General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "" (@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684) on "Why Britain wouldn’t just let Hitler go East" video.

"The other hawks" such as Hitler, Mussolini?
20
@marksheen4873 So you think the UK and France should have just ignored a powerful European nation with a history of loathing for France & trouble making within Europe, that had just engulfed, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland?
14
When devious nazi fanboi idiots and other assorted uninformed loons such as yourself say "Hitler never wanted war with Britain and France" they ALWAYS miss off the part that says "until he was ready for it on his OWN terms". Because of course Hitler laid all his hopes on being left to expand the nazi empire EASTWARDS in peace, assimilate his new found conquests with their collective economies and resources, further build up his military power and only THEN conquer France followed by Britain (or possibly impose a crushing "pax Germanica" on the UK as they did with Vichy France), they had already attempted such a feat TWICE BEFORE in the previous 70 years, once in 1870 and again in 1914, the THIRD attempt in 1940 was precipitated by the British and French not sitting and waiting for it to happen on Hitler's terms. If we had've waited the outcome would have been much MUCH different from the destruction of nazism in 1945. Not confronting Hitler in 1939 would have resulted with Britain by the late 1940s onwards having: A puppet nazi government, a nazi supporting King Edward VIII restored to the throne, and the UK as a nazi satellite state. Extermination camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines & Scottish Highlands. SS Einsatzgruppen stalking the shires looking to find "undesirables" to summarily execute. All UK males of working age being deported to the reich to be slaved to death in nazi armaments factories or infrastructure projects. And now, slimy nazi fanbois and other devious loons want the uninformed to think that letting Hitler conduct his plans undisturbed would mean that we would have a Britain today filled with Rose cottages, warm beer, bar skittles, Morris dancers & village cricket. How utterly devious those people are, people with greater awareness of the situation don't fall for their nazi apologist nonsense.
7
Why declare war on a nation that you have NO practical way of attacking? The only REAL effect of the British declaring war on the USSR would be to push the soviets further into a pact with the nazis.... the world's largest "resource pool" pushed into a potentially unbeatable solid pact with the world's pre eminent military power in 1940? It was better to declare war ONLY on the "clear and present danger" of nazi Germany and leave USSR alone, doing so drove the nazis and communists even further apart, weakened their temporary "alliance of convenience" and helped set the stage for "Barbarossa".
6
Because unlike nazi Germany, neither country had spent the previous 7 years preparing at 110% for a European war. Do you imagine the real world is like a computer game were you press a button and fully equipped armies suddenly appear on the map? Or that democratic nations maintain huge standing armies ready to swing into action at a moments notice? Both the UK and France immediately started mobilising their unprepared nations for war in very late August 1939. Britain on 3rd Sept 1939 IMMEDIATELY dispatched its first regular infantry division to France on 3rd Sept 1939. By Dec 1939 it had just THREE infantry divisions on the continent, and by May 1940 it had just TEN fully equipped (and 3 partially equipped) divisions on the Belgian border. All those conscripted civilians had to be assembled, equipped, sent for training, dispatched to units, then the units had to be transported to their assigned positions on the Belgian border, such a process is known as mobilisation and takes MONTHS. The French nation, beset by political turmoil throughout the interwar years was a poorly organised and politically undermined and unstable nation. It fumbled its own mobilisation of it reserves and conscription of its population, so much so that it damaged its own economy by its blanket conscription of its skilled workforce, and tens of thousands of men had to be released from military service to restart its war economy. By the time that the western allies had organised anything like a cohesive military force the Germans and soviets had conquered Poland and by then the Wehrmacht had nearly 150 divisions stationed along Germany's western border facing around the same number of allied divisions (including just 10 British "BEF" divisions)... though many of the French divisions were poorly trained, equipped and organised. As opposed to the idea that the British and French could muster 150 fully trained equipped and organised divisions on "day one".
5
What the fuck kind of revisionist garbage are YOU putting out, you absolute dog brained fuck? Hjalmar Schacht & "MEFO bills". Read more and type less.
5
I suppose you consider nazi hegemony over Europe, with Britain being the site of death camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines and Scottish Highlands, and all UK males of working age deported to the reich to be slaved to death in nazi armaments works or German infrastructure projects was preferable to today's world?
4
So why was "controlled Britain" capitalist and supported white Russia in its struggle with the Soviets after the revolution? Doh !!!!
4
Please provide us with YOUR facts then please... or are you just an empty headed critic?
4
@hhasslinger9601 Oh no !!! Not ANOTHER gullible dupe enthralled by nazism.
4
Cuckoo !!! Cuckoo !!! Cuckoo !!!
4
@cardboardcapeii4286 Who says Germany wasn't a danger? 26 years Earlier they had already launched an unprovoked attack into the low countries and initiated the carnage of WW1.
3
@cardboardcapeii4286 Yes Germany was under a new government, one that had against all international law, assasinated the Austrian president and marched into Austria, followed by subsuming the WHOLE of Czechoslovakia in early 1939 then launched an unprovoked and unannounced attack against Poland. Being just across the North sea and with Europe's largest bomber fleet in 1939 made her a clear and present danger. She had shown herself to have COMPLETE disregard for international law, and was a national cancer at the very heart of Europe.
3
@cardboardcapeii4286 The Sudetenland did indeed legally secceeded to the Reich... the rest of Bohemia Moravia & the Slovak republic did NOT... but the Germans unilaterally absorbed them all into the "Greater German Reich" anyway. Also drop your ridiculous nazi fanboi "Poles were massacring Germans" nonsense. The German empire had since the mid 19th century had a CENTRAL foreign policy of "Drang Nach Osten" or "drive to the east", that is the German belief that it was their destiny to expand across eastern Europe and into Russia.... they found out soon enough that no-one else in Europe shared that belief. P.S Why would the British be dorks and declare war on the USSR? A country that they have NO practical way of attacking? A country that they knew was in a temporary "alliance of convenience" with its AVOWED worst enemy? Why declare war on the USSR and drive it into a potentially unbeatable alliance with the nazis? The world's biggest resource pool with the world's most capable army? No luckily more intelligent people than yourself were in charge of the British response. Declare war on one of the two alliance partners (the one who was the more pressing danger to he UK), drive a wedge between them and allow to simmer until 22nd June 1941.
3
@PerPress The nazis were not opposed to the UK.... UNTIL it had "dealt with business in the east".
3
@PerPress Your preference for a nazi German dominated Europe says more about your lack of understanding that anything else. Do you innocently believe that ANYTHING Hitler said was valid? He said whatever he needed to achieve a desired result, and nothing was to be trusted. Phrases such as "I have no more territorial demands in Europe" shortly before devouring Czechoslovakia and attacking Poland, illustrate that all too well.
3
@PerPress The Germans annexed Austria in March 1938. They then DEMANDED that the Czech Sudeten borderlands become part of the Greater German Reich. To postpone war and to allow the British & French to hurriedly begin rearmament the British and French signed the Czech Sudetenlands ALONE over to Germany that was in Oct 1939 (during these negotiations Hitler declared that he "had no further territorial demands in Europe". Inspite of this declaration the Germans then simply invaded the rest of Bohemia, Moravia and turned the rest of Czechoslovakia into the "Slovak state" in March 1939 before then sending the wehrmacht across the Polish border in Sept 1939. Danzig did NOT belong to Germany but was a "league of nations free city".
3
@PerPress "Austria is another German state"? What because YOU say it was? Don't be silly. The nazis had to destablise its government and assasinate its head of state before they ANNEXED it. "Hungary and Poland annexed Czechoslovakia too" True... in the proportion Hungary (Ruthenia) 5% Poland (Zaolze) 1% nazi Germany (Everything else) 94% Communism while reviled was not the "clear and present danger" to western Europe at that time.
3
It was because of him that nazism was destroyed in 1945 and also that there are no nazi death camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines & Scottish Highlands.
3
@johnblackman6523 OH don't talk such utter shite John. Hitler wanted nothing more than to be left in peace by the British empire while he raped the rest of Europe and western USSR, consolidated his conquests and then turned his attention on us. And then coming out with nonsense BS like "even if they invaded England and forced everyone to speak German, it wouldn't be one tenth as damaging to English culture as mass migration and liberalism has been" The truth is that if we'd sided with the nazi filth, we'd have had the last 80 years living under a murderous totalitarian regime with death camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines and Scottish Highlands, SS Einsatzgruppen "death squads" roaming the English shires, and all UK males of working age deported to the reich to be slaved to death for the German economy. And unthunkers like yourself thunked it would have been all warm beer and skittles and village cricket on the green? You sound like REAL thickheaded nazi dupe material.
3
Not ANOTHER insidious neo nazi. How come when you dupes say "Hitler never wanted war with Britain and France" you ALWAYS miss off the part that says "until he was ready for it on his OWN terms". Because of course Hitler laid all his hopes on being left to expand the nazi empire EASTWARDS in peace, assimilate his new found conquests with their collective economies and resources, further build up his military power and only THEN conquer Britain & France, as they had already attempted TWICE BEFORE in the previous 70 years, once in 1870 and again in 1914, the THIRD attempt in 1940 was precipitated by the British and French not sitting and waiting for it to happen on Hitler's terms. If we had've waited the outcome would have been much MUCH different from the destruction of nazism in 1945. Not confronting Hitler in 1939 would have resulted with Britain by the late 1940s onwards having: A puppet nazi government, a nazi supporting King Edward VIII restored to the throne, and the UK as a nazi satellite state. Extermination camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines & Scottish Highlands. SS Einsatzgruppen stalking the shires looking to find "undesirables" to summarily execute. All UK males of working age being deported to the reich to be slaved to death in nazi armaments factories or infrastructure projects. And now, slimy nazi fanbois and other devious loons want the uninformed to think that letting Hitler conduct his plans undisturbed would mean that we would have a Britain today filled with rose cottages, warm beer, bar skittles, morris dancers & village cricket. How utterly devious those people are, people with greater awareness of the situation don't fall for their nazi apologist nonsense.
3
@firemangan And we've not even come to the point yet where I remind him that Winston Churchill held NO political office within the British empire from 1929 to 1939 (the period that's commonly known as Churchill's "Wilderness years"), and had almost ZERO influence on British foreign & domestic policy during that period !!!! Seems I didn't even need that knockout blow !!!
3
France & the UK did make the initial declaration of war on nazi Germany, and in that sense it can be snidily portrayed that "Britain (and France) started the war"... but that is taken out of the context of Britain and France challenging the ongoing German expansionism within Europe at that time...(Austria, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland). Its the same as a serial rapist being confronted by a "good Samaritan" and idiots then labelling the "Good Samaritan" as "the aggressor". But there are plenty of commenters here who are ready to challenge that BS and the misconceptions of those who are learning about history on YT because its no longer properly taught in schools.
3
Why would the British declare war on the Soviet Union? It had NO practical way of attacking it, and to do so would only have only driven the USSR & nazis deeper into a defensive pact, a pact between the then world's most capable military, and the world's largest resource pool. No much wiser to declare war on the far more clear and present danger of the nazis, drive a wedge between them and their "part time friends" the USSR, and leave to simmer.
2
@nickarnold814 "Why Guarantee Poland protection". The did NO such thing !!! How could the UK & France "protect Poland"? They guaranteed that if nazi Germany crossed the Polish border they would declare war on Germany, which as good as their word, they did. It was hoped that the THREAT alone of facing the Frence and the British Empires would forestall any German moves to cross the Polish border. The bluff didn't work and WW2 broke out. "Why not build up your military?" Do you think the military is made up by collecting 20 tokens from the back of cornflakes packets? Maintaining a large standing military is an INCREDIBLY expensive luxury that NO nation on earth commits to. You seem oblivious of history & reality. ALL nations (even the US) maintain a relatively small force of regular full time troops, these are backed up by a larger number of "reservists" who can double or treble the size of the armed forces within a relatively short space of time, to assemble a large standing army complete with in Britain's close to a million conscripted civilians (France had near to 4 million conscripts!!!) who need outfitting, basic & infantry training then assimilating into the army's organisation takes a long time. All of which also cost LOTS of money, the western world was still recovering from the financial collapse of wall street of 1929 and the ensuing "great Depression" of the 1930s.... all nations (apart from nazi Germany) felt they had more pressing matters than building up armies for future wars, feeding & housing their populations, maintaining their empires were the most important items, defence spending in all western nations (including the US) was at an all time low through the 1930s. Also remember that all decisions are made WITHOUT the benefit of future hindsight.
2
@nickarnold814 Yes Britain and France were wary of Germany intentions from 1933 onwards, and grew increasingly alarmed at Hitler's rhetoric, but whereas Hitler's military dictatorship was secretly preparing for war from 1933, the western democracies (the US included) were far more intent on feeding their populations, running their economies and maintaining their empires. Military spending across the west (again including the US) was at an all time low from after the "wall street crash" of 1929 and onwards through the "great depression" of the early to mid 1930s. NO-ONE wanted war apart from nazi Germany. Eventually they got it.
2
@nickarnold814 "Why declare war on Germany"? As I said above the reason was simple: The British and French govts HOPED that the threat alone of Germany having to face the "might" of the British and French empires would force Hitler to rethink his planned move on Poland. It was, after the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss of Austria, the assimilation of the Sudetenland and the absorbtion of the rump Czechoslovak state, effectively a final "line in the sand" to Hitler, as if it were parents saying to a belligerent child "We've bent over backwards to accomodate you, but you've now gone too far.... Invade Poland and you'll have BOTH of us to deal with...." Unfortunately for millions of people Hitler called the bluff of Britain & France, and the rest is history.
2
@sharpsexteriors4492 You said "a giant USSR on our doorstep". That's not what we got. Also your assessment is based on hindsight. If you want to recreate how sovereign countries forecast future events then try telling me with any certainty what the weather will be like a fortnight from today.
2
The British empire was built on trade, and the stuffing of indigenous leader's mouths with gold. How could a nation of 20-30 million militarily subdue a third of the planet exactly?
2
Oh you mean the EUSSR?
2
@Winterwolf-fs3wh Pity you can't travel back 90 years in time to tell them what modern day corporate globalists had in mind isn't it. Go buy yourself a lottery ticket kid, seems you think you have the power to see the future. P.S We did indeed lose our empire, but on the "Glass half full" side of things we also prevented the nazis from opening branches of their now unpopular "Death camp" franchise in the British Isles, and saw the destruction of murderous nazism. I'm more than happy to settle for that.
2
Dear oh dear. More "Britain bombed first" nonsense. First German bombs dropped on the British mainland? 16th October 1939 saw the very first bombs dropped on Britain when the Germans launched scattered air attacks over port and industrial facilities around the Scottish city of Edinburgh, and the RN naval base at Rosyth. First bombs dropped by the RAF on German soil? Although the RAF had launched bomber attacks on Kriegsmarine naval units in the North sea from Sept 3rd 1939 onwards, it was actually the 19th March 1940 that the FIRST RAF bombs landed on German soil... When on 13th November 1939 the luftwaffe bombed RAF Sullom Voe a seaplane base with port facilities in the Shetland Isles (with the resultant death of a rabbit, and no hits on the 9 seaplanes or 2 RN vessels stationed there), the RAF retaliated by hitting the nazi seaplane base at Hörnum on the island of Sylt in the North Sea. These were THE VERY FIRST RAF bombs to land on German soil....5 months AFTER the first German bombs had landed on British soil. The first British or German civilian casualty caused by the bombing of the opposing side during WW2? 16th March 1940 when German bombs hit the village of "Bridge of Waithe" near Stenness on the Orkney Islands during an attack on the Home Fleet anchorage at Scapa Flow, which killed a 27 year-old County Council employee, James Isbister (luckily, his wife, baby son, and the neighbour James was endeavouring to rescue from her bombed cottage all survived). First British bombs to drop on the actual German mainland? 11th May 1940, when the British air ministry for the first time allowed the bombing of railway yards, communication centres and bridges west of the Rhine River to interrupt German supply lines supporting their undeclared assault into the NEUTRAL Low countries and France on 10th May 1940. Previous to this date the British air ministry in an effort to stop the inflaming of the conflict had refused to allow the RAF to drop ANY bombs on the German mainland, instead the RAF supplied the German demand for toilet paper by dropping propaganda leaflets on German cities. The RAF attacks on 11th May 1940 had also come after REPEATED attacks against RN installations on the British mainland, most notably at Rosyth near Edinburgh, Cromarty Firth & Scapa Flow all in Scotland throughout the winter of 1939/40. First British bombs dropped EAST of the Rhine River? On the night of 23/24th August 1940 the RAF launched an attack on Berlin. This attack directed at the Klingenberg Power Station in Eastern Berlin & Templehof airport was in RETALIATION for REPEATED luftwaffe raids on RAF Fighter Command Sector Airfields within the suburbs of Greater London throughout July and August 1940 that had already caused HUNDREDS of innocent British civilian deaths & casualties (euphemistically known nowadays as "collateral damage") this was inspite of Hitler's previous decrees that no bombs should be dropped within the boundary of Greater London. Obviously that decree had never reached the ears of Herman Goering. German retaliation for the one night of bombing of Berlin on 23/24th August 1940? The launching of the all out assault against British cities from 7th Sept 1940 onwards, culminating in the world's first attempt to create a "firestorm" during operation "moonlight sonata" on the British city of Coventry on the night of 14/15th Nov 1940, where the luftwaffe sent 575 bombers using their world beating "X-gerat" bombing system (in the Germans own words capable of placing "target indicator" flares with an accuracy of 50 meters at 200 miles range) over the civilian city centre of Coventry dropping 550 tons of high explosive (including hundreds of "flammen" (oil) bombs) followed by over 30,000 incendiary bombs. The final death toll of that single raid? A previously unheard of 568 innocent civilians, this was in addition to the thousands of other British civilians already killed & injured in other cities across Britain over the previous 2 months. The first British bombing raid directly targetted at German civilians? "Operation Abigail" on the night of 16/17th December 1940, (3 months AFTER the opening of the nazi "blitz" on British cities) the Dec 16th attack by the RAF was launched against the German city of Mannheim where 100 RAF bombers dropped 100 tons of HE and 14,000 incendiaries inflicting a death toll on the German population of 34 dead and 81 injured. Not to worry though , the RAF eventually "upped its game" and showed the Germans how to do it properly a year or two later. Don't try to hide the fact that the Germans enjoyed dropping HE on the cities of its neighbours from the earliest days of flight. The first aerial bombs dropped in history were from a zeppelin raid on Liege in Belgium on 4th August 1914... just 11 years after the invention of powered flight. Since WW2, they've learned the lesson NOT to do it again.
2
@PerPress It's just a pity that you can't buy "hindsight" in bottles isn't it? Roosevelt appeared to be fully fooled by Stalin's "charm", and the two of them were thick as thieves who often made private arrangements without informing Churchill. Churchill in turn was no lover of communism (you have only to see how quickly he turned the British army out at the drop of a hat in the 1920s to quell militant union unrest to see that), BUT he correctly believed that Hitler was a clearer danger to the UK up until mid WW2 and so was prepared to countenance the soviets UNTIL the end of the war in Europe when: 1. The dying British empire was sidelined as the USA & USSR took centre stage. 2. He was kicked out of office And so was forced once again to rail against communism in the late 40s early 50s the way he had against nazism from 1933 to 1939.
2
It paid off HANDSOMELY !!! Britain has existed for the last 80 years WITHOUT nazi extermination camps, SS Einsatzgruppen and enforced deportation to Germany for the purposes of human slavery. Isn't it strange how nazi sympathisers like people to forget about what "would have been".
2
Haven't you got pokemon to be playing with, kid?
2
Not only did Britain have to go to war to prevent the nazi ideology from spreading across Europe unchecked, it was the catalyst that saw it destroyed and prevented Hitler's dream of 1000 years of death camps and genocide from becoming a reality.
2
No nazi Germany was the CLEAR and PRESENT danger to Britain and France in 1939. There was FAR more chance of death camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines and Scottish Highlands, than there was of gulags, and far more liklihood of SS einsatzgruppen "death squads" stalking the English shires than the NKVD.
2
Nah, he's just an enthralled nazi fanboi. You can spot them a mile off... plus I bet he has a nazi shrine in his mum's spare bedroom.
2
@NobleBoss How can you prove wrong what hasn't been proved right in the first place?
2
Well said patriot.
2
You mean nazi Germany that had.... 1. Remilitarised the demilitarised Rhineland. 2. Assasinated the Austrian President and absorbed Austria into the "Greater German reich. 3. Negotiated the absorbtion of the Czech Sudetenland, then went on to completely & illegally occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia after having previously declared that Germany had "No further territorial demands in Europe". 4. Invaded Poland without any legal declaration of war. was a trustworthy neighbour to have at the centre of Europe? What was western Europe meant to do? Passively allow Hitler to create a Germanic empire stretching from the French border to the Urals, and trust that was the end of his plans? No thanks.
2
@PerPress Rest assured Poland was liberated and rescued from nazi tyranny , to be replaced with a lesser evil. Communism.
2
@PerPress That is unless you can provide us with the details of the soviet death camps sited on Polish soil.
2
Most people couldn't be arsed who "financed" him. It was because of him that nazism was destroyed in 1945 and also the reason why there are no nazi death camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines & Scottish Highlands.
2
Nah.... It was down to William of Normandy's victory at Senlac Hill !!!
2
@maxpower3990 No matter what the outcome, it WASN'T a nazi puppet govt in Britain and nazi death camps in the Cotswolds & Pennines. I'd settle for that.
2
Delusional alert.
2
That is debatable to some degree, but one thing is for sure. It did NOT become a NAZI vassal state, which is what the war was fought for.
2
What a "victory" for the USSR. 10% of its entire population dead and ALL of its major cities devastated. Do you think the US "lost" the war? Untouched by enemies, minimal population loss and a MASSIVELY inflated economy. I know which one I'd consider "the winner".
2
@spikeshartell4675 It was good for EVERYBODY, not just Britain alone NOT to have Europe ravaged by ANOTHER war. Plus what would the benefit be to Britain if she and others didn't oppose a powerful & avaricious Germany from dominating or conquering the entire European continent before finally isolating & threatening the British Isles?
2
"Very much united" Hahahaha.... keep drinking that EUSSR "kool Aid".
2
The Republic of Ireland is NOT part of Britain or the UK, and while Northern Ireland is NOT part of Great Britain it IS part of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland".
2
So how do you explain the fact that Churchill had NOT held office in the British government since 1929 and had ZERO influence on British foreign and domestic policy throughout the 1930s? "Oh yeah... in my nazi clouded mind I hadn't thought of that". You're welcome.
2
When devious nazi fanboi idiots or assorted uninformed idiots say "Hitler never wanted war with Britain and France" they ALWAYS miss off the part that says "until he was ready for it on his OWN terms". Because of course Hitler laid all his hopes on being left to expand the nazi empire EASTWARDS in peace, assimilate his new found conquests with their collective economies and resources, further build up his military power and only THEN conquer Britain & France, as they had already attempted TWICE BEFORE in the previous 70 years, once in 1870 and again in 1914, the THIRD attempt in 1940 was precipitated by the British and French not sitting and waiting for it to happen on Hitler's terms. If we had've waited the outcome would have been much MUCH different from the destruction of nazism in 1945. Not confronting Hitler in 1939 would have resulted with Britain by the late 1940s onwards having: A puppet nazi government, a nazi supporting King Edward VIII restored to the throne, and the UK as a nazi satellite state. Extermination camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines & Scottish Highlands. SS Einsatzgruppen stalking the shires looking to find "undesirables" to summarily execute. All UK males of working age being deported to the reich to be slaved to death in nazi armaments factories or infrastructure projects. And now, slimy nazi fanbois and other devious loons want the uninformed to think that letting Hitler conduct his plans undisturbed would mean that we would have a Britain today filled with Rose cottages, warm beer, bar skittles & village cricket. How utterly devious those people are, people with greater awareness of the situation don't fall for their nazi apologist nonsense.
2
@luciddoggo5094 Nonsense. When the nazis turned on their erstwhile ally the USSR in June 1941, America was STILL happily carrying out "business as usual" with BOTH sides of the European war. Happily supplying the nazis with 60% of their military transport needs, and a sizeable chunk of their aero engine requirements, amongst other things. Yes, Ford and General Motors were making BILLIONS from the nazi regime, and the US government was reaping a handsome tax take from their profits. while the British Empire fought on alone.
2
Ah the Indian political whore, barbequed in 1946... What a fitting end for rancid tandoori meat.
1
"Britain screwed itself" by successfully fighting off nazi domination of Europe and prevented the nazis from opening branches of their "death camp franchise" in the Cotswolds, Pennines & Scottish Highlands. The Price was ruinous, but some prices are ALWAYS worth paying.
1
@nickarnold814 Sorry for the late reply, YT increasingly does not bother to notify me of replies, and I just stumbled on your question. The reason that Britain and France drew that final "line in the sand" at the Polish border for Germany (after the German re-militarisation of the Rhineland, the Anscluss of Austria, the Sudeten deal and the subsequent occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia) was quite simple, they believed that the nazi leadership would be intimidated by the prospect of war with the combined economic might of the British & French empires, a potential repeat of the bloodbath of WW1, and hoped that it would cause the Germans to think again about crossing the Polish border. When the Germans ignored the warning, the two tired and unprepared nations were forced to make good on their threat of war. Rest assured if they hadn't then Germany would have then gone on to cement it's alliances in the Balkans, assimilated the economies and resources of its new found acquisitions, further strengthened it's military and only THEN attacked France and Britain on it's own German terms, the same as it had already TWICE done in the previous 70 years.... once in 1870 and again in 1914.
1
The British were in an even worse, unprepared state in 1938 than they were in 1939. The Sudeten Crisis was the clarion call to Britain & France that it was going to HAVE to face down nazism, and so initiated a last minute rushed military spending program in Britain, one of the most crucial products of that spending being the "Chain Home" RDF network around the southern and eastern shores of Britain, and without which Britain may have been bombed into submission in 1940.
1
So nothing to do challenging and confining the history of German expansionism within Europe during the 19th and 20th centuries then?
1
Just remind me where the "east west" dividing line has moved over the last 30 years? Oh thats right 1000 miles EASTWARDS.
1
@whophd Remind me globalist dupe... What did the US do in 1962 when the Soviets placed their weapon systems on territory friendly to their regime, that also just happened to be 90 miles off the coast of the US? Oh yes that's right, the US govt threatened the WHOLE planet with thermonuclear war. Not forgetting the countless coups, assasinations and intrigues of the US govt throughout the late 19th century and 20th century in central & southern Americas in overthrowing democratically elected govts that didn't fit in with the US's "Monroe Doctrine". Seems the US is within it's rights to destroy the planet in order to defend their own "interests", but Russia is not. Rest assured if Russia wanted to absorb Ukraine, it would do it no problem. P.S You're awarded the WEF shill clasp (3rd class).
1
@AFGuidesHD When devious nazi fanboi idiots and other assorted uninformed loons such as yourself suggest that "Hitler never wanted war with Britain and France" they ALWAYS miss off the part that says "until he was ready for it on his OWN terms". Because of course Hitler laid all his hopes on being left to expand the nazi empire EASTWARDS in peace, assimilate his new found conquests with their collective economies and resources, further build up his military power and only THEN conquer France followed by Britain (or possibly impose a crushing "pax Germanica" on the UK as they did with Vichy France), they had already attempted such a feat TWICE BEFORE in the previous 70 years, once in 1870 and again in 1914, the THIRD attempt in 1940 was precipitated by the British and French not sitting and waiting for it to happen on Hitler's terms (have you never wondered why nazi Germany was known as the THIRD reich?). If we had've waited the outcome would have been much MUCH different from the destruction of nazism in 1945. Not confronting Hitler in 1939 would have resulted with Britain by the late 1940s onwards having: A puppet nazi government, a nazi supporting King Edward VIII restored to the throne, and the UK as a nazi satellite state. Extermination camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines & Scottish Highlands. SS Einsatzgruppen stalking the shires looking to find "undesirables" to summarily execute. All UK males of working age being deported to the reich to be slaved to death in nazi armaments factories or infrastructure projects. And now, slimy nazi fanbois and other devious loons want the uninformed to think that letting Hitler conduct his plans undisturbed would mean that we would have a Britain today filled with Rose cottages, warm beer, bar skittles, Morris dancers & village cricket. How utterly devious those people are, people with greater awareness of the situation don't fall for their nazi apologist nonsense.
1
@TheImperatorKnight Feck sake TIK... Say it like it is !!! I'm so VERY glad to hear that your view coincides EXACLTY with my own. I prefer the "EUSSR" myself though.
1
Aye, we told em to "feck off" in 1940 and did the same again in 2016.
1
The WEF using its puppet nations to sand off against one another, frightnening the mass of unthunkers so that their MIC can rape the public purse and transfer the world's entire wealth into their own corporate globalist pockets.
1
If it was upto me, I would have left you and your family under the nazi jackboot.
1
On our doorstep?
1
Northern Ireland is United Kingdom. Can you STILL not understand that?
1
Please tell us how Britain ruled over Europe? Then again don't bore us because it NEVER DID. There's NOTHING wrong with keeping a balance of power where no single country throws its weight around at the expense of it's neighbours. France had LOTS of nice things..... Algeria, Tunisia, French West & Equatorial Africa, Cameroon, Syria, Madagascar, French Indo China, French Guyana. LOTS of "nice things".
1
James has never forgiven Churchill for robbing him of his dream of being a death camp guard in the English Pennines or Scottish Highlands.
1
How on EARTH can you describe the British Empire which OUTLAWED international human slavery as "evil" and yet stupidly think of the nazis who reintroduced it into Europe 100 years later as well as murdering MILLIONS of people in 5 short years as "the good guys"?
1
Luckily more intelligent people than yourself were directing the war aims of the British Empire at the time. When devious nazi fanboi idiots and other assorted uninformed loons such as yourself say "Hitler never wanted war with Britain and France" they ALWAYS miss off the part that says "until he was ready for it on his OWN terms". Because of course Hitler laid all his hopes on being left to expand the nazi empire EASTWARDS in peace, assimilate his new found conquests with their collective economies and resources, further build up his military power and only THEN conquer France followed by Britain (or possibly impose a crushing "pax Germanica" on the UK as they did with Vichy France), they had already attempted such a feat TWICE BEFORE in the previous 70 years, once in 1870 and again in 1914, the THIRD attempt in 1940 was precipitated by the British and French not sitting and waiting for it to happen on Hitler's terms. If we had've waited the outcome would have been much MUCH different from the destruction of nazism in 1945. Not confronting Hitler in 1939 would have resulted with Britain by the late 1940s onwards having: A puppet nazi government, a nazi supporting King Edward VIII restored to the throne, and the UK as a nazi satellite state. Extermination camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines & Scottish Highlands. SS Einsatzgruppen stalking the shires looking to find "undesirables" to summarily execute. All UK males of working age being deported to the reich to be slaved to death in nazi armaments factories or infrastructure projects. And now, slimy nazi fanbois and other devious loons want the uninformed to think that letting Hitler conduct his plans undisturbed would mean that we would have a Britain today filled with Rose cottages, warm beer, bar skittles, Morris dancers & village cricket. How utterly devious those people are, people with greater awareness of the situation don't fall for their nazi apologist nonsense.
1
Why's that? Is it because NATO has advanced 1000 miles EASTWARDS over the last 30 years? Remind me what happened when the USSR sited nuclear missiles 90 miles of the coast of the USA in 1961?
1
You need some more work on your Geography. The Dardnelles campaign was fought against the TURKS. I don't remember Churchill declaring war against Turkey in WW2? P.S Fight the Germans and prevent nazi extermination camps, SS Einsatzgruppen and enforced deportation to Germany for the purposes of human slavery occuring in the UK. Isn't it strange how nazi sympathisers like people to forget about what "would have been" if we'd NOT fought?
1
@PerPress Oh, so its ok for the Germans to commit an unprecedented 56,000 initial murders of British civilian innocents (plus further tens of thousands of other civilian innocents murdered across the continent) with their civilian bombing but it is only when the allies show them how to do it properly that it THEN becomes "a crime"? The lesson Germany and others took away from WW2 was "DON'T initially do unto other's as you DON'T want them to do to you later on". "Wind and Whirlwind".
1
@NoneofyourBusiness-ce7qh So what exactly had Austria and Czechoslovakia done to goad the German people into taking over their countries? The tales of Polish victimisation of Ethnic Germans is just a pretext and excuse for the German invasion of Poland. Don't be fooled otherwise.
1
@PerPress You seem ignorant of the fact that German troops had been killing innocent Polish citizens for two full days before Britain and France declared war on Germany.
1
@PerPress By "one sided" I guess you mean we, the British, didn't declare war on the USSR as well, but what do you expect? The British empire to simultaneously take on the the world's LARGEST military force (the USSR) together with the world's best prepared and most powerful military force (nazi Germany) at the same time? The British government assessed the geopolitical situation and quite correctly decided that nazi Germany was by FAR the most "clear & present" danger to the British Isles, FAR more than the USSR. Also even a cursory glance through Hitler's "Mein Kampf" showed that his first intention was to expand his new German reich eastwards to the urals, so that being the case why would the British declare war against the USSR when: a. Britain had NO practical way of attacking the USSR. b. By doing so Britain would simply push the USSR & nazi Germany deeper into a co-operative and potentially unbeatable alliance, when everyone knew that as things stood the two were headed for an almost inevitable conflict with each other.
1
@PerPress I would prefer to live under NEITHER. A "German protectorate" would have been governed by a British puppet nazi govt, likely with the eventual introduction of concentration camps to the British Isles... Imagine the likes of Auschwitz, but in the Cotswolds, Pennines or Scottish Highlands? Together with Gestapo tyranny and SS Einsatzgruppen roaming the British counties looking for "undesirables", together with the forced deportation of all UK males of working age to be slaved to death in nazi armaments factories or infrastructure projects? And life under the soviets would be as bad, if not WORSE !!! But as I said the nazis were the most dangerous GROWING physical threat to the UK at that time. And today some clueless commenters, ignorant of the easy democratic life they've been gifted by the "greatest generation" over the last 80 years, often comment "Look at today's Britain.... Why did we bother going to war in 1939" While at the same time being completely oblivious to the likely outcome for our country if we HADN'T gone to war at that point.
1
Another easily duped nazi apologist. Do you mean an "ally" of the nazis in the same way as the soviets were before the nazis turned on them when they felt the time was right?
1
Aided by the Roosevelt administration who is seems thought the Soviets were the best thing since sliced bread.
1
The loss of your support won't be noticed. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
1
The average Britain couldn't tell you where Ukraine is, and cares even less about it. As for the Westminster globalist puppet government, they will do ANYTHING that the neocon globalist US tells it to do. We British taxpayers sit and watch our public funds being spent on US weapons to effect regime change in Russia.
1
There's none so blind as those who won't see.
1
"suffer the most"? FFS Millenial !!! You don't know you're born !!! You got it the easiest of ANY generation EVER !!!!
1
Luckily people more intelligent than yourself were running the "show".
1
When people say "Hitler never wanted war with Britain and France" they ALWAYS miss off the part that says "until he was ready for it on his OWN terms". Because of course Hitler laid all his hopes on being left to expand the nazi empire EASTWARDS in peace, assimilate his new found conquests with their collective economies and resources, further build up his military power and only THEN conquer France followed by Britain (or at least imposing a crushing "pax Germanica" on the UK as they did with Vichy France), they had already attempted such a feat TWICE BEFORE in the previous 70 years, once in 1870 and again in 1914, the THIRD attempt in 1940 was precipitated by the British and French not sitting and waiting for it to happen on Hitler's terms. If we had've waited the outcome would have been much MUCH different from the destruction of nazism in 1945. Not confronting Hitler in 1939 would have more than likely resulted with Britain by the late 1940s onwards having: A puppet nazi government, a nazi supporting King Edward VIII restored to the throne, and the UK as a nazi satellite state. Extermination camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines & Scottish Highlands. SS Einsatzgruppen stalking the shires looking to find "undesirables" to summarily execute. All UK males of working age being deported to the reich to be slaved to death in nazi armaments factories or infrastructure projects. And now the uninformed want the rest of us to think that letting Hitler conduct his plans undisturbed would mean that we would have a Britain today filled with Rose cottages, warm beer, bar skittles, Morris dancers & village cricket.
1
And also leaves the Balkans / central / Eastern Europe and the western USSR under nazi control.
1
Shouldn't you be out selling your copies of "The Socialist Worker"?
1
Another clueless lefty.... the UK DID stand alone, that is unless you can provide us with the details of the luftwaffe air assaults on Canberra, Ottawa, Delhi and Wellington? Or how the Wehrmacht stood poised to launch its invasion of the Indian sub continent or Canada? Or how the Kriegsmarine attempted to strangle the British Empire out of the war by enforcing a u-boat blockade of Australia and New Zealand? Oh news just coming in...... NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAPPENED because the ONLY nation facing ALL of those threats between July 1940 and April 1941 was the United Kingdom ALONE. And if you want to correctly argue that Britain was supplied by its empire and the US then remember to add that nazi Germany was also supplied by its OWN empire of its recent European conquests (including some of the most heavily industrialised nations on the planet), as well as MILLIONS of tons of food, fuel and raw materials from their "best friend forever" the USSR (well, at least until 22nd June 1941), and also from Spain, Finland, Sweden & the Balkan countries... oh and not forgetting that US owned companies also supplied HUGE amounts of raw and finished materials to the nazis AS WELL as it did to the British, being a neutral profiteering bystander as it was until Dec 1941!!! In 1940 Britain saved itself INSPITE of the US as much as it did BECAUSE of the US.
1
@czeroxd "Roosevelt redoubled his efforts before Congress to increase the manufacture of weapons and to be able to send them directly to those who fought against Germany" What nonsense. Roosevelt oversaw the enrichment of US corporations and subsequently the US itself as they supplied both raw materials AND finished equipment and services to BOTH sides of the European war. The US "saved" NO-ONE. We in the UK BOUGHT supplies from the US, who were also at the same time selling supplies to the nazi regime and made massive profits off the nazis through Ford's auto factory in Cologne and General Motor's Opel subsiduary in Berlin who were amongst the MANY other US corporations who continued to deal with nazi Germany THROUGHOUT WW2. We in the UK bought supplies in exactly the same way as Germany bought millions of tons of raw and finished materials, food and fuel from the US, USSR, Romania, Finland, Sweden, the Balkans, and the collective raped economies of her European conquests. Meanwhile Britain survived ALONE against the full might of the Wehrmacht for a full TWELVE MONTHS, without a single US serviceman helping, thereby saving the idiot US from it's own "isolationist's nightmare" of being sandwiched between a nazi controlled Europe and a Japense controlled Asia. The UK saved ITSELF, INSPITE of the US as much as it did BECAUSE of the US.
1
And you think submitting to the nazis in 1940 would have been a better option? That's like saying "I'm not happy with the shape of my nose, I know I'll cut my head off".
1
They did not "intervene", they were dragged in to the war against their free will when war was declared AGAINST them. "Intervention" means the action was taken by the choice of the intervener, which in the case of the US's involvement in the European war was NOT the case.
1
@sverretoemmerdal No problem Sverre, I just get tetchy with Americans in YT comments nowadays trying to make out that they CHOSE to enter the war, which was NEVER their intention, instead they really wished to carry on profiterring from BOTH of the warring sides in Europe as they continued to bomb each other into the ground. All the best from the UK (P.S Your English is really very good.)
1
Funny the BS people can "seem to remember".
1
Britain as well as all other major European countries strive to keep ANY one nation from becoming too powerful.... just as we ourselves never sought to become omnipotent in Europe. Please explain how you reckon Britain keeps other nation's at war exactly?
1
@ShimobeSama What on EARTH makes you think that it is solely the UK that is the one pushing war in Ukraine? I Fully accept that the Ukraine narrative as put out across the globalist controlled MSM is complete BS, but its NOT the UK directing the "orchestra" but stateless globalist corporations who with their "boys club" of the WEF use their power to direct NATO via their bankrolling of all the mainstream political parties in the west who are pulling the strings. Cast your aspersions over the likes of Klaus Schwab, George Soros and Bill Gates. Sunak and the globalist puppet govt now ensconced in Westminster, just the same as most governments across the west are all now simply proteges of the WEF's "global leaders of the future" program. What's incredible is that Putin himself is ALSO an alumni of the same WEF program, but I guess he refuses to enter the globalist "lockstep", and so now has to be "removed" by ongoing "regime change" efforts by the rest of the globalists. And of course the continued diversion of trillions of western tax dollars into the globalist owned "military industrial Complex" with the continued ramping up of WW3 fears is also a HUGELY profitable income stream for the globalists.
1
@ShimobeSama Oh dear how CLUELESS can you be? Do you STUPIDLY think it's the UK alone thats being colonised and flooded with a globalist generated influx of economic migrants? You've never travelled to major cities in Italy, France, Spain, Sweden and Norway have you? Keep drinking the globalist kool aid.
1
SOULBREAKER-se8bq Looks like Shibomesama's "return" key is malfunctioning. Either that or its a device to hide the fact that they don;t have an answer for my question.
1
"The British army of WW2 was a joke." German Army during WW2 - 12.5 million men US Army during WW2 - 8.6 million men Red Army During WW2 - 11.5 million men Japanese army during WW2 - 6 million men British Army during WW2 - 3.5 million men Here is the verbatim text of an intelligence report compiled by the headquarters of the German Heer's (army) IV korps which in May 1940 had fought against the BEF during the whole of the French campaign. The report was circulated to the German army units that were then preparing for Seelowe. It stated: "The English soldier is in excellent physical condition. He bears his own wounds with stoical calm. The losses of his own troops are discussed with complete equanimity. He does not complain of hardships. In battle he is tough and dogged. His conviction that England will conquer in the end appears unshakeable.... The English soldier has always shown himself to be a fighter of high value. Certainly the Territorial divisions are inferior to the Regular troops in training but where morale is concerned they are their equal.... In defence the Englishman takes any punishment that comes his way" We possess the type of "fighter of high value" that pulled your sorry strutting asses out of the shit at the likes of Kasserine in 1942 when the American army's first team were THRASHED by Rommel's "second eleven", and then came to the rescue during the nazi's 1944 Ardennes offensive which knocked the US divisions for six..
1
@johncorrigan6516 Aye, hindsight is a wonderful thing, that's unfortunately never available at the time it's needed.
1
Cuckoo !!! Cuckoo !!!
1
Another clueless nazi fan child.
1
@NobleBoss Why argue with a delusional? They will only attempt to drag you into their cuckoo world, and lose you because they know the geography of their own invented world better than anyone else?
1
@AFGuidesHD Its the fact that a rampant Germany serially invaded it's peaceful neutral neighbours through the 1930s and into the 40s after REPEATED warnings not to do so. They "fucked about and found out".
1
@ It's nothing to do with what the Germans "invaded XYZ in 1940"...... it was the corrupt absorption of Austria in March 1938, the invasion of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 and the assault on Poland in Sept 1939.
1
@AFGuidesHD "Encouraging Poland to go to war with Germany"? Oh no ANOTHER David Irving nazi delusional.. go away lad, your village has phoned, they want their idiot back.
1
@AFGuidesHD It makes it difficult to follow the thread of the discussion "AFGuides", when YT idiotically insist on removing previous posts from view. I realise we have had an exchange... but all I can see above this is your comments, I'm assuming they're responding to comments which I've obviously made weeks ago, but which are, for reasons known only to YT's algorithms, not visible to me.
1
@asdlwfkge9380 No the evil was the nazi regime that gassed and incinerated MILLIONS of innocents. You silly boy.
1
@PerPress At Yalta in February 1945 the US secretly brokered a deal with the USSR without the knowledge of the British. The US accepted that the USSR gets to retain eastern & central Europe within its own "sphere of influence" while in return the USSR agreed to declare war on Japan in Manchuria, splitting the Japanese, and lowering the risk to the US of a pending invasion of the Japanese home islands (operation Downfall) as at the time of the Yalta conference the Americans had still not successfully test detonated their first atomic bomb. Also Stalin would agree to sign up to the fledgling United Nations...... and for those two pay offs the US was happy to sacrifice hundreds of millions of Europeans to 45 years of communist tyranny.
1
@PerPress A deeply unfortunate result of the French and British realising too late that they were dealing with an untrustworthy, tyrannical despot, and buying time to progress their own rearmament at the expense of the fledgling Czech nation. Of course the nazi Germans, when given an inch (the Sudetenland) took the whole mile (The rest of Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia). The Czech crisis in my mind is (from the British /French perspective) an understandable but deeply unfortunate part of interwar diplomatic history.
1
The British Empire FAR out produced Germany. It was the strident German militarism in the heart of Europe that was the problem.
1
And if my Auntie Elsie had a pair of bollocks she'd be my uncle Eddie.
1
"why would (Britain) allow Hitler the steps he took to getting back the pieces taken at Versailles?" Think about the "Great Depression" from 1929 onwards, national budgets have been crushed by the economic downturn, nations are struggling to run their own internal affairs without taking on MASSIVE new external problems. When you say "Nobody thought that the USSR was a military power" can you provide some sources for that?
1
@JamesHenderson-wk4hd Please explain? Churchill wanted war? Who was it who was making unannounced attacks on unsuspecting neighbours through the late 1930s? The British? I'll leave that awkward fact with you.
1
The US "had Britain's back" did it? You do realise that the US business community was greedily making vast profits from BOTH sides of the European war until Germany declared war on you? The US "business community" engaged in VERY profitable business dealings with BOTH sides throughout WW2. US corporations such as Ford, General Motors, US Standard Oil, IBM, Kodak, Chase Bank (to name but a few) carried on "business as usual" with nazi Germany THROUGHOUT WW2. Ford's auto production facility in Cologne and General Motor's Opel subsiduary plant in Berlin were both busy working 24/7 THROUGHOUT WW2 furnishing the nazis with approximately 60% of the Wehrmacht's military transportation needs, as well as a sizeable chunk of the Luftwaffe's aero engine requirements... all the better for attacking Britain with eh? The "ALuminum COrporation of America" (ALCOA) for instance supplied SO much aircraft grade aluminium to nazi Germany in the late 1930s and into the early 1940s that it actually caused shortfalls within the US government's own military aircraft production schedules, so much so that in June 1941 the situation prompted Harold Ickes, US Secretary of the Interior, to go on record as saying “If America loses this coming war, it can thank the Aluminum Corporation of America”. With "friends" like the US "business community" "watching your back" who needs enemies?
1
When devious nazi fanboi idiots and other assorted uninformed loons such as yourself say "Hitler never wanted war with Britain and France" they ALWAYS miss off the part that says "until he was ready for it on his OWN terms". Because of course Hitler laid all his hopes on being left to expand the nazi empire EASTWARDS in peace, assimilate his new found conquests with their collective economies and resources, further build up his military power and only THEN conquer France as they had already attempted such a feat TWICE BEFORE in the previous 70 years, once in 1870 and again in 1914, followed by Britain (or at the VERY least imposing a crushing "pax Germanica" on the UK as they did with Vichy France), the Germans THIRD attempt to conquer Europe in 1940 was precipitated by the British and French not sitting and waiting for it to happen on Hitler's terms. If we had've waited the outcome would have been much MUCH different from the destruction of nazism in 1945. Not confronting Hitler in 1939 would have resulted with Britain by the late 1940s onwards having: A puppet nazi government, a nazi supporting King Edward VIII restored to the throne, and the UK as a nazi satellite state. Extermination camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines & Scottish Highlands. SS Einsatzgruppen stalking the shires looking to find "undesirables" to summarily execute. All UK males of working age being deported to the reich to be slaved to death in nazi armaments factories or infrastructure projects. And now, slimy nazi fanbois and other devious loons want the uninformed to think that letting Hitler conduct his plans undisturbed would mean that we would have a Britain today filled with Rose cottages, warm beer, bar skittles, Morris dancers & village cricket. How utterly devious those people are, people with greater awareness of the situation don't fall for their nazi apologist nonsense.
1
@AFGuidesHD Regardless of that, through the process of "Finlandization" (I'm sure your geo-political credentials will have furnished you with knowledge of that concept) The UK would have been manipulated initially by nazi soft power, and then when the nazis had fully assimilated the collective economies of her recent Europe wide conquests, probably followed by nazi "hard" power. With an end result somewhere in the ballpark of what I suggested above.
1
@AFGuidesHD Any one with a quarter of a functioning brain would rather be vassalised by US corporate capitalism for ALL it's faults, than murderous nazi tyranny. By the way US & British gun ownership & self defence rights could NOT be more polar opposites. You really did shoot yourself in the foot with those examples !!!!
1
Don't forget the quongians sent the zebedians into Germany to destablise the Carnoogians to strengthen the position of the German Flarbadian party.
1
@Beensash Correct, Beenash. The OP is also blissfully unaware in their own ignorance that Churchill held NO office within the UK govt throughout the 1930s, and had NO direct bearing on Britain's international policy... though I was waiting to use that as the "Coup de grâce" to their BS.
1
Yes...yes...yes. Now go get your warm milk and biscuit. The nurse will be with you shortly.
1
Cuckoo !!! Cuckoo !!!
1
It's not good for ANYONE when one nation is dominating the continent.
1
@whophd I assume you know that over the last 30 years the "East/West dividing line" has moved over 1000 miles EASTWARDS, right up to the border of Russia itself. You're probably too young to remember what happened in 1962 when the Soviet Union peaceably moved some of its weapon systems onto the soil of one of its friendly "client states", the problem being was that that "client state" was just 90 miles off the coast of the mainland USA. In response to the soviet move the "freedom loving USA" threatened to destroy the entire planet in a thermonuclear holocaust. It puts Russia's current displeasure with NATO tanks, planes and ships operating on her very doorstep in context, doesn't it?
1
Fuck sake the cuckoo brigade are thick in comments here.... Go polish your Hitler Youth dagger before bedtime, kid.
1
@Mersey_basileus You've not learned to identify a sore arsed nazi fanboi at first sight yet have you?
1
No... in summer 1940 Britain WAS alone. Unless that is you can provide us with the details of the luftwaffe air assaults on Canberra, Ottawa, Delhi and Wellington? Or how the Wehrmacht stood poised to launch its invasion of the Indian sub continent or Canada? Or how the Kriegsmarine attempted to strangle the British Empire out of the war by enforcing a u-boat blockade of Australia and New Zealand? Oh news just coming in...... NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAPPENED because the ONLY nation facing ALL of those threats between July 1940 and April 1941 was GREAT BRITAIN ALONE. And if you want to correctly argue that Britain was supplied by its empire and the US then remember to add that nazi Germany was also supplied by its OWN empire of its recent European conquests (including some of the most heavily industrialised nations on the planet), as well as MILLIONS of tons of food, fuel and raw materials from their "best friend forever" the USSR (well, at least until 22nd June 1941), and also from Spain, Finland, Sweden & the Balkans... oh and not forgetting that the US also supplied HUGE amounts of raw and finished materials to the nazis AS WELL as it did to the British, being a neutral profiteering bystander as it was until Dec 1941!!! In 1940 Britain saved itself INSPITE of the US as much as it did BECAUSE of the US.
1
Nazi Germany was by FAR the biggest "clear and present" danger to western Europe in the 1930s.
1
Remind me how many soviet death camps were spread across western Europe again please?
1
@guylindquist338 Save your "holocaust denial" BS. You're conversing with a sixty year old whose father and two uncles fought through WW2. My uncle being a sapper in the Royal Engineers was present in Bergen-Belsen the day after it was liberated in April 1945 and witnessed with his own eyes the MOUNTAINS of decaying corpses the Germans left behind as they retreated, and Bergen-Belsen was a SMALL camp, a small FRACTION of the size of the likes of Auschwitz-Birkenau with its over 1 million murder victims at the hands of the nazis that your pretend never existed. You ridiculous delusional nazi apologist.
1
Delusional. Do you REALLY believe nazi Germany saw Britain as "an equal"? The Germans wanted a supplicant Britain that would do as it was told by its newly install nazi puppet govt. Undoubtedly ending up with death camps in the English Pennines and the Scottish Highlands.
1
What would YOU do if your neighbour decided that they wanted YOUR house and were prepared to eject you by force? Oh superior one.
1
The British never intended or at any point ever did "control Europe". What they did not want was ANY other major country controlling it either, but a stable balance of nations. A subtle difference that appears to have passed you by.
1
@spikeshartell4675 What a piss poor response... Brits are bad because they (along with EVERY other historical empire) used human slavery. then Brits are bad BECAUSE they outlawed human slavery? How can they win in your book? Thought of any other historical empires that still maintain a friendly voluntary "commonwealth" with their former colonies?
1
Britain was simply the most successful out of ALL the many MANY empires in human history. While being this, she helped maintain a "balance of power" on her own doorstep in Europe, many of whose nations also had foreign colonies at the time.
1
"Hitler had no ambitions on Britain". Is that the same Hitler who after he received the Sudetenland decreed "I have no more territorial demands in Europe" on 26th Sept 1938? Just 3 months before "absorbing" the REST of Bohemia, Moravia & Slovakia and 1 year before he sent the German wehrmacht into Poland? Hitler didn't want "war with Britain" until HE was ready for it on HIS terms. Luckily for the rest of Europe, Britain & France weren't willing to wait for that to happen.
1
@alanjm1234 A "slight chance"? The nazis had not bothered negotiating over the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, destabilised the Austrian Govt and assasinated its Preseident, after the Czech crisis with Hitler's declaration of "I have no more territorial demands within Europe" then almost immediately went on the invade the rest of Czechoslovakia, before staging the fake attack on the Radio station at Gleiwitz as an excuse to invade Poland. Of COURSE he was going to attack France and the UK, but only after having absorbed the rest of the eastern European countries in peace one by one. Britain and France had the foresight to not let Hitler have things on his own terms, and drew the warning line in the sand over Poland. All Hitler had to do if he wanted to avoid war was withdraw from Poland, but that was never his intention and so he by his actions was the cause of WW2.
1
All the generated fear causes the febrile imaginations of the tax payers to CLAMOUR for higher "defence spending" and more public money heading into corporate coffers... a bit like the "covid" BS.
1
@ducklinglibrary7941 Please ignore "James" (who I also believe parades as "Mark Harrison") he is a serial nazi apologist with absolutely no idea of world events. Don't get him started on his theory about why he believes a Jewish businessman bribed Churchill to flood Europe with muslims. I kid you not, that's the sort of utter idiocy he expresses.
1
Would you be so kind as to explain your theory in some more detail please? maybe with examples?
1
What? Spreading tyranny and death camps across Europe?
1
If I could just add to one point you made, while the US did sell supplies to the UK, you've omitted to state that they ALSO simultaneously sold them to the nazis, as they indeed continued to do THROUGHOUT WW2. It's a HUGE point thats rarely if ever covered in the usual narrative of WW2.
1
@thegreatmr.a3846 Like Sweden the USA up until the German declaration of war upon her on 11th Dec 1941, was neutral, and was "morally" (as if that had ANYTHING to do with matters) entitled to sell to EITHER side of the European war, which is why the precursor to "Lend-Lease" that is the US policy of "Cash and Carry" was passed by US congress in Sept 1939. The prior US Neutrality Acts of 1935/36/37/early 39 had all completely prohibited the sales of military goods to foreign combattants, as it was publicly felt across the world after WW1 that the fledgling "Military industrial complex" had it's dirty hands in upto the elbows in the continuation of WW1 to "line its own pockets". (How anyone could believe such slander against peace loving arms companies is beyond me). But under pressure from the ever powerful US "business community" and individual US corporations with their associated "political funding" (a.k.a corruption) the US govt was tacitly forced to acknowledge that US businesses (and consequently the US Govt) was missing out on a BUMPER payday with the outbreak of war in Europe in Sept 1939, and with that in mind the above mentioned "Cash & Carry" policy was passed which for the first time since WWI allowed US companies to sell their wares to foreign combattants, and make HUGE profits in the process. It was ostensibly a neutral policy whereby ANYONE could conduct legal military business with US companies, as long as they paid up front and made their own arrangements for transportation of the goods purchased, but in practice it was skewed towards the British as it was obvious that the nazi regime would be highly unlikely to be able to transport purchased goods across the Atlantic, but generally the principle of aiding two of your largest competitors to knock seven kinds of shit out of one another while you reap the profits made and still makes good business sense..... even if one of those customers was then beginning their murderous policies against their own and neighbouring populations... who cares, profits are profits !!!! But, If the US had REALLY wanted to purely "help Britain" in its "hour of need", then instead of bleeding the British empire dry and causing its collapse, they could have, as one example, sold a production license for Tetra Ethyl Lead (or TEL - The compound required for the production of hi-octane fuels) to Britain when we applied to purchase one from the "Standard Oil of Jersey City Company" in 1938.... Instead "Standard Oil" & the US Govt refused to sell one to "their British cousins". But simultaneously they both had NO qualms though about providing the exact same licence to the nazis when they applied to purchase one prewar. But when it came to Britain the US preferred to strip the British of ALL their gold, cutting edge technology and military bases around the world during the British "hour of need" in return for a supply of amongst other things, US produced hi-octane fuel. Where there nazi sympathies in the Standard Oil boardroom and in some parts of the US Govt? The truth is so unsavoury were the business practices of the US "Standard Oil" company (such as seeking furtive routes and brokering shady deals to supply nazi Germany with fuel and oil via neutral nations during the war) that it's activities were investigated and closely monitored by the US Govt... but only AFTER the they had been DRAGGED into WW2 in Dec 1941 by the German declaration of war on the US!!! The reason Britain was refused a TEL license was geopolitical, in that the British empire had a PLENTIFUL supply of oil from its colonies in British Guyana and Persia, whereas Germany did not. Why would the US sell a geopolitical advantage to one of their largest competitors to produce their own Hi-Octane fuel when they could instead milk the British Empire out of all its wealth? The US "business community" engaged in VERY profitable business dealings with BOTH sides throughout WW2. US corporations such as Ford, General Motors, US Standard Oil, IBM, Kodak, Chase Bank, Coke-Cola (to name but a few) carried on "business as usual" with nazi Germany THROUGHOUT WW2. Ford's auto production facility in Cologne and General Motor's Opel subsiduary plant in Berlin were both busy working 24/7 THROUGHOUT WW2 furnishing the nazis with approximately 60% of the Wehrmacht's military transportation needs, as well as a sizeable chunk of the Luftwaffe's aero engine requirements... all the better for attacking Britain with eh, and all the while providing US companies with BILLIONS of dollars in profit, and the US govt with millions of dollars of tax revenue The "ALuminum COrporation of America" (ALCOA) for instance supplied SO much aircraft grade aluminium to nazi Germany in the late 1930s and into the early 1940s that it actually caused shortfalls within the US government's own military aircraft production schedules during the same period, so much so that in June 1941 the situation prompted Harold Ickes, US Secretary of the Interior, to go on record as saying “If America loses this coming war, it can thank the Aluminum Corporation of America”.
1
@PerPress Just to clarify that although war was declared by the UK and France on 3rd sept 1939, it was in response to repeated and flagrant transgresions of international law by the nazi German regime.
1
@PerPress "Britain should have stayed out of the world wars"? No I much prefer not having had to spend my 60 years living under a "Pax Germanica" with a totalitarian govt, einsatzgruppen stalking the shires and death camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines and Scottish Highlands.
1
More clueless yankee BS.
1
It was central in the start of the first world war... having so many nations in close proximity to one another with limited resources is a surefire way of creating national tensions.
1
Without British "beans" Moscow would today have swastikas flying over the Kremlin.
1