I have a question for both of you, legal and Stirling.

Hitler's admiration for the British, and particularly the Empire, is well documented through Mein Kampf and other sources - he placed immense emphasis on the importance of some kind of alliance with Britain. Had he achieved such an alliance, would he have kept to it?

Whilst it's true that his track record on treaty observance was pretty piss poor, notably with the Soviet Union, he stuck with Mussolini to the end. Would he have viewed his alliance with Britain as a matter of temporary expediency or would he genuinely have stuck to it? He wanted Europe as his own fiefdom but he seemed to believe that Britain and her Empire was a vital cog in supporting his own particular version of the new world order .

Would eventual conflict have always been inevitable? Or would Britain and Germany genuinely have walked hand in hand off into the sunset together?

I've read some interesting arguments on both sides as to how it might have panned out - what do you lads think?

In relation to Halifax,dear chap, the point was my point was about him still harbouring appeasement tendencies and being in favour of a deal in May 1940,well after war had been declared.

Of course most of "the right" did their bit after war was declared,just like most on the left.I was focusing on your lack of balance in posting about "the left",and as if "the left" is/was one unified grouping

To illustrate that the right was not free of appeasers etc after war was declared ,note that Mosley, certainly of the wider "right" apropos your references to "the left", and 740 followers were interned in May 1940, war having started 8 months earlier, as a potential fifth column.

The "Establishment" was far from free of appeasers post outbreak of war either.Take the Duke of Buccleuch, Lord ­Steward of the Royal Household.He was opposed to any war with the Nazis and when it did break out in 1939, he joined the Peace Aims Group and urged a truce based on Germany keeping all the lands Hitler had stolen in Europe. Even after the bombing started, he continued to defend Hitler.

The Duke of Westminster,an admirer of Hitler,spent the first year of the war demanding, to whomever would listen, that peace be made with Germany.

Another interned was Admiral Sir Barry Domville.In June 1940 his mistress, Mrs. Olive Baker, was arrested for distributing leaflets promoting Reichssender Hamburg.

Take Archibald Maule Ramsay,Scottish Unionist MP. On 20 March 1940, he asked a question in parliament about a propaganda radio station set up by Germany which gave its precise wavelength, which was suspected by both his allies and opponents as a subtle way of advertising it.

Just saying...

It was an act of war brought about by the circumstances of the time.

That's a big question! with a huge amount of "ifs"

Can I answer part of it this way?

Had there been a deal in Summer 1940,I think it would have been one with the UK very much the weaker partner.It would have led to a new government in the UK of an very appeasement ilk and I think every chance of us drifting slowly into a Vichy-like regime,nominally independent but of a quite distasteful hue in its own right.

It would have opened the way for Hitler to turn on the USSR earlier (which might even have been supported by the UK) and made it less likely Hitler would lose on the Eastern front (though quite possible war would have gone on for many years in the inner depths of the Soviet Union and an endless possible stalemate,with Japan having invaded from Manchuria too).

In terms of the Empire,I think Hitler would have wanted an "in" on equal economic terms to UK (and the restoration of the colonies taken away from Germany after WW1 and put under British mandate) to the natural resources and this would have created strong tensions.

The UK would have been in a v weak position to do anything about it had the "partnership" with Germany begun to seem like not such a good idea,other than negotiate the best it could from a subservient position.

With the UK not as close to the US,I think once things kicked off in Asia (as I think they would have anyway between the US and Japan),I'm not sure the British possessions in the F East would have ended up coming back to the UK .THE US had no interest in the resumption of the British Empire (and attendant economic benefits)n there.

I think Canada would have likely become much more in the US orbit quicker (with the US acting solely in US interests),and Australia would have either become very close to the US in the same way or might even have been invaded by Japan.

Japan might have succeeded in pushing more into India. Interesting thought the extent to which an alliance with Japan might have topped keeping the UK happy for Hitler,once the UK could be no threat in Europe and was very much subservient to Germany on any meaningful areas of difference.

Would Hitler have kept to the deal?I think likely not,unless the UK morphed inexorably into a Vichy type satellite.Hitler's track record on deals,say the Munich Agreement re Czechoslovakia and his treaty with the USSR indicates he was not a great deal keeper.I think his "looking after" of Mussolini was as much from self-interest as anything else.

I also think in such a situation (given the degree of latent anti-semitism with some establishment circles) and the likely permeation of Nazi propaganda given Germany would have become our "partner",there could well have also been a drift towards anti-semitic laws along the lines of those in Germany in the 1930's being introduced.

I don't think we would have walked into the sunset in a way (with hindsight) we might say was desirable and the sunset might rather have been a horrible big storm.

The novel,"Dominion" by CJ Sansom is one take on how things might have panned out in the UK following such a deal in 1940.

Edited by legaleagle (07 Aug 2015 10.18am)

I have a question for both of you, legal and Stirling.

Hitler's admiration for the British, and particularly the Empire, is well documented through Mein Kampf and other sources - he placed immense emphasis on the importance of some kind of alliance with Britain. Had he achieved such an alliance, would he have kept to it?

Whilst it's true that his track record on treaty observance was pretty piss poor, notably with the Soviet Union, he stuck with Mussolini to the end. Would he have viewed his alliance with Britain as a matter of temporary expediency or would he genuinely have stuck to it? He wanted Europe as his own fiefdom but he seemed to believe that Britain and her Empire was a vital cog in supporting his own particular version of the new world order .

Would eventual conflict have always been inevitable? Or would Britain and Germany genuinely have walked hand in hand off into the sunset together?

I've read some interesting arguments on both sides as to how it might have panned out - what do you lads think?

Hitler wanted a Europe/world ruled by Germany.......I'd say if it wasn't so downbeat the modern day outcome is almost amusing.

If Germany had beaten the USSR and come to some arrangement with the US (the US being beaten wasn't realistic with the bomb)....Probably involving the Axis ditching Japan and the war in the pacific....though their involvement was limited.

It's possible that Germany could have come back to just fighting on one front.

I think Churchill could have been over-ruled
Then Britain would have at the least have had a government similar to the Vichy government.

If Britain had still choosen to fight then it was a war of attrition.....But one we couldn't without American help and control of the air..... once air superiority was won Germany would still have had an army of around half a million to defeat.

Hitler would have preferred installing a Vicky style government rather than defeating it......He would have been more concerned with controlling the newly defeated USSR.

With a Vicky style government Churchill and others would have probably operated a resistance....and in time been done away with.

Essentially all defeated nations were regarded in arian terms by Hitler....All subservient to Germany. In comparison to the Poles and slavs the British would have been treated reasonably well.....God help the Jewish population here though.

The same kind of revisionism that teaches that the atom bomb was justifiable would have been used to teach young British children that the British defeat was necessary for a united Europe......A kind of....All roads lead to Berlin....The only difference was the route taken.