[Blueisthecolour]

Originally Posted by angus58

Had Britain decided to engage in talks with the Germans, who knows whether the genocide that followed could have been averted by diplomatic intervention. We shall never know because by then Churchill was PM and was intent on pursuing the war, rejecting any peace talks. It is no coincidence that when the war was over, the voters overwhelmingly voted him out of office as he was seen as a "war monger".

The bit about Churchill is a little unfair.

He was negotiating with Hitler and exploring avenues to avoid all out war, he wasn't comfortable with it - but he was doing it.

Eventually he reached the conclusion that Hitler was just paying lip-service and wasn't serious about an agreement being reached.

Hitler felt he had what he wanted and didn't need to compromise.

This was the period immediately before Churchill's "Fight them on the beaches" speech.

[johnx]

Some things amatuer historians might want to research related to this;

King Edward's abdication and admiration of Hitler.See Ch4 Doc "Britians Nazi King."

Engalnd football team giving Nazi salute before 1938 match with Germany in Berlin.

Sir Oswald Mosely-1930s British Union of Facist leader-member of aristocracy.

Queens cousin,German Prince,who was commandant of Nazi Concentration Camp as revealed in Ch4 doc.

Funding of Hitler in the 1930's from Wall St. and City of London banks.George W. Bush's grandfather revealed to Hitlers banker in the US.

US Government relocates Nazi scientists and others to work on projects such as the Space Programme(Operation Paperclip).Former Nazi-Verner Von Braum goes on to become head of Nassa.

Nazis helped to flee to South America with help of Vatican insiders.

[BB_Eye]

There are actually a surprising amount of WWII pacifists. I disagree strongly with that view, but the great composer Benjamin Britten was one of them.

[Ketman]

The title of this thread reminds me of the tabloid headline in Ricky Gervais's Extras. "TV Bully Kicks Dwarf in Face".

What Ben was saying is that Britain might have neutralized Hitler in other ways, either by better diplomacy, or if all else failed could have sent someone to assassinate him. About later conflicts, he said Britain and the US picked on easy targets, tin-pot dictators, but would never dream of standing up to powerful countries whose regimes are just as oppressive (meaning Russia and China probably).

He's mistaken about the chances of avoiding WWII, but the rest of what he said was fair enough.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Ketman

The title of this thread reminds me of the tabloid headline in Ricky Gervais's Extras. "TV Bully Kicks Dwarf in Face".

What Ben was saying is that Britain might have neutralized Hitler in other ways, either by better diplomacy, or if all else failed could have sent someone to assassinate him. About later conflicts, he said Britain and the US picked on easy targets, tin-pot dictators, but would never dream of standing up to powerful countries whose regimes are just as oppressive (meaning Russia and China probably).

He's mistaken about the chances of avoiding WWII, but the rest of what he said was fair enough.

that is nearer the truth than the whole thread!lol

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Ketman

The title of this thread reminds me of the tabloid headline in Ricky Gervais's Extras. "TV Bully Kicks Dwarf in Face".

What Ben was saying is that Britain might have neutralized Hitler in other ways, either by better diplomacy, or if all else failed could have sent someone to assassinate him. About later conflicts, he said Britain and the US picked on easy targets, tin-pot dictators, but would never dream of standing up to powerful countries whose regimes are just as oppressive (meaning Russia and China probably).

He's mistaken about the chances of avoiding WWII, but the rest of what he said was fair enough.

That is a very good point.

My take on it is this:

If diplomacy works..then be diplomatic. If diplomacy is failing....then turn to the gun.
If by turning to the gun, you start WW3 and introduce nuclear annialation to your people....then stick with diplomacy.

This justifies why some countries can be nuked and yet others cant. Its not about being a bully....its about knowing your limitations and how far you can go.

Knowing when to step in or step out is difficult and hindsight is a wonderful thing.

If we had sent in an assassin or declared war on hitler after kristallnacht, we would of been in the same boat we are now with it being declared an illegal act. Who was to know what was to come.

[Blueisthecolour]

I haven't heard the conversation.

If he says that WWII could have been avoided had we acted differently, then he's right.

If he says we should have been "nicer" to Germany then he is dead wrong. We appeased Hitler too much and that was the problem - as did the Russians for that matter - as did other countries.

A lot of us got it wrong.

But until I hear for myself what Ben actually said I'll withold judgement on him.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Blueisthecolour

I haven't heard the conversation.

If he says that WWII could have been avoided had we acted differently, then he's right.

If he says we should have been "nicer" to Germany then he is dead wrong. We appeased Hitler too much and that was the problem - as did the Russians for that matter - as did other countries.

A lot of us got it wrong.

But until I hear for myself what Ben actually said I'll withold judgement on him.

I would be interested to know how you think we could of acted differently?
From purely a hindsight point of view, i think we had no choice and war was inevitable, whether via our pledge to Poland (incedently our reasoning for war) or whether due to a later act which would of peeved us off. More Invasions of innocent countries and mass exterminations perhaps.

IMO its no different to Iraq. Whether we went in on the premise that there were W.O.M.D.s (which have never been found) or not, i think his track record of invading a sovereign country and then after being given another chance....exterminating Kurds & Shiites....justified blowing his arse away.
No one will ever know what his next step was going to be....i dont think the Nobel Peace Prize contenders were threatened that year....but my view is that if i could go back in time to Hitler as a 1 month old baby....i would have no qualms with putting a bullet in his head, irrespective of the fact he was just a loveble innocent child.

As i say..hindsight is wonderful....foresight is guessing.

[Blueisthecolour]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

I would be interested to know how you think we could of acted differently?

Simple really, Hitler promised Chamberlain that he had no claim on Europe and that he was no threat to Britain whom he saw as his friends.

Whether or not Chamberlain believed it...he chose to accept it and came back waving the infamous piece of paper proclaiming "Peace in our time".

There was also the fact that we turned a blind eye to Germany's rearmament which was against the Versailles Treaty, we were told he was rearming...we did nothing.

Then there was the boatload of "Undesirables" ejected from Germany which we refused to give refuge to.

We were sending the message to Hitler that as long as he didn't threaten us, we would pretend we hadn't noticed.

Lots of other countries made the same mistakes, whilst Russia made an even more blatant agreement with Hitler could take land that he laid claim to as long as Russia could have lands that they laid claim to. That led directly to Hitler invading Poland, the Russians had told him he could.

After the invasion of Poland we had no choice but to go to war, I accept that. But it should never have got to that situation.

The policy of appeasement during the 30s was the problem.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Blueisthecolour

Simple really, Hitler promised Chamberlain that he had no claim on Europe and that he was no threat to Britain whom he saw as his friends.

Whether or not Chamberlain believed it...he chose to accept it and came back waving the infamous piece of paper proclaiming "Peace in our time".

There was also the fact that we turned a blind eye to Germany's rearmament which was against the Versailles Treaty, we were told he was rearming...we did nothing.

Then there was the boatload of "Undesirables" ejected from Germany which we refused to give refuge to.

We were sending the message to Hitler that as long as he didn't threaten us, we would pretend we hadn't noticed.

Lots of other countries made the same mistakes, whilst Russia made an even more blatant agreement with Hitler could take land that he laid claim to as long as Russia could have lands that they laid claim to. That led directly to Hitler invading Poland, the Russians had told him he could.

After the invasion of Poland we had no choice but to go to war, I accept that. But it should never have got to that situation.

The policy of appeasement during the 30s was the problem.

100% agree with you on all of that....what it says to me is we should of gone to war earlier perhaps, but then wouldnt we of been in the same boat we are in now over Iraq?
Same in the Falklands....we now know that Thatchers gov' knew certain things were going to happen, but if we had garrisoned the islands with a million men or started blowing up Argy boats prior to the invasion....we would of been a laughing stock around the world and hung out to dry.
Its unfortunate that sometimes you may know you're about to be punched in the face, but you have to wait and take the hit to justify retaliatory action.

[James]

I've deleted the posts in this thread which involve arguing or insults against other posters. No need for insults.

[setanta]

I haven't seen what went on, so I'm just going by what's been said on here and what I know myself of history and yes, Ben is right when he says that the foreign policies of the major powers during the 30's were questionable and Hitler's march could have been halted before he had such a stranglehold on mainland Europe. I mean, what's wrong with that?

[BB_Eye]

I'm not getting involved in this debate... I just don't know enough about it, but does anyone think all of this will be omitted from the HL show?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

I'm not getting involved in this debate... I just don't know enough about it, but does anyone think all of this will be omitted from the HL show?

They would have to show the discussion in its entirety in order to give a balanced view, so I'm thinking they'll probably cut it. We'll see...

[eviled2010]

I could believe Ben is a Nazi apologist. Ben is out for Ben. I doubt he feels any allegiance to any group or individual, jew or non-jew, unless there was some benefit in it for him.
Many of the the "blue bloods" always loved Hitler and the Nazis, that is well documented too.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by eviled2010

...Many of the the "blue bloods" always loved Hitler and the Nazis, that is well documented too.

And many of them died fighting them... let's not forget that.

[setanta]

No need for a history lesson: we've already established that Ben made a legimate statement that's supported by facts, so let's leave it at that, shall we? No need to start a pi$$ing competition here. Instead, we should concentrate on the title of this thread, which is misleading rubbish.

[johnx]

It's clear that the main motivation for any war is that large corporations make alot of money out of them.Lets not forget Britian,like Nazi Germany, invaded many countries when building a vast empire.Former US General Butler wrote a book "War is a Racket" comparing the US Govt. he fought for to organized crime families.Likewise books such as "Trading With the Enemy" by Charles Highman document how large Corporations such as Standard Oil,Ford and General Electric continued trading with Germany and her allies into 1942.The econonies of US and Great Britian were in the toilet in the 1930s-WW2 helped the US become the superpower it is.Ben is right to highlight the complexities of WW2 but as he says himself he's arguing with people who've never read a book.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by johnx

It's clear that the main motivation for any war is that large corporations make alot of money out of them.Lets not forget Britian,like Nazi Germany, invaded many countries when building a vast empire.Former US General Butler wrote a book "War is a Racket" comparing the US Govt. he fought for to organized crime families.Likewise books such as "Trading With the Enemy" by Charles Highman document how large Corporations such as Standard Oil,Ford and General Electric continued trading with Germany and her allies into 1942.The econonies of US and Great Britian were in the toilet in the 1930s-WW2 helped the US become the superpower it is.Ben is right to highlight the complexities of WW2 but as he says himself he's arguing with people who've never read a book.

Good post and yeah, that's more than likely true.

[oddballmisfitsFTW]

Originally Posted by johnx

It's clear that the main motivation for any war is that large corporations make alot of money out of them.Lets not forget Britian,like Nazi Germany, invaded many countries when building a vast empire.Former US General Butler wrote a book "War is a Racket" comparing the US Govt. he fought for to organized crime families.Likewise books such as "Trading With the Enemy" by Charles Highman document how large Corporations such as Standard Oil,Ford and General Electric continued trading with Germany and her allies into 1942.The econonies of US and Great Britian were in the toilet in the 1930s-WW2 helped the US become the superpower it is.Ben is right to highlight the complexities of WW2 but as he says himself he's arguing with people who've never read a book.

classic ben

Ben to win (as long as he isnt a nazi lover)

[Kazanne]

Well at least Benny boy got a good debate going on here

[Angus]

Originally Posted by kazanne

Well at least Benny boy got a good debate going on here

It's a shame he couldn't do the same in the house instead of being shouted down by idiots who really don't have sufficient grasp of the facts to conduct a meaningful debate.

Poor Ben is flogging a dead horse in there if he's hoping for any intellectual stimulation - I often feel he deliberately plays the devil's advocate in order to stimulate conversation and opinions, but you can't really discuss any meaningful issues with people who have such small and closed minds.

[oddballmisfitsFTW]

Originally Posted by angus58

It's a shame he couldn't do the same in the house instead of being shouted down by idiots who really don't have sufficient grasp of the facts to conduct a meaningful debate.

Poor Ben is flogging a dead horse in there if he's hoping for any intellectual stimulation - I often feel he deliberately plays the devil's advocate in order to stimulate conversation and opinions, but you can't really discuss any meaningful issues with people who have such small and closed minds.

what is also a shame is that Ben may lose a lot of fans if this gets shown on HLs, if they misunderstand him or BB edit him badly.
I need to see it myself first as well, but I dont think Ben is a nazi supporter or sympathiser judging from what people have said so far.
I always thought Ben was unable to be brought down, because his lazy attitude to tasks and all other stuff negative, was part of what made him such a comedy legend.
This however IS a "downfall" moment, pardon the pun

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by oddballmisfitsFTW

what is also a shame is that Ben may lose a lot of fans if this gets shown on HLs, if they misunderstand him or BB edit him badly.
I need to see it myself first as well, but I dont think Ben is a nazi supporter or sympathiser judging from what people have said so far.
I always thought Ben was unable to be brought down, because his lazy attitude to tasks and all other stuff negative, was part of what made him such a comedy legend.
This however IS a "downfall" moment, pardon the pun

I hope that is not the case and we do get to judge ourselves as its not fair on Ben either way as they have shown LF and thus judgements are made regardless.
I dont think he has sounded like a nazi sympathiser so far, but i dont agree about his views on the politics or policies of the time, based on whats has been revealed.
We in 2010 cannot truly judge those in 1939, no more than i could question Caesars decision in entering the Roman Senate without his bodyguard Mark Antony. Who's to know whether MA was taking a leak at the time? In Diplomacy..timing is crucial.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by oddballmisfitsFTW

what is also a shame is that Ben may lose a lot of fans if this gets shown on HLs, if they misunderstand him or BB edit him badly.
I need to see it myself first as well, but I dont think Ben is a nazi supporter or sympathiser judging from what people have said so far.
I always thought Ben was unable to be brought down, because his lazy attitude to tasks and all other stuff negative, was part of what made him such a comedy legend.
This however IS a "downfall" moment, pardon the pun

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ben gets loads of nominations next week, but it will be because he is not a "team player". If people like Steve and Nathan (if he's still here next week) nominate him they might well cite this conversation just as Dave was nommed loads because he had said he didn't want to compromise his faith by marrying gay people. The HMs will latch on to anything they think will fly with the public to get them onside, and put themselves in a good light.