting settlement would have been made without Britain, if Britain were Germany's ally. So I can't agree that it would necessarily be to Britain's disadvantage. You also overestimate the potential power of a "German Empire". Britain, Japan and the US would have all had their spheres of influence. Indeed, in Zweite Buch Hitler acknowledges this, and more or less gives up on colonial empires (for ideological and economic, as well as pragmatic reasons), turning instead to Eastern Europe and Russia. You also seem to assume that any deal with Germany would have had Britain as the junior partner - again greatly overestimating Germany's contemporary or potential strength, and Britain's weakness - whereas I disagree. Germany could not hope match Britain on the seas, nor in terms of sheer global force projection. Indeed, this was Germany's persistent colonial policy problem since the days of the Kaiser's Weltpolitik.

Reply 28

Giliwoo

The French Empire did alright.

You talking about the one in europe? that lasted... 20, 30 years? i was talking with reference to european nations rather than the one in africa.

I'm suspicious of seeing WW2 as a fight against Fascism, to be honest.

Why suspicious? the Soviet Union's leaders saw fascists as their mortal enemy, and we and the americans were primarily fighting to maintain our ways of freedom.

Why else was the war fought? if not for these values? it wasn't just about trade (though that played a part). The ideologies certainly played the main part in deciding what the alliances were at any rate.

Reply 29

OP

Zebedee

You talking about the one in europe? that lasted... 20, 30 years? i was talking with reference to european nations rather than the one in africa.
The Napoleonic Empire, I meant.

Why suspicious? the Soviet Union's leaders saw fascists as their mortal enemy, and we and the americans were primarily fighting to maintain our ways of freedom.

Not at all. Do you honestly think the US was ever in real danger from Hitler's Germany? The US, as ever, was in it for the money (of course don't forget that in the case of both Japan and Germany, it was they that declared war, not the other way round). If it was ideology, then why did the US form an alliance with the communist and totalitarian soviets? If it was ideology on Britain's part, Britain would have no reason to hate Germany any more than Russia, so I am not convinced there either. The Soviet Union had no desire to fight Hitler. Since 1933 when Hitler suddenly turned his back on Russia, in contravention of previous policy, right up to the very last minute, Russia extended its hand to Germany. Indeed, Stalin was far more worried about an attack from Japan - even when Barbarossa had commenced, his eye was still more firmly on his Eastern Flank. The alliances were formed form common interests in terms of re-aligning the balance of power that Versailles had decided. Italy and Germany were at best indifferent, at worst, bellicose until 1936. Common ideology was secondary to the aim of reversing Versailles.

Reply 30

Giliwoo

The Napoleonic Empire, I meant.

Yep, as i said before existed for a matter of decades, hardly a success. i believe it was the romans that controlled the last long term large european empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_French_Empire

Not at all. Do you honestly think the US was ever in real danger from Hitler's Germany? The US, as ever, was in it for the money (although with Japan there was the additional issue of national security).

Even i am not that cynical, america lost over 300,000 soliders in ww2.

The Soviet Union had no desire to fight Hitler. Since 1933 when Hitler suddenly turned his back on Russia, in contravention of previous policy, right up to the very last minute, Russia extended its hand to Germany. Indeed, Stalin was far more worried about an attack from Japan - even when Barbarossa had commenced, his eye was still more firmly on his Eastern Flank. The alliances were formed form common interests in terms of re-aligning the balance of power that Versailles had decided. Italy and Germany were at best indifferent, at worst, bellicose until 1936. Common ideology was secondary to the aim of reversing Versailles.

I really don't get this, russia was a beneficiary of versaille. The soviet union signed a non-aggression pact with the nazi's thats why they did not want to fight them. They had allways been ideological enemies. I'm not sure what your trying to argue for.

Reply 31

OP

Zebedee

I really don't get this, russia was a beneficiary of versaille. The soviet union signed a non-aggression pact with the nazi's thats why they did not want to fight them. They had allways been ideological enemies. I'm not sure what your trying to argue for.

No you portray a situation in which the world was divided into "natural enemies and natural friends" when this was not the case. This is what I'm arguing. Russia was a beneficiary of Versailles, and was never keen on war. The Soviets and Germans may have been "ideological enemies" (well, more Hitler was disliked the Soviets than the other way around) but this was not the reason why Russia eventually turned on Germany - the Russians were not initially in it to fight Fascism, they only said this afterwards, as is so often the case with wars. The Soviets did not want to fight Hitler period; non-aggression pact or no. In 1933 Hitler refused to renew the good relations that Germany and Russia had enjoyed during the Weimar years, as a deliberate throwing of the glove. Russia tried hard for the next few years, to remain on good terms with Germany, so your "implacable foes" idea is unconvincing to me, in spite of ideological differences. The US only became involved because Germany declared war on her. The US's assistance of Britain came at a cost - an economic arrangement that gave the US a position of incredible power, at the expense of Britain. I would be suspicious, like I said, of looking at this in ideological terms. Rarely are wars fought over ideas.

Reply 32

The_Bear

Actually a lot of British territories were abandoned after the war due to the expense, Palestine being a major one.

The second world war should never have happened, it destroyed us and made the Americans even more powerful (although the american tactic of getting one up on both the British and Russians was clever if not immoral). Churchill was a great politician but vastly underestimated the psychotic nature of Hitler's aides.

Reply 33

Zebedee

that only happened because we were very pre-occupied in europe. If we had been at peace with germany then we could have probably had some major naval battle in the pacific theatre and that would be that.

This is all guesswork anyway, either of us could be right.

But then we'd have been in the war anyway, surely?

Reply 34

Apagg

But then we'd have been in the war anyway, surely?

I think he's assuming that had there been peace in europe japan would still have had their war of conquest in the pacific. But, i think that unlikely - they would have realised that the japanese navy could not beat the might of an unhindered royal navy.

No you portray a situation in which the world was divided into "natural enemies and natural friends" when this was not the case. This is what I'm arguing. Russia was a beneficiary of Versailles, and was never keen on war. The Soviets and Germans may have been "ideological enemies" (well, more Hitler was disliked the Soviets than the other way around) but this was not the reason why Russia eventually turned on Germany

Yes, i would agree with this. Thats why the Soviets call it the "great patriotic war". They only became involved because they were attacked.

so your "implacable foes" idea is unconvincing to me, in spite of ideological ifferences.

Its not so much that the war was fought due to ideological differences, its that who was allied to who depended very much on their ideologies. The Allies were "the west" which were free democracies + the soviet union and the axis were 3 dictatorships all very nationalistic. See what i mean?

The US only became involved because Germany declared war on her.

True, but the US had allready chosen her side. They weren't technically in the war but they were turning their economy to make goods for britain. Also the main reasons germany declared war ont he US, is because the USA declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. (germany and Japan were allies).

The US's assistance of Britain came at a cost - an economic arrangement that gave the US a position of incredible power, at the expense of Britain. I would be suspicious, like I said, of looking at this in ideological terms. Rarely are wars fought over ideas.

Your right, allthough i think it would have been unfair to expect america simply to give us these supplies! considering they weren't actually "at war". America's rise to superpower would have happened eventually IMO, ww2 just hastened it.

Reply 35

Alasdair

The_Bear

Churchill was a great politician but vastly underestimated the psychotic nature of Hitler's aides.

I'd say the man himself was pretty psychotic...

Reply 36

OP

Zebedee

Its not so much that the war was fought due to ideological differences, its that who was allied to who depended very much on their ideologies. The Allies were "the west" which were free democracies + the soviet union and the axis were 3 dictatorships all very nationalistic. See what i mean?
At risk of sounding wilfully cantankerous, I still disagree. Italy and Germany were pretty cold towards eachother until 1936, and Germany and Japan (and even less Italy and Japan) were at best indifferent towards one another to begin with. What did all three have in common here? They got the worst deal from Versailles, and to me, that's what decided their allegiances. I might even say, to some extent, it was in part the losses of Versailles that turned them to Fascism in the first place. Furthermore, you contradict yourself: you say that ideological differences defined the alliances, yet in the next sentence say the allies were "free democracies and Russia". Russia isn't just an exceptional aside, but integral to the whole thing surely?

True, but the US had allready chosen her side. They weren't technically in the war but they were turning their economy to make goods for britain. Also the main reasons germany declared war ont he US, is because the USA declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. (germany and Japan were allies).

The 1940 Tripartite Pact seems little justification for Hitler's declaration of war. Hitler seldom honoured inconvenient obligations, why would he suddenly do so here? More importantly, it was aimed at wrong-footing Russia, not the US. The actual wording of the treaty shows that there was no obligation for Germany to come to Japan's aid: "attacked by" was the operative phrase. Why Hitler declared war on America remains a genuine mystery. My guess is that he wanted to show moral support for Japan, in a typically impulsive gesture - Hitler's foreign policy was full of such actions - without really believing that the US had the desire to have any significant involvement in the European theatre. Given US public opinion before Pearl Harbour, this would not have been such an unreasonable assumption.

Reply 37

Zebedee

I think he's assuming that had there been peace in europe japan would still have had their war of conquest in the pacific. But, i think that unlikely - they would have realised that the japanese navy could not beat the might of an unhindered royal navy.

Hmm, I don't think realism was a Japanese strong point, they attacked America, after all.

Reply 38

L i b

19

Apagg

I had thought Germany's economy was ailing when it went to war, following its handover from Schact to Goering, who had no economic understanding and overheated the economy.

Perhaps you're quite right. The beginning of the end for fascist economics, maybe.

Agent Smith

A deal with Hitler would have meant Nazi control of the whole of Europe, as has been mentioned by other posters.

I really think that's considerably overstating the German abilities. While they'd probably have moved east and north, and possibly even taken some Russian possessions, I doubt they would have tried it on with quite a few other European powers and their surrounding states.

Quite apart from the fact that this would enable the completion of the "Final Solution",

Maybe they'd have reached that deal with the Nazi allies in the Zionist movement and happily deported them to Palestine. Would've been more efficient for them, assuming of course that Nazism wasn't inherently mad and took delight in genocide.

A war with the Soviet Union would be pretty much inevitable if one takes into account the doctrine, and indeed the promises that Hitler made to the Germans, of Lebensraum in the East. And if the Nazis defeated the Soviets, which is perfectly possible, America would be well and truly stuffed and we'd be heading for a Man in the High Castle-esque scenario.

I don't know, I think the Soviet Union might have passed off a good chunk of its territory for some perceived benefits offered by the Nazis. Stalin didn't have much interest in his people at the best of times, and I doubt that extended to those on the far western border. The only thing that would've been in question is Soviet activities in Europe, but I have never heard that the Soviets considered that course of action before the war.

Reply 39