|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 7, 2024 21:13:32 GMT
What leads you to say so? Well not going to war means just that . There is no reason to think that the British Empire and the third reich would have co existed in peace . Then you have to explain where you believe friction might have occured, and which side you believe would have been the cause of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 7, 2024 21:20:47 GMT
Well not going to war means just that . There is no reason to think that the British Empire and the third reich would have co existed in peace . Then you have to explain where you believe friction might have occured, and which side you believe would have been the cause of it.
It could have occurred anywhere that the British Empire and the Third Reich’s interests clashed. The British Empire was a declining one and the German empire would have been an ascending one ….thats not a good mix. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 8, 2024 8:29:58 GMT
It's quite serendipitous then that the Third Reich was designed to be a land-based empire, predominantly Eurocentric, while the British was a maritime realm focused on everywhere else. There might have been friction where the two rubbed together, Iran and Afghanistan say, however Hitler is on record as stating he wanted to avoid at all costs the mistake made by his Wilhelmine predecessors which by appearing a threat to the British Empire led directly to the First World War. He specifically ruled out any attempt to recover Germany's former colonies outside Europe. It's all set out in the Das Zweite Buch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 8, 2024 9:23:39 GMT
And Hitler could be trusted to keep his word …
Also Germany had the potential to be a world maritime power. I don’t think Hitler of whoever succeeded him would have kept in their lane .
Britian was a declining Empire ..why should it ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 8, 2024 9:54:39 GMT
And Hitler could be trusted to keep his word … Also Germany had the potential to be a world maritime power. I don’t think Hitler of whoever succeeded him would have kept in their lane . Britian was a declining Empire ..why should it ? It's all rather moot anyway since Hitler's word (in the form of the Second Book) was never made public. But it is interesting to read about his foreign policy ideas and especially those that relate to the British Empire and the appeal of an alliance. He never considered Britain to be an enemy of Germany, at least until it caused the 'jew-ridden' United States to enter the war.
And actually the British Empire was not declining; it reached its maximum geographical extent in the inter-war period. If it began to decline after the war began that was a consequence of the war itself, and the faustian bargain it struck with the United States.
It was the US that aggressively promoted the cause of anti-imperialism and decolonisation, not the Third Reich.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 8, 2024 10:09:56 GMT
Then you have to explain where you believe friction might have occured, and which side you believe would have been the cause of it.
It could have occurred anywhere that the British Empire and the Third Reich’s interests clashed. The British Empire was a declining one and the German empire would have been an ascending one ….thats not a good mix. According to Bertrand Russell, whose family were deeply involved in running the British state, the empire was going into decline from about 1870 onwards and he gives two principle reasons. The people running it were arrogant and stupid.They were getting stupid due to declining educational standards at our top universities like Cambridge. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 8, 2024 10:53:06 GMT
It's quite serendipitous then that the Third Reich was designed to be a land-based empire, predominantly Eurocentric, while the British was a maritime realm focused on everywhere else. There might have been friction where the two rubbed together, Iran and Afghanistan say, however Hitler is on record as stating he wanted to avoid at all costs the mistake made by his Wilhelmine predecessors which by appearing a threat to the British Empire led directly to the First World War. He specifically ruled out any attempt to recover Germany's former colonies outside Europe. It's all set out in the Das Zweite Buch.
That's exactly what my source you described as 'Quite reminiscent of the sophomoric efforts of wanna-be Nazis on their training wheels as you might encounter on Stormfront twenty years ago.' was saying! |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on May 8, 2024 11:04:16 GMT
It's quite serendipitous then that the Third Reich was designed to be a land-based empire, predominantly Eurocentric, while the British was a maritime realm focused on everywhere else. There might have been friction where the two rubbed together, Iran and Afghanistan say, however Hitler is on record as stating he wanted to avoid at all costs the mistake made by his Wilhelmine predecessors which by appearing a threat to the British Empire led directly to the First World War. He specifically ruled out any attempt to recover Germany's former colonies outside Europe. It's all set out in the Das Zweite Buch.
Not quite true. Nazi Italy invaded North Africa and Germany sent in troops to support them against allied forces. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_campaign |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 8, 2024 11:09:25 GMT
79th Anniversary of VE Day.
Celebrate the demise of Nazism with a nice British pint this evening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 8, 2024 11:55:59 GMT
And Hitler could be trusted to keep his word … Also Germany had the potential to be a world maritime power. I don’t think Hitler of whoever succeeded him would have kept in their lane . Britian was a declining Empire ..why should it ? It's all rather moot anyway since Hitler's word (in the form of the Second Book) was never made public. But it is interesting to read about his foreign policy ideas and especially those that relate to the British Empire and the appeal of an alliance. He never considered Britain to be an enemy of Germany, at least until it caused the 'jew-ridden' United States to enter the war.
And actually the British Empire was not declining; it reached its maximum geographical extent in the inter-war period. If it began to decline after the war began that was a consequence of the war itself, and the faustian bargain it struck with the United States.
It was the US that aggressively promoted the cause of anti-imperialism and decolonisation, not the Third Reich.
It started to decline after WW1. The US was the ascending ‘ Empire ‘. WW 2 finished it off . Hitler was a predator. He couldn’t be trusted and the German empire , like all empires ’ would expand until it couldn’t expand any more . |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 8, 2024 12:02:10 GMT
That being the case (I'm not agreeing that it is) would it not have made better strategic sense for the British Empire to align itself with the Third Reich rather than the United States. And for it to abstain from Hitler's wars in the East.
Hitler always thought so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 8, 2024 12:10:25 GMT
That being the case (I'm not agreeing that it is) would it not have made better strategic sense for the British Empire to align itself with the Third Reich rather than the United States. And for it to abstain from Hitler's wars in the East. Hitler always thought so. If we wanted to become the junior partner ( eventually) in a new super empire that will kill scores of millions of ‘ inferior ‘ ethnic ‘ groups then maybe. That sounds a bit naive considering what happened after the war but would we have had the stomach to accept the scale of genocide that then’ master race’ and its minions would have inflicted? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 8, 2024 12:49:13 GMT
At the time when future strategic alliances were still up in the air - the mid-thirties, say - such things as you describe were far off into the future. Even as late as the summer of 1940, perhaps the last point at which an accommodation could have been reached with Germany, none of them had happened.
You're making the same mistake armchair historians typically make, reaching judgments about historical matters based on what we know now rather than what was known by decision-makers at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 8, 2024 13:23:14 GMT
It's a good fucking job Hitler lost.
Celebrate the defeat of that Austrian dictator tonight with a nice British pint of beer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 8, 2024 16:02:40 GMT
At the time when future strategic alliances were still up in the air - the mid-thirties, say - such things as you describe were far off into the future. Even as late as the summer of 1940, perhaps the last point at which an accommodation could have been reached with Germany, none of them had happened. You're making the same mistake armchair historians typically make, reaching judgments about historical matters based on what we know now rather than what was known by decision-makers at the time. And you’re making the mistake that self proclaimed’ experts ‘ make . Making a simple subject complicated to convince others of their ‘ expertise’. |
|
