[lynz]

Originally Posted by angus58

Well perhaps if he wasn't being shouted down and people did him the courtesy of listening to what he had to say, we would have had his views on that.

Has everyone forgotten one crucial fact and that is that Ben is JEWISH - in fact he is the only Jewish contestant in the house. Far from defending Hitler I got the impression he was trying to say that there were other ways Britain could have handled Hitler. Revisionists would say that in 1940 when Britain's back was to the wall the Germans offered a number of peace deals and guarantees to Britain and her empire but they were refused. America was still pursing an isolationist policy and the Russians had a non-aggression pact at that time with the Germans.

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".

So FFS give Ben a break. He is a Jew and I guarantee he does not condone the genocide that was inflicted on the Jewish people during Hitler's regime; I believe he was trying to say that Britain had other options on the table in 1940 other than all out war, and had these other options been explored, who knows how the course of the war would have gone?

Excellent post!

[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?

[StGeorge]

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".

Im sorry but that is not an exellent post due to the bit i have quoted.

People forget that the atrocities as you put it had already started long before Germany invaded Poland ( and subsequently our involvement), and things like kristallnacht, the anti-Jewish pogrom in Nazi Germany and Austria from the 9th until the 10th November 1938, were just a sign of Hitlers plan and indoctrines with regards his views on the Aryan Races and the inferior Jewish and Slav races.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by angus58

Well perhaps if he wasn't being shouted down and people did him the courtesy of listening to what he had to say, we would have had his views on that.

Has everyone forgotten one crucial fact and that is that Ben is JEWISH - in fact he is the only Jewish contestant in the house. Far from defending Hitler I got the impression he was trying to say that there were other ways Britain could have handled Hitler. Revisionists would say that in 1940 when Britain's back was to the wall the Germans offered a number of peace deals and guarantees to Britain and her empire but they were refused. America was still pursing an isolationist policy and the Russians had a non-aggression pact at that time with the Germans.

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".

So FFS give Ben a break. He is a Jew and I guarantee he does not condone the genocide that was inflicted on the Jewish people during Hitler's regime; I believe he was trying to say that Britain had other options on the table in 1940 other than all out war, and had these other options been explored, who knows how the course of the war would have gone?

Good post Angus. Balanced and informed.

Furthermore, at the end of the war, the allies decided it would do Europe no good to keep Germany in rags, so we rebuilt their country at our own expense. We had borrowed an enormous amount of money from the USA in order to be able to afford to fight a war at all, and we only finished paying that war loan back in December 2006. Germany is now a major manufacturer and economic power, while we're... well, a bit wobbley economically and we produce nothing. In fact we've sold off most of our family jewels too; Rolls Royce, Jaguar, Land Rover... they're all German now.

I don't disrespect the valour of the generation that pulled us through the war, nor the sacrifices they made. I respect absolutely that we had to do something, but with the benefit of hindsight I think we would have been in a much better situation now had we been able to negotiate a peace instead of fighting for it.

[oddballmisfitsFTW]

Originally Posted by spitfire

It's nice to know that you appreciate the sacrifice many made,for you!

why you say this at me? ask me to clarify next time

I do appreciate the sacrifice many made for me and everyone.

But I think avoiding war at all cost is the best option if possible.

But avoiding WWII was not possible, so we went to war, which I agree with.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Livia

Good post Angus. Balanced and informed.

Furthermore, at the end of the war, the allies decided it would do Europe no good to keep Germany in rags, so we rebuilt their country at our own expense. We had borrowed an enormous amount of money from the USA in order to be able to afford to fight a war at all, and we only finished paying that war loan back in December 2006. Germany is now a major manufacturer and economic power, while we're... well, a bit wobbley economically and we produce nothing. In fact we've sold off most of our family jewels too; Rolls Royce, Jaguar, Land Rover... they're all German now.

While I don't disrespect the valour of the generation that pulled us through the war, nor the sacrifices they made. I respect absolutely that we had to do something, but with the benefit of hindsight I think we would have been in a much better situation now had we been able to negotiate a peace instead of fighting for it.

Read my post above and go and research what Hitlers plans were. There was no way in hell any appeasement was going to stop him. That is not hindsight....thats historical fact. His own indoctrines were well known to his gang from day 1 and that was their cause.

[Claymores]

And Ben is back on it AGAIN on LF - suggesting people like Goebels weren't truly Nazis at heart and slagging off Dave's view!

[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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

Read my post above and go and research what Hitlers plans were. There was no way in hell any appeasement was going to stop him. That is not hindsight....thats historical fact. His own indoctrines were well known to his gang from day 1 and that was their cause.

Actually, I've done a lot of research on that period... But thanks for the advice.

[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...

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Claymores

And Ben is back on it AGAIN on LF - suggesting people like Goebels weren't truly Nazis at heart and slagging off Dave's view!

He is truly a nutcase if that is his belief.

Goebbels was known for his zealous oratory and anti-Semitism. He was the chief architect of the Kristallnacht attack on the German Jews, which historians consider to be the beginning of the Final Solution, leading towards the genocide of the Holocaust.

wow....Goebels wasnt a Nazi...and Pol Pot just hated his teacher as a kid.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

Im sorry but that is not an exellent post due to the bit i have quoted.

People forget that the atrocities as you put it had already started long before Germany invaded Poland ( and subsequently our involvement), and things like kristallnacht, the anti-Jewish pogrom in Nazi Germany and Austria from the 9th until the 10th November 1938, were just a sign of Hitlers plan and indoctrines with regards his views on the Aryan Races and the inferior Jewish and Slav races.

You are correct that the precursors of what was to come were there for anyone with eyes to see long before the war started, and Chamberlain's foreign policy of appeasement and his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938 were fundamental errors of judgment which strengthened Hitler's hand and his belief that Britain would not intervene if they invaded Poland and continued their aggressive occupation of neighbouring countries. However, there was still a good chance that if Britain had engaged in diplomatic talks with Hitler in 1940 the worst of the atrocities may have been averted.

[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.

[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 StGeorge

He is truly a nutcase if that is his belief.

Goebbels was known for his zealous oratory and anti-Semitism. He was the chief architect of the Kristallnacht attack on the German Jews, which historians consider to be the beginning of the Final Solution, leading towards the genocide of the Holocaust.

wow....Goebels wasnt a Nazi...and Pol Pot just hated his teacher as a kid.

Yours second para is in a completely different style to the rest of your posts, so I Googled it... and guess what? It's a direct cut and past job from Wiki.

Looks like you're the one who should do a little research.

And actually... if Ben did say that about Geobbels... it was an idiotic thing to say.

[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.

[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.

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by happyland

Yeah.. that's what I want to know too.. It's kind of a misleading thread title if Ben has been saying that he thinks Britain should stay out of conflict!
I kinda thought he had been bigging up Adolf and goosestepping about the house!

Exaggeration is the name of the game on this forum - some members do nothing but exaggerate - just a tactic to discredit hms they don't like!

[oddballmisfitsFTW]

on a serious note, I would like to ask the people who are knowledgable about WWII this

We now know Iraq and Afghanistan was not about WMDS or any other reason the goverment said, but there was and is some other motive for these wars. I am not gonna speculate but there are plenty of theories from various people.

My question is, was there some sinister motive behind WWII? Obviously Hitler and his evil is sinister enough, but I mean, is there a lot more to WWII than people know about.

on a lighter note, who would have thought so many BB fans on a BB forum would be so knowledgable about WWII

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by angus58

You are correct that the precursors of what was to come were there for anyone with eyes to see long before the war started, and Chamberlain's foreign policy of appeasement and his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938 were fundamental errors of judgment which strengthened Hitler's hand and his belief that Britain would not intervene if they invaded Poland and continued their aggressive occupation of neighbouring countries. However, there was still a good chance that if Britain had engaged in diplomatic talks with Hitler in 1940 the worst of the atrocities may have been averted.

Its unfortunate that we will never know. Same as we will never know whether Saddam was intending to build bridges with the world and then become the next Nobel Peace winner. Who knows?

I think the politics of the time were very different to today as armourment mobilization and military means were the predominant policy of most of the nations at the time. But i cant believe that there wasnt at least some negotiations and diplomacy via all those mentioned before who were sympathetic to Hitler like the Prince of Wales etc.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Livia

Yours second para is in a completely different style to the rest of your posts, so I Googled it... and guess what? It's a direct cut and past job from Wiki.

Looks like you're the one who should do a little research.

And actually... if Ben did say that about Geobbels... it was an idiotic thing to say.

100% correct and i apologise for being a lazy git, but i quickly researched Goebbells as i will not post what i do not know about.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

100% correct and i apologise for being a lazy git, but i quickly researched Goebbells as i will not post what i do not know about.

LOL... okay. That's honest!

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Livia

LOL... okay. That's honest!

Thanks i try to be....good spot tho'.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

Thanks i try to be....good spot tho'.

Yeah well, sometimes it saves time to let someone else have written it down what you were thinking. I've never done it myself of course. Never. Not ever. Not even once. Do you believe that?!?