Who's your favourite Prime Minister and why?

Baldwin is arguably the worst. Unlike Chamberlain who did actually rearm and declare war, Baldwin oversaw the rise of Hitler and did almost nothing in response. As a result of his actions we ended up at war with a stronger Reich and would go on to lose an empire.

Eden was pretty pitiful but like May and Brown, a victim of events. Eden basically had the choice between a potential war with the US or capitulation, a no win scenario.

Thatcher, Major and MacMillan were the greatest prime minister's we ever had albeit Thatcher especially was divisive and Major a poor party leader.

Churchill and Thatcher are my favourite PMs.

Baldwin did nothing wrong. We should have let the Nazis and commies kill each other instead of allying with the (far worse) commies. I would say it's the same as allying with ISIS to take out Assad. If the British soldiers of ww2 saw the state of the UK today they'd have deserted en masse.

Churchill killed the British Empire (for nothing) and Tony Blair killed the UK with devoloution and various other means including mass immigration and EU legal ensnarement although Blair did so deliberately at least.

I would say we haven't had a good PM since the Marquess of Salisbury but Baldwin, Thatcher and Boris are the least bad PMs of the last 100 years although Boris is a nitwit.

Thatcher is the best of the bunch and were she alive today I think she'd be on the right side of history - supporting brexit and trump and strongly opposing all this left wing nonsense. I think she'd also start to see some problems with her free market dogma too.

While I agree that we should have remained neutral or allied with the Reich in hindsight (to preserve the empire mainly and our position in global politics)

I'm not certain that we could avoid a war in the long run.

Very based.

Sure, we don't know what could have happened and hindsight is 20/20. It is feasible it could lead to a worse outcome then what transpired, but I do not believe that to be the case and we appear to be in agreement...

Generally speaking it's always been in the interests of the British Empire to keep Europe divided so even if there was eventually a Reich-Russian war (and in this scenario Japan probably invades too) then we hit a problem down the line because there's no incentive for Germany to stop if they already have a large victory, land and people (they'd also become the dominant economy).

While I agree that we should have remained neutral or allied with the Reich in hindsight (to preserve the empire mainly and our position in global politics) I'm not certain that we could avoid a war in the long run.

Or Mosley's attitude of 'britain should not go to war just because hitler has: 1) invaded poland, 2) occupied most of czechoslovakia, 3) violated half the terms of the versailles agreement and 4) constantly targeted germany's jewish population with very harsh laws & vigilante violence for many years since the 20s'.

You share Chamberlain's original appeasement stance?
Or Mosley's attitude of 'britain should not go to war just because hitler has: 1) invaded poland, 2) occupied most of czechoslovakia, 3) violated half the terms of the versailles agreement and 4) constantly targeted germany's jewish population with very harsh laws & vigilante violence for many years since the 20s'.

1- So did the USSR...

2- The horror

3- ridiculously unfair and stupid treaty

4- Reminder that the US had segregation and the British Empire was a colonial superpower at this time...

I take the position that we should have conquered Germany after 1933 when Germany became a fascist state .

Alternatively at Munich we should have calved up Europe between the French and Germans (neutering the Soviet threat) while gaining Mediterranean territory but neither position is much sustainable and Italy and Spain would likely not tolerate a stronger France (the only way to tolerate a stronger Germany).

Do you agree with Mosley's attitude or Chamberlain's original appeasement stance?

I mean if we're doing alternative UK Foreign policy decisions. We should have

- Intervened during the Reign of Terror
- Intervened during the Russian Revolution on the side of the Tsar. Declare war on Russia if commies win and launch an invasion
-Not gone to war in WW1
-Allied with Franco during the Spanish Civil War

I mean if we're doing alternative UK Foreign policy decisions. We should have

- Intervened during the Reign of Terror
- Intervened during the Russian Revolution on the side of the Tsar. Declare war on Russia if commies win and launch an invasion
-Not gone to war in WW1
-Allied with Franco during the Spanish Civil War

I'm inclined to agree with you on the first three points.

I'm halfway through this book "mine were of trouble" about the exploits of a British volunteer fighting for the nationalists in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, very interesting and might change your mind about that conflict.