OT: Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War

[Byker]

A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic for this NG
since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

Just think if Lord Halifax would have been PM instead of Churchill, which
very nearly happened. When the BEF was pushed all the way back to the
Channel, he'd probably have sued for peace, and Franco-Prussian War II would
have lasted a grand total of eight months. It's not as ludicrous as it
sounds. In April, 1940, over 90% of Americans polled wanted nothing to do
with getting involved in another European war. 110,000 U.S. troops died in
WWI, and the popular notion that we were "duped" into getting involved
produced a resentment that lasted a generation.

Interesting scenario to ponder:

[SolomonW]

Post by Byker

A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic for this NG
since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

Just think if Lord Halifax would have been PM instead of Churchill, which
very nearly happened.

I am not so sure although many wanted Lord Halifax as Prime Minister after
the resignation of Neville Chamberlain, he declined.

Partly it was dubious if he could be and part of the problem was the lack
of support he had from the Labour Party.

Post by Byker
When the BEF was pushed all the way back to the
Channel, he'd probably have sued for peace, and Franco-Prussian War II would
have lasted a grand total of eight months.

This is possible, both Halifax and Chamberlain wanted peace at this point.

I am not sure what sort of peace it would be, during the Napoleonic wars,
Britain made peace several times and then broke it.

Britain would be arming fast. Germans would still need vast reserves in the
West just in case. Would the British and U.S. allow war materials into
Germany?

Post by Byker
It's not as ludicrous as it
sounds. In April, 1940, over 90% of Americans polled wanted nothing to do
with getting involved in another European war. 110,000 U.S. troops died in
WWI, and the popular notion that we were "duped" into getting involved
produced a resentment that lasted a generation.

But also surveys at the time showed that Americans thought that sooner or
later they would get involved.

Post by Byker
Interesting scenario to ponder: http://youtu.be/EnQ_3anpWQk

Very nice. Spelling mistakes

I doubt Hitler would have offered anywhere as much as this POD assumes.


Some points would Barbarossa have been so successful if Britain and Germany
had been at peace. I doubt it would be a surprise.

Would the British and the U.S. have done nothing is Hitler attacks Russia,
it is very much than in their interest that Russia holds! They supplied
China, why not Russia?

Why would the axis allies not send forces to help Germany take Russia, and
why would Hitler refuse more troops?

Also, I doubt Hitler if he was winning would make peace with Russia, and if
he did, he would undoubtedly intervene in a later Russian Civil War.

[Byker]

Post by SolomonW

Post by Byker
http://youtu.be/EnQ_3anpWQk

Very nice. Spelling mistakes

Not mine...

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Byker
Just think if Lord Halifax would have been PM instead of Churchill, which
very nearly happened. When the BEF was pushed all the way back to the
Channel, he'd probably have sued for peace, and Franco-Prussian War II would
have lasted a grand total of eight months.

And there would be further and bloodier wars when Nazi Germany renewed
its career of aggression. Moral idiots like Buchanan imagine that Nazi
Germany would have destroyed the USSR and then everything would be all
rosy. That assumes Germany would win that war - not at all certain,
since Germany would not be attacking with complete operational and
and tactical surprise as in OTL.

If Germany loses, the USSR would have the sole credit for doing it,
and would "liberate" the whole of Europe. Communism's pose as the
true enemy of Nazism would be a reality, not a fake. With Communist
control of the home countries, Communism would be imposed throughout
the French, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese colonies.

Also, the USSR would develop the atomic bomb first. Britain couldn't
afford to, and the peaceful US would never allocate the enormous
budget. (Besides which, many American and British scientists had
left-wing and pacifist sympathies; they worked on the Bomb only
because they feared the Nazis might get it.

So there's Buchanan's result: Soviet control of all Europe, most of
Africa, major chunks of SE Asia, and a substantial beachhead in the
Americas.

But let's stay with Buchanan's preferred fantasy: Nazi Germany
triumphant. We know the horrors Nazi Germany perpetrated in its
short and territorially limited rampage. Those horrors would be
expanded and extended. Nazi success would inspire imitation and
alliance. The peace with Britain would soon dissolve as Germany
moved against Britain in the Middle East. (Germany wants the
oil, and the Arabs like Germany and want Germany to support them
against Britain.)

Germany would support Indian nationalists like Bose, so there
goes the Empire. The Afrikaners in South Africa were pro-German
already. Japan would mop up SE Asia.

The US of course could ignore all this - until Latin American
nations began veering into fascism, in imitation of the highly
successful German model. (See Peronism in Argentina, and
Integralism in Brazil.)

Eventually, of course, the US would have to fight - on far worse
terms than OTL's WW II. Or maybe the US could do what Buchanan
might secretly want - become a fascist and explicitly racist
state like Germany. (He doesn't want that? Well, there were lots
of leftists who claimed they didn't want the US to go Communist,
while opposing every effort to resist Communism. I never believed
them.)

[Byker]

Auschwitz visit: Angela Merkel says past Nazi crimes part of German
identity
Chancellor Angela Merkel has said Germany has an unending responsibility
to remember the Nazis' war crimes, as she made her first trip while in
office to the Auschwitz death camp in Poland.
The responsibility was "part of our national identity", she said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50671663

The late Charles Krauthammer on Fox commented that the shame of the
Holocaust in WWII Europe has all but worn off after seventy years. He also
noted that anti-Semitism has been part and parcel of European civilization
for the last 2,000 years and nothing is going to change that.

Ask Polish, Austrian, and French Gentiles, and they'll say something like,
"Oh, yes, that was a terrible thing that happened to the Jews." But were
some Merlin the Magician to wave a magic wand and bring all six million Jews
back, would the Poles, Austrians, and French really WANT them back? NOT!

In his book "Justice, Not Vengeance" (1990), Simon Wiesenthal devotes a
chapter to former U.N. Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim, whose involvement
with the Nazis during WWII was brought to light shortly after he became
president of Austria. Although he was not charged with any war crimes, the
Wiesenthalers hoped that this disclosure would provoke so much public
indignation that he would resign. As expected, his approval rating took a
nose-dive, from 70% to less than 40% virtually overnight. Waldheim,
however, stuck to his guns and refused to budge. Then a curious thing
happened: His popularity began to creep upwards again, and within a few
weeks it was right back up where it was before. Simon and company scratched
their heads and wondered what the hell was going on. Then it finally dawned
on them: After spending 40-plus years hearing Jews bitch about what
happened to them at the hands of the Nazis, the Austrians were simply sick
and tired of hearing it. It was as if they were collectively saying, "Fuck
you and your Holocaust! We don't want to hear it anymore."