Old boy with a sense of humour

I think that's a considerably over played card

 

You're crazy! The real problem was their willingness to support and collude
with Communists, a far greater threat to the world than the Nazis ever were.
FFS Hitler was a child by comparison. WWII hadn't even ended before that
came back to bite them.

 

From wikipedia, but referenced:

[He] claimed that the fascism of Benito Mussolini had "rendered a
service to the whole world," showing, as it had, "a way to combat
subversive forces"\u2014that is, he considered the regime to be a
bulwark against the perceived threat of Communist revolution. At one
point, Churchill went as far as to call Mussolini the "Roman
genius... the greatest lawgiver among men."[86]

Speaking in the House of Commons in 1937, Churchill said "I will not
pretend that, if I had to choose between communism and Nazism, I would
choose communism".[112] In a 1935 essay, entitled "Hitler and his
Choice" as republished in Churchill's 1937 book Great Contemporaries,
Churchill expressed a hope that Hitler, if he so chose, and despite
his rise to power through dictatorial action, hatred, and cruelty, he
might yet "go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace
of mind to the great Germanic nation and brought it back serene,
helpful and strong, to the forefront of the European family circle."[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

Elsewhere:

Churchill's anti-Bolshevism was fanatic. In 1927 he told Italy's
Fascist Party, "If I had been an Italian, I would have been entirely
with you from the beginning to the end of your victorious struggle
against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism."

After Hitler came to power, Churchill proclaimed that "if our country
were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to
restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations."
When the Spanish civil war broke out, Nazi pilots helped Franco
overthrow the Left-led republic, armed by Stalin. Churchill announced
that he "will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism
or Nazism, I would choose Communism."

http://www.word-power.co.uk/viewPlatform.php?id=388

(Brenner has also made available the Stern Gang's manifesto for
cooperation with Hitler, which is interesting reading.)

 

OK I admit I went off at a tangent to your actual point, reading back.

If one had the benefit of hindsight the Germans would have been left alone
until they destroyed the Communists. But then again you can't argue for
either, communism and fascism have a parent and child relationship IMHO.
Not in dogma (of course) but in effect.

Then again with hindsight the UK should never have gone to war per se.

What does engage me a little is present day China. Should it still be
considered a communist state or is it in fact now a fascist state, given the
significant trasfer of control over capital that has taken place in 20
years.

 

Before or after they destroyed the Jews?

 

I don't believe that Germany would have ever been able to destroy Russia. Not
on their own, at any rate.

 

We didn't and probably couldn't stop them doing that.

Rather pointless speculation but if we hadn't plunged Germany into WWII
*perhaps* Britain could have negotiated the release and relocation of the
Jews to Israel and avoided further Holocaust. Would have saved the British
economy and several million British lives. And so on. Sure, parts of
Europe would have had to endure Nazi rule but parts got Soviets rule instead
and were no better off.

 

If Germany hadn't had to fight was against the Allies in Europe and over the
channel I believe they could have destroyed the Communist regime. As it
was, it ran close. Had they conserved strength and launched the offensive
earlier in the year it would probably have succeeded. Remember how British
action in the area which became Yugoslavia delayed Barbarosa 3 weeks, just
long enough for the severe winter of that year to bog the Germans down near
Moscow. The German army was equipped for a summer/autumn campaign.

Remember, Stalin did not believe Hitler would attack Russia any time soon,
though he suspected it would happen eventually. He was unprepared. The
slow Nazi advance gave the Russians time to rail transport the huge Siberian
winter equipped army from Vladivostok to North of Moscow. Had the Germans
reached Moscow quickly and severed those rail and command links it could
have been a very different story.

 

Cab said:

I don't believe that Germany would have ever been able to destroy
Russia. Not on their own, at any rate.
--

They sure put a dent in them tho. Killed
more Russians than Jews.

Russia was asking for U.S. aid but we
waited, (didnt want Germany to take
Russia just kill as many as possible)

No submarines in the area when Russia
1st asked for aid, but by the time U.S.
decided to send supplies, German subs
sunk most of our ships.

Interesting thread here
I only have 1 question
Dont know how many of you
are ex-military

But how high would you go up the chain
of command to find someone accountable?

Like I said I never got higher than Sgt.
in the military but I was still just a
Do What Your Told man.

To hold Hitlers action against a German
Pvt. is silly.

My grandmother German
Grandfather Irish
Mother Cherokee

No French that I know of--Thk Goodness-J/K

 

Actually, Germany quite probably could have, and damn nearly did. You
have to remember the divisions in Soviet Russia at the time - the
Commies were cordially hated by many.

"Divide and rule" still holds good. Had Hitler followed the counsel of
some of his more far-sighted generals, and offered a degree of autonomy
to a non-Communist Russia, histry might have been very different.

Germany was *welcomed* into many Russian cities and regions.
Unfortunately for the welcomers, they soon discovered that Germany had
no intention but to treat them as expendable slaves.

 

That might have had something to do with the fact that the US was
fiercely neutral when Germany invaded.

I suppose you're now going to tell us that we'd be speaking German if
you hadn't joined in.

Remind me: when did you declare war on germany?

 

The Older Gentleman wibbled forthrightly:

You're quite right and I think you've hit the nail on the head in your
second para. Hitler was so anti-communist that he fought tactics that
may have done him well on the propaganda front, but not on the tactical
front. And it's because he didn't listen to his generals that I don't
believe that Germany would have conquered Russia. He undertook moves,
that had his generals been able to convince Hitler to change his mind,
would have been far too late to rectify and bring to German advantage.

I'm not convinced that the fear of Stalin would have made that much
difference. You could be right though.

 

Well, I think it's more likely that each nation or national group has
its own slant on history. You'd only get history written by the
victors if the losers were totally annihilated or totally subdued.

 

And the Duke of Windsor might have become the Nazi puppet king with
"that American woman" as his queen. Talk about outrage...

SQ

 

Pretty much the point Hans Becker makes in his book, devil on my
shoulder. It was the following extermination crews that forced many
originally welcoming peoples back to fight on the soviet side.

 

Split into four.

SQ

 

Several million British lives? 350,000 - 500,000 depending on your
source...

 

Are you counting all of the Colonials?

 

The main reason for the failure of Barbarossa was the inadequate
German logistics and that depended, in part, on a lot of captured
French and British trucks running on captured French petrol. There
were also a lot of German units using captured weapons and ammunition
against the Soviets.

Not fighting the Western allies is more likely to make the German
attack on the Soviets weaker rather than stronger.

Cheers,

John

 

It seems like a good day to modify history