Dunkirk 70 years on

[Calix]

What if the evacuation had failed, If Hitler hadn't issued the 'stop' order and the whole BEF was captured? Britain would have made peace with Germany. Tens of millions of lives would have been saved, including hundreds of thousands of British soldiers. The Stalinisation of half of Europe would have been prevented, and Britain would have remained a world power, not a virtual vassal state of America. The Nazis would have ruled Europe, but would that really have been worse than the Soviets, who murdered tens of millions more than even Hitler?

Villa THIS IS FOR YOU.

[Lady Redname]

Is there somewhere we can report calix for actually being a nazi?

[Nixon]

hadrians wall would have saved me

[Villa]

What if the evacuation had failed, If Hitler hadn't issued the 'stop' order and the whole BEF was captured? Britain would have made peace with Germany. Tens of millions of lives would have been saved, including hundreds of thousands of British soldiers. The Stalinisation of half of Europe would have been prevented, and Britain would have remained a world power, not a virtual vassal state of America. The Nazis would have ruled Europe, but would that really have been worse than the Soviets, who murdered tens of millions more than even Hitler?

Villa THIS IS FOR YOU.

All of this is true.
Also, no Israel, plus we'd all be driving around in BMWs.

On the other hand, no World Cup 1966 or the spirit of the Blitz:(

Where did you get this from? Stormfront?

[Calix]

lol wtf is stormfront, best neonazis I assume?

I WROTE IT MYSELF

Been reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill, ... essary_War

&

'The chief culprit' by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov

[pain]

*err shit, I edited your post rather than replied:/* - Clx

By make peace I think you mean surrender to all of Germany's demands, make huge concessions that would have dwarfed the Treaty of Versailles, and then basically do whatever Berlin commanded in areas of foreign policy.

That's not even close to the truth. The Nazi's (with the exception of Ribbentrop) were desperate for peace with Britain - and never wanted war with the nation they admired so much. Their hand was forced by Chamberlain's terrible handling of the Danzig/Polish corridor issue, and the needless war guarantee to Poland. Britain could have gained good terms even after the weakness of her position after Dunkirk. Even if you set all that aside: How about making peace after the Battle of Britain? This country would have held all the cards at that point.

You're wrong about Hitler's intentions as well, as far as I can see from what i've read on the subject(a lot). War with the west was forced on him by a warmongering Churchill, a stupid Chamberlain and a gullible Josef Beck. Conquest of Russia and "Drang Nach Osten" were his only territorial aims. The Nazi's spent 1934-1939 attempting to make Poland and Britain their allies for a forthcoming war with Russia.

How was 'standing up the Nazi's' the best thing this country ever did when it resulted in the ruin of this country and Soviet domination of Europe? Peace was the better option for all of Europe, not just Britain.

Recommeded reading:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitler-Ian-Kers ... 613&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chief-Culprit-S ... 641&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchill-Hitle ... =1-1-fkmr0

[Villa]

So basically, you wanted the Russians to win?
WTF is wrong with you? you'd prefer to drive around in a Lada/Skoda/Yugo shitmobile rather than a merc or beemer?

[Calix]

Edited Pain's post instead of replying. I'm beste. His text = mine.

[Benn]

rofl censorship

[Superfast Oz]

haha

[pain]

*err shit, I edited your post rather than replied:/* - Clx

By make peace I think you mean surrender to all of Germany's demands, make huge concessions that would have dwarfed the Treaty of Versailles, and then basically do whatever Berlin commanded in areas of foreign policy.

That's not even close to the truth. The Nazi's (with the exception of Ribbentrop) were desperate for peace with Britain - and never wanted war with the nation they admired so much. Their hand was forced by Chamberlain's terrible handling of the Danzig/Polish corridor issue, and the needless war guarantee to Poland. Britain could have gained good terms even after the weakness of her position after Dunkirk. Even if you set all that aside: How about making peace after the Battle of Britain? This country would have held all the cards at that point.

You're wrong about Hitler's intentions as well, as far as I can see from what i've read on the subject(a lot). War with the west was forced on him by a warmongering Churchill, a stupid Chamberlain and a gullible Josef Beck. Conquest of Russia and "Drang Nach Osten" were his only territorial aims. The Nazi's spent 1934-1939 attempting to make Poland and Britain their allies for a forthcoming war with Russia.

How was 'standing up the Nazi's' the best thing this country ever did when it resulted in the ruin of this country and Soviet domination of Europe? Peace was the better option for all of Europe, not just Britain.

Recommeded reading:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitler-Ian-Kers ... 613&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chief-Culprit-S ... 641&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchill-Hitle ... =1-1-fkmr0

I doubt you can provide any good evidence that Hitler or his inner-circle were 'desperate' for peace as he famously kept almost no notes on his meetings, leaving a huge gap in the primary sources for historians to examine his intentions after the start of war.

I think in light of the Nazi's popularity being originally launched on the back of anger at the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler's occupation and ruthless Nazifying of the French population (removing Jews etc) and what we can determine of his aims from Mein Kampf, Zweites Buch and his many speeches, which you can find in a book edited by Baynes, peace would not have been kind on Britain. It's clear in Mein Kampf, which generally Hitler followed quite closely once gaining power, that he intended to secure the lebensraum to the east that you specified. But, he also spelled out that he intended to overthrow Britain's Empire, completely dominate Europe, then use it to challenge the United States.

There is no evidence to say that Britain could have got good terms after Dunkirk and, given her relative weakness to Germany and the complete collapse of her only ally, I really struggle to understand why you think Hitler would have made peace then allowed a free-trading and competitive British Empire to carry on as an ever-lingering naval threat.

So peace would have been better for all of Europe if we had stood by when one race of people systematically murdered billions and billions of people?
At least our half of Europe recovered relatively well from the war. What the Soviets did in Eastern Europe was utterly appalling, but you need to think that within the context of the 1930s Hitler represented a much more belligerent and menacing threat. The Soviets weren't expanding like that. The only war Russia forced onto another country was the Winter War which, both at the time and in hindsight, was a very sensible protection of her own security in the face of Nazi intimidation. No such explanation can be offered to, for example, the rape of Prague.

Britain and France had to cling to the idea of continuing collective security on their own doorstep and also strike Germany before she could arm herself and achieve an invincible position. Germany began major economic reorganisation in 1936 and it is completely undisputable that the economy from then onwards was designed for war. I think what you are trying to say is that in restrospect we should have allowed a very aggressive country with a mad man in charge become way more militarily powerful than us, just because he 'respected' Britain? I don't think any politician could make such a call.

Entering the war for Poland, then, had to be the correct decision at the time. There are only two regrets, one of which is not taking action sooner, even though appeasement is clearly explainable in the context of the budget, national sentiment, the bomber deterrent taking priority over raising a standing army, and the clear messages from the US that she was not getting involved.
The other regret would be waiting a year for Germany to attack after declaring war. In September 1939 Germany's economic reorganisation was incomplete and the reason Hitler did not want war was because he simply could not have won one at that point. Entering Poland was a gamble and Russian accounts of his behaviour when they made the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, was that he was shitting himself about it. If England and France had pressed forward there and then it has been estimated that Germany, despite having more tanks and guns, actually wouldn't have had the ammunition for an effective war of any duration at all.

[Calix]

I doubt you can provide any good evidence that Hitler or his inner-circle were 'desperate' for peace as he famously kept almost no notes on his meetings, leaving a huge gap in the primary sources for historians to examine his intentions after the start of war.

If you examine each prewar crisis in turn, The Rhineland, Anschluss, Munich, Polish Corridor, every move the Nazi's make(with the exception of the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia) is designed to keep the British onside. I'd need to quote almost the entire first half of the Buchanan book in evidence. I really suggest you read it.

I think in light of the Nazi's popularity being originally launched on the back of anger at the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler's occupation and ruthless Nazifying of the French population (removing Jews etc) and what we can determine of his aims from Mein Kampf, Zweites Buch and his many speeches, which you can find in a book edited by Baynes, peace would not have been kind on Britain. It's clear in Mein Kampf, which generally Hitler followed quite closely once gaining power, that he intended to secure the lebensraum to the east that you specified. But, he also spelled out that he intended to overthrow Britain's Empire, completely dominate Europe, then use it to challenge the United States.

There is no evidence to say that Britain could have got good terms after Dunkirk and, given her relative weakness to Germany and the complete collapse of her only ally, I really struggle to understand why you think Hitler would have made peace then allowed a free-trading and competitive British Empire to carry on as an ever-lingering naval threat.

How would peace have been unkind on Britain? Hitler was completely unable to impose anything on Britain. It wouldn't have been a case of surrendering. The Germans had no way of making landing on the British Isles, as proven in summer 40. They also had no ability to attack more than a handful of colonial assets. Mein Kampf expresses strong admiration for Britain as well as stating on multiple occaisions that a Continental German Empire would have no quarrel with a British Colonial Empire with no interests in Continental Europe. If Hitler had planned on challlenging Great Britain, why did he completely forgo Naval expansion? Defeating Britain would have been impossible without Naval parity, even if they had wished to.

Why were all of Hitlers prewar territorial claims in the East? Why did he not clamour for the return of territories in the west, taken in 1918? Northern Schleswig, Eupen, Alsace-Lorraine? In 1939 Hitler offered to guarantee the French-German border. Are these the actions of someone seeking conflict with the West?

"If Hitler was at all planning an invasion of France, why did he, at monstrous cost, build purely defensive fortifications up and down the Rhineland? The Kaiser never built a Siegfried Line, because Moltke's army of 1914 planned to attack on the first day of war" - A J P Taylor - The Origins of the Second World War.

"Hitler was more moderate than his predecessors in that he did not aspire to colonies overseas, nor to territorial gains in Western Europe" - A J P Taylor - The Origins of the Second World War.

"To Hitler, Great Britain was Germany's natural ally and the nation and empire he most admired. He did not covet British colonies. He did not want or seek to rival the Royal Navy. He was prepared to appease Britain to make her a friend of Germany. Where the Kaiser had grudgingly agreed in 1913 to restrict the High Seas Fleet to 60% of the Royal Navy, Hitler in 1935 readily agreed to restrict his navy to 35%" - P Buchanan - Churchill Hitler and the Unnecessary War

"By late 1922, an alliance with Britain, whose World Empire he admired, was in Hitler's mind" - Ian Kershaw - Hitler

"For a long time to come there will only be two powers in Europe with which it may be possible for Germany to conclude an alliance. These powers are Great Britain and Italy" - Hitler - Mein Kampf

"Hitler had no basic quarrel with Britain. Unlike Wilhelm II, he had no wish from the outset to rival the British Navy, nor covet the British Empire. His territorial aims were in Central and Eastern Europe and further east. He could never understand why the British constantly sought to interfere" - Sir Roy Denman - Missed Chances, Britain and Europe in the 20th Century.

"The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to be shed. Our two people belong together racially and traditionally - this is and has always been my aim even if our generals can't grasp it" - Quote attributed to Hitler by his friend Frau Troost.

Hitler told Martin Bormann he had issued his 'stop' order to his units ready to attack the British units at Dunkirk, sparing the British army so as not to create "an irreperable breach between the British and ourselves"

"The Fuhrer believes that the British Empire must be preserved if at all possible. For if it collapses, then we shall not inherit it, but foreign and even hostile powers take it over. But if England will have it not other way, then she must be beaten to her knees. The Fuhrer, however, would be agreeable to peace on the following basis: England out of Europe, colonies and mandates returned. Reperation for what was stolen for us after the World War" - Joseph Goebbels diary

"Hitler then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for it's existence and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world....He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church - saying that they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany's position on the continent. The return of Germany's lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties elsewhere. He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain, on a basis that she would regard compatible with her honour to accept" - Basil Liddel Hart - The Other Side of the Hill (Relating a conversation Hitler had at Charleville, after Dunkirk)

"Germany is not striving to smash Britain because the beneficiaries will not be Germany, but Japan in the east, Russia in India, Italy in the Mediterranean and America in world trade. This is why peace is possible with Britain - but not so long as Churchill is prime minister. Thus we must see what the Luftwaffe can do, and wait a possible general election" - Hitler, August 14th 1940.

"Hitler did not even build up his Navy to the limited scale envisaged in the Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 1935. He constantly assured his admirals that they could discount any risk of war with Britain. After Munich, he told them that they need not anticipate a conflict with Britain in the next six years at least" Basil Liddel Hart - Hitlers Strategy

Want more?

At least our half of Europe recovered relatively well from the war. What the Soviets did in Eastern Europe was utterly appalling, but you need to think that within the context of the 1930s Hitler represented a much more belligerent and menacing threat. The Soviets weren't expanding like that. The only war Russia forced onto another country was the Winter War which, both at the time and in hindsight, was a very sensible protection of her own security in the face of Nazi intimidation. No such explanation can be offered to, for example, the rape of Prague.

Are you serious? Soviet territorial gains were GREATER than German until 1940. Half of Poland(taken 1 week after Germany took it's share of the Molotov-Ribbentop pact). The Baltic states occupied. How on earth can you claim the Winter War had anything to do with Germany? That's completely ludicrous. Is there a single serious Historian that would back this? I'd love to know if so. You realise the Germans were welcomed as liberators from the Soviets in the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia?

Half of Europe recovered well from the war? Half of Europe didn't need to even go to war. It only did due to Churchill's fervent anti-german sentiment and warmongering. Hitler had no ambitions in Western Europe, as stated pretty well by the quotes above(That's not even half of what I found in less than 30 minutes if you're interested in more)

Britain and France had to cling to the idea of continuing collective security on their own doorstep and also strike Germany before she could arm herself and achieve an invincible position. Germany began major economic reorganisation in 1936 and it is completely undisputable that the economy from then onwards was designed for war. I think what you are trying to say is that in restrospect we should have allowed a very aggressive country with a mad man in charge become way more militarily powerful than us, just because he 'respected' Britain? I don't think any politician could make such a call.

Why not? The exact same call was made about the Russians, who never claimed any respect for Britain. We were happy for them to walk into Poland a week after the Germans. Happy for them to occupy the Baltics. Happy for them to build the largest army in the world. Germany and Russia were not Britain's fight. Neither had any interest in us, or we in them.

Entering the war for Poland, then, had to be the correct decision at the time.

Why? What were Britain's interests in Poland? What did we seek to gain from declaring war in their support? And before you even reach that point, I can provide a wealth of quotes explaining why the German invasion of Poland was brought about by British-backed Polish intransigence over Danzig rather than any desire of the Nazi's to make war on Poland. All the evidence points to a desire for a strategic alliance with Poland against Russia. Again i'm happy to provide evidence and quotes.

Are you saying that declaring war over Poland was the right decision just to 'stop' Hitler, rather than for any actual aim of helping the Polish? How did declaring war over Poland come even close, or could ever have come close to stopping him? All it did was force him into the arms of Stalin, who was desperate to see the Western powers destroy each other. Hitlers attention was diverted westwards for a year by British stupidity. Encouraging war between Germany and Russia would have been a far superior strategy, as opposed to driving them into each others arms with a ridiculous war guarantee to Poland.

Why did Britain declare war on Germany for invading Poland, but not on Russia for the same act?

"The war guarantee to Poland was the most reckless undertaking ever given by a British Government. It placed the decision of war in Europe in the hands of a reckless, intransigent, swashbuckling Polish military dictatorship" - Roy Denman - Missed Chances, Britain and Europe in the 20th Century.

I missed your part about Hitler wishing to confront America. Please provide quotes/evidence, i've got some amazing counters if any evidence supporting your claim actually exists!

[Fatalist]

tits beer tits

[Ingo]

Just run it through HOI III. Definitive answer.

[pain]

If you examine each prewar crisis in turn, The Rhineland, Anschluss, Munich, Polish Corridor, every move the Nazi's make(with the exception of the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia) is designed to keep the British onside. I'd need to quote almost the entire first half of the Buchanan book in evidence. I really suggest you read it.

Keep the British onside? That can easily be put down to wanting to not draw Britain into conflict until Germany was strong enough to fight her, a key concern of Hitler's foreign policy pre-September 1939.
I could probably get by without reading it, my reading around international affairs in this period is very extensive as the build up to WWII was approximately a quarter of my final year at uni and I got firsts in every assignment or exam that I did, sometimes at the top of the module group (about 50 other students).

How would peace have been unkind on Britain? Hitler was completely unable to impose anything on Britain. It wouldn't have been a case of surrendering. The Germans had no way of making landing on the British Isles, as proven in summer 40. They also had no ability to attack more than a handful of colonial assets. Mein Kampf expresses strong admiration for Britain as well as stating on multiple occaisions that a Continental German Empire would have no quarrel with a British Colonial Empire with no interests in Continental Europe. If Hitler had planned on challlenging Great Britain, why did he completely forgo Naval expansion? Defeating Britain would have been impossible without Naval parity, even if they had wished to.

Naval expansion would logically follow the building of a larger continental landmass. As I have said, subjugating Britain is likely to have followed but it was certainly not his aim to do that first, Hitler was far too pragmatic and intelligent for that.
You may or may not have heard of Copenhagen 1807, when the British, fearing Napoleon controlling the Danish fleet and using it to attack Britain, without any forewarning completely destroyed the fleet of a country they were not at war with.
This seriously affected confidence behind German naval policy before WWI (there's a good essay on this but I'm assuming you don't have access to historical journals) and, though I obviously can't prove it, could have served as a good reminder not to begin building a fleet that will match Britain's, unless you want to get hit by a pre-emptive strike.

Why were all of Hitlers prewar territorial claims in the East? Why did he not clamour for the return of territories in the west, taken in 1918? Northern Schleswig, Eupen, Alsace-Lorraine? In 1939 Hitler offered to guarantee the French-German border. Are these the actions of someone seeking conflict with the West?

Does the Rhineland ring any bells? Again, he was hardly going to go head on into a war with France when Germany didn't have the economy to back up going to war.

"If Hitler was at all planning an invasion of France, why did he, at monstrous cost, build purely defensive fortifications up and down the Rhineland? The Kaiser never built a Siegfried Line, because Moltke's army of 1914 planned to attack on the first day of war" - A J P Taylor - The Origins of the Second World War.

"Hitler was more moderate than his predecessors in that he did not aspire to colonies overseas, nor to territorial gains in Western Europe" - A J P Taylor - The Origins of the Second World War.

I wondered if the AJP Taylor would come out. It was a very important revisionist book at the time and he is a great historian, but I am afraid a consensus has been reached since its publication and I haven't read any historians who actually give AJP Taylor credit on his argument that Hitler wanted to avoid war. In fact most historians actively distance themselves from that these days because subsequent studies into Nazi foreign policy have shown that Hitler’s behaviour was consistent with his 1925 doctrine that “Germany will either be a world power or there will be no Germany” Mein Kampf p. 597 (trans. Manheim).
World power at the time was defined by having colonies overseas.

A more up to date and pretty decent read is W. Carr, Arms, Autarky and Aggression: A Study in German Foreign Policy, 1933-1939 (London, 1972)

"To Hitler, Great Britain was Germany's natural ally and the nation and empire he most admired. He did not covet British colonies. He did not want or seek to rival the Royal Navy. He was prepared to appease Britain to make her a friend of Germany. Where the Kaiser had grudgingly agreed in 1913 to restrict the High Seas Fleet to 60% of the Royal Navy, Hitler in 1935 readily agreed to restrict his navy to 35%" - P Buchanan - Churchill Hitler and the Unnecessary War

"By late 1922, an alliance with Britain, whose World Empire he admired, was in Hitler's mind" - Ian Kershaw - Hitler

"For a long time to come there will only be two powers in Europe with which it may be possible for Germany to conclude an alliance. These powers are Great Britain and Italy" - Hitler - Mein Kampf

"Hitler had no basic quarrel with Britain. Unlike Wilhelm II, he had no wish from the outset to rival the British Navy, nor covet the British Empire. His territorial aims were in Central and Eastern Europe and further east. He could never understand why the British constantly sought to interfere" - Sir Roy Denman - Missed Chances, Britain and Europe in the 20th Century.

"The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to be shed. Our two people belong together racially and traditionally - this is and has always been my aim even if our generals can't grasp it" - Quote attributed to Hitler by his friend Frau Troost.

Hitler told Martin Bormann he had issued his 'stop' order to his units ready to attack the British units at Dunkirk, sparing the British army so as not to create "an irreperable breach between the British and ourselves"

"The Fuhrer believes that the British Empire must be preserved if at all possible. For if it collapses, then we shall not inherit it, but foreign and even hostile powers take it over. But if England will have it not other way, then she must be beaten to her knees. The Fuhrer, however, would be agreeable to peace on the following basis: England out of Europe, colonies and mandates returned. Reperation for what was stolen for us after the World War" - Joseph Goebbels diary

"Hitler then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for it's existence and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world....He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church - saying that they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany's position on the continent. The return of Germany's lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties elsewhere. He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain, on a basis that she would regard compatible with her honour to accept" - Basil Liddel Hart - The Other Side of the Hill (Relating a conversation Hitler had at Charleville, after Dunkirk)

"Germany is not striving to smash Britain because the beneficiaries will not be Germany, but Japan in the east, Russia in India, Italy in the Mediterranean and America in world trade. This is why peace is possible with Britain - but not so long as Churchill is prime minister. Thus we must see what the Luftwaffe can do, and wait a possible general election" - Hitler, August 14th 1940.

"Hitler did not even build up his Navy to the limited scale envisaged in the Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 1935. He constantly assured his admirals that they could discount any risk of war with Britain. After Munich, he told them that they need not anticipate a conflict with Britain in the next six years at least" Basil Liddel Hart - Hitlers Strategy

Want more?

I'm not gonna write a separate answer to every one of those quotes as you are just using what historians have said without putting it into the context of your own argument. Some of them are just contradictory. If you agree with AJP Taylor that Germany didn't want overseas colonies, then saying she wanted an alliance means she desired to be the smaller power in a relationship with Britain.

In response to most of those quotes about Hitler wanting an alliance with Britain: It's quite possible, but we need to lay off the counter-factual stuff and study what seemed most sensible and realistic to politicians at the time.
One problem is France - how could anyone in London morally enter a unilateral alliance with Germany, leaving France out in the cold, whilst her hated and feared neighbour becomes one of the top world powers. Hitler might have seen himself as a natural racial ally with Britain, but why do you think that should have been reciprocated?
The reason I'm proud of the fact we went to war with Germany is that we didn't see a lunatic who wanted to exterminate all of the Jews in Europe as a natural ally, even if he did us. France were a progressive and liberal country so it was clearly better to keep her as an ally, for the unification of Germany had transformed her from our oldest enemy to Britain's natural ally.

Also, if Hitler came for an alliance, how could that be trusted?? Hitler was in alliance with Russia when operation Barbarossa began I don't think any politician or statesman at the time could have judged that Hitler actually cared about helping Britain, rather than just using her as a naval ally whilst she wiped out opposition on the Continent - the first step in his evil genius world plan.

Are you serious? Soviet territorial gains were GREATER than German until 1940. Half of Poland(taken 1 week after Germany took it's share of the Molotov-Ribbentop pact). The Baltic states occupied. How on earth can you claim the Winter War had anything to do with Germany? That's completely ludicrous. Is there a single serious Historian that would back this? I'd love to know if so. You realise the Germans were welcomed as liberators from the Soviets in the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia?

It's a well known fact amongst historians but I'll just give you the facts. It's very straight forward to see the connection between Finnland and Germany. Finnland was clearly sympathysing with Hitler and looked like to be an ally. Then there is the economic link: Germany aimed to be fully autarkic, but she never managed it. The key things missing were oil and iron ore. Germany's iron ore came from Finnland, cut that off and the German economic war machine would have ground to a halt.
So, now the link between Finnland and Germany is established, why were Russia worried? Just go on maps.google.com and have a look at how close to the border St Petersburg is. Also, you could try looking up where Finnland's ports were, which could have been used for German assitance in an attack to grab St Petersburg whilst Germany tore Russia open on the eastern front.

I would reccomend research into both economic history and the realpolitik concept of the time that led nation's to believe they needed a protective sphere of influence, particularly when a dangerous enemy exists on your border. The baltics and Poland fall under the same category, before and after the war.

Half of Europe recovered well from the war? Half of Europe didn't need to even go to war. It only did due to Churchill's fervent anti-german sentiment and warmongering. Hitler had no ambitions in Western Europe, as stated pretty well by the quotes above(That's not even half of what I found in less than 30 minutes if you're interested in more)

I think I would be repeating myself to again justify why western Europe could not allow Hitler to become five times more powerful economically and militarily. I'll say no to the quotes.

Britain and France had to cling to the idea of continuing collective security on their own doorstep and also strike Germany before she could arm herself and achieve an invincible position. Germany began major economic reorganisation in 1936 and it is completely undisputable that the economy from then onwards was designed for war. I think what you are trying to say is that in restrospect we should have allowed a very aggressive country with a mad man in charge become way more militarily powerful than us, just because he 'respected' Britain? I don't think any politician could make such a call.

Why not? The exact same call was made about the Russians, who never claimed any respect for Britain. We were happy for them to walk into Poland a week after the Germans. Happy for them to occupy the Baltics. Happy for them to build the largest army in the world. Germany and Russia were not Britain's fight. Neither had any interest in us, or we in them.

Russia never had any interest in Britain? Have you heard of The Great Game?? Britain clearly were worried about Russia eventually (Cold War) but there are 2 major differences to her and Germany in 1939, I'll start with the obvious: 1. Any long-term war or invasion would have been IMPOSSIBLE. It wasn't even worth considering. There is literally no way Britain and France could have defeated Russia in a war.
2. (Massively repeating myself here as I've not seen an effective counter to this point yet) Germany was not expanding for reasons of realpolitik/spheres of influence. She was expanding purely out of aggression and a desire to make herself a world power. Russia already was a major power, why bother to stop her taking a bit of the Baltic or Poland. Russia was very inward looking before WWII, but she was paranoid at Hitler trying to repeat what Germany did in 1914-17 (sensibly I think you'd agree) and paranoid after western interference in her domestic matters.

What were Britain's interests in Poland? What did we seek to gain from declaring war in their support? And before you even reach that point, I can provide a wealth of quotes explaining why the German invasion of Poland was brought about by British-backed Polish intransigence over Danzig rather than any desire of the Nazi's to make war on Poland. All the evidence points to a desire for a strategic alliance with Poland against Russia. Again i'm happy to provide evidence and quotes.

Before I answer that, then, please provide evidence in your own words rather than just quotes. I'm not debating with google.

Are you saying that declaring war over Poland was the right decision just to 'stop' Hitler, rather than for any actual aim of helping the Polish? How did declaring war over Poland come even close, or could ever have come close to stopping him? All it did was force him into the arms of Stalin, who was desperate to see the Western powers destroy each other. Hitlers attention was diverted westwards for a year by British stupidity. Encouraging war between Germany and Russia would have been a far superior strategy, as opposed to driving them into each others arms with a ridiculous war guarantee to Poland.

If they fought each other and both ended up hugely weakened maybe that would have been the best strategy. But with no control of events how is that outcome guaranteed? How do you propose allowing two heavy weights fight it out and be so sure that at the end of it Russian influence doesn't go up to the Rhineland or that Germany haven't taken over the Romanian oil fields, iron in the Urals and the bread basket of Ukraine? It's not just that straight forward that you can sit on the sidelines for a few years then jump in and stop either power from taking the spoils, the US learned that after WWI and they at least did quite a bit of fighting. Our government would have had to change the economy, raise an army, get the consent of the rest of Europe to use their countrys as a base to attack and, most importantly, got public sentiment behind a war.

The most expedient view is this: the longer appeasement continued, the stronger Germany became. Germany and Hitler were just not predictable to policy-makers at the time, even if some speculative counter-factual books think it was all so clear.

Germany was not pushed into war with Poland by Britain anyway. His generals advised him against it, much like before Prague, when German generals had a clear plan to assasinate Hitler if he invaded, which never came to fruition because of Chamberlain losing his bottle and signing away Czechoslovakia. They saw British involvement as too great a risk, but Hitler only went into Poland because he was so confident that Britain would, as they had done previously, not have the bottle to interfere. He was wrong. I'm sure there are some good quotes about how he shat himself when he heard the war declaration, but I read most of this for exams in the library (not just pinched it all from google) so it would be of great difficulty to track down a lot of specific references.

"The war guarantee to Poland was the most reckless undertaking ever given by a British Government. It placed the decision of war in Europe in the hands of a reckless, intransigent, swashbuckling Polish military dictatorship" - Roy Denman - Missed Chances, Britain and Europe in the 20th Century.

I missed your part about Hitler wishing to confront America. Please provide quotes/evidence, i've got some amazing counters if any evidence supporting your claim actually exists!

Can I just say about Patrick Buchanan, he's a right-wing US broadcaster apparently? Not a "serious historian" by the sounds of it. Wikipedia says he is the author of 'State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America'. yuck.

For the quote about the US, I've looked through my notes and it seems I haven't kept any of my exam notes for these modules. I had too much to bring with me when I moved back so have only kept the notes for my dissertation and my specialist subjects. I know what I've read in Mein Kampf though and we both know that neither of us has read every single page, because it's a load of dull drivel.

I would still be interested to hear your counters, but I think I can pre-empt them by clarifying that Hitler obviously had no intention to go to war with the US with himself as leader. I think he outlined some kind of plan to make Germany hegemonic over this side of the ocean in his life time for his successors to then dominate the US by some means, either economic or military.