Let's say Nazi Germany hadn't of invaded Russia and instead had tried to end the war with diplomacy?
Would the Ally's have accepted this? Because really if your enemy wants to stop the war your the reason why the war is still going and you become the enemy.
>>30260582
Well. Germany did try and make peace with England not the Allies.
If they had approach the Allies it may of been a different story.
As for England they responded by locking the person up.
>>30260582
Germany tried to make peace multiple times in 1939 and 1940 but Churchill was too big of a war monger to agree to any deals, at first Hitler was even open to an independent Poland, with Germany just annexing West Prussia and Danzig.
>>30260607
>at first Hitler was even open to an independent Poland, with Germany just annexing West Prussia and Danzig
>war monger
so is it popular amoung beta numales to call anyone who didnt bend over to Hitlers land demands a warmonger now?
>>30260607
>Churchill was the war-monger
>Germany has lied, false-flagged and invaded three countries at this point
I'll never understand this retarded mindset
>>30260607
>Churchill refused to bargain with a murderous regime that lied about every promise it made
Oh boy that Churchill causing WWII huh. Totally not the actual guys that started it at all.
>>30260638
yep classical nazi bullshit
churchill was not a warmonger he saved europe by fighting in europe and especially north africa.
If GB had surrendered in 1940 ww2 would have been a total different story.
After the war against poland there was no way to win the war NO WAY.
Do you really think the allies would have let them keep europe? why would they germany had no chance to win the war
>>30260688
>he saved europe by completely destroying it and turning over half of it to the soviets, which nearly caused the complete destruction of our species many times over the several decades
what a hero amirite
>>30260705
Yeah what a coward for both fighting a war against an aggressive invader and for not being clairvoyant, huh.
>>30260705
At what point are you making the leap from blaming Hitler for this to blaming the people that fought back you fucking spastic.
>>30260705
>vast majority of civilan deaths in European world war 2 were in the eastern front, mostly soviet civilans
>CHURCHILL DESTROYED EUROPE REEEEE
yes, the eternal anglo layed waste to the proud aryan European fields of Ukraine
>>30260705
Churchill actually was very opposed to the commies,he was the one who planned unthinkable
but you have to remember the Red Army was the most powerful armed forces at the end of the war,with 10 million troops,fuck ton of tanks and armored vehicles and veteran generals
also you're not factoring the mindset of the soldiers who fought,all during the war they harbor great respect to each other,pretty amicable and with a sense of camaraderie in fighting the common enemy,it would be lunacy to pit them against one another
>>30260582
What allies? Before they invaded Russia it was pretty much just the British.
>>30260705
>which nearly caused the complete destruction of our species many times over the several decades
ah less, we all lemented the day the evil Soviet Union introduced humanity to the terrors of the nuclear bomb
>>30260749
goddamn red commie heathen,first attacking Germany and then dividing it to half,then take over the sovereignty of state such as Yugoslavia,Finland and Ukraine and trying to start a cold war against democracy
>>30260705
Roosevelt turned it over to the Soviets, Churchill wanted to push the Soviets all the way back to the old polish border but Roosevelt cock blocked him.
>Because really if your enemy wants to stop the war your the reason why the war is still going and you become the enemy.
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read on /k/.
So by your logic, if you come up to me in the street, push me over and start stomping me, if (whilst stomping me) you ask if I'd like a peace, and, rather than give up I start to fight back, I'm the aggressor?
You're a special kind of retarded, well done on figuring out keyboards though.
>>30260705
>which nearly caused the complete destruction of our species many times over the several decades
And with that, your opinion is completely void (I mean, it was void beforehand because its stupid, but that second bit is just pants on head retarded).
>>30260785
The soviets were constantly bitch in that they should get half of europe because muh 13 million military deaths.
>>30260582
Then Russia would have invaded a few months later. Unfortunately war was inevitable. If Poland and Germany had managed to get along, which they almost did despite the fact that both sides had strong reasons not to, then it would have been a defensive war against the Soviets. The real question then becomes who the Allies would have sided with. Personally I think they'd have sided with the Soviets still.
>>30260607
>Germany tried to make peace multiple times in 1939 and 1940 but Churchill was too big of a war monger to agree to any deals, at first Hitler was even open to an independent Poland, with Germany just annexing West Prussia and Danzig.
He had publicly professed a desire for Lebensraum and an extermination of the Polish people since at lest 1933. Danzig and West Prussia were what he used to justify the invasion, but after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact it was clear that he had no intention of leaving the Poles be. What the hell else could be done? Continued appeasement? He made it obvious what his long-term plans were.
>>30260901
>this meme again
>>30260810
Churchill and FDR both had somehow got it into their heads that Stalin was going to keep his promise of democratic elections in Eastern Europe. After Holodomor and the Soviet invasion of Poland you'd think they would have gotten a clue.
>>30260901
Yeah Churchill should have just made a peace accord with them like the Polish did with the Germans in 1934.
That really worked for them!
>>30260705
>Hitler is personally responsible for losing the war and should have seen the future
>>30260934
I don't think anyone believed that
>>30260920
>Hitler totally wasn't a genocidal maniac and definitely would have treated kindly all the non-Germans in his constantly expanding concept of what "Greater Germany" was. You know, just like how he loved the Jews!
The only meme here is you buddy.
>>30260940
Read my post again.
>>30260957
>Hitler totally wasn't a genocidal maniac and definitely would have treated kindly all the non-Germans in his constantly expanding concept of what "Greater Germany" was. You know, just like how he loved the Jews!
>Hitler was a cartoon villain
Now he definitely wasn't the kind of guy I'd want my daughter bringing home but he wasn't that cartoon picture of evil that war time and post war propaganda depicted him as.
>>30260607
the smell of working propaganda
pure agony
>>30260733
>Red Army strong at the end of the war
>Red Army
>Strong
>At the end of the war
At the end of the war, they were already in a logistical nightmare, with their main forces stationed in Berlin, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Even Old Blood and Guts agreed it was best to take them out now or forever be damned in a stand off when they rebuild and get stronger. And boy, was he right
>>30260974
Damn, a full on Nazi apologist
>>30261048
And how do you suggest the allies could have pushed them all the way back to Russia and accomplish what years of combat with the Germans, combat far savager than anything the allies would be willing to conduct (quite rightly), couldn't?
Guise, guise can we all just admit that pretty much every head of state had their head up their ass when it came to the end of WW2?
Hitler started the war, period. Yes the jews suck. But Hitler started it. Literally, physically started it. Then in the end he decided to an hero himself.
Churchill doesn't want to fight the Soviets on the beaches...at least not European beaches. Nope, he was fine with Stalin taking half of Europe. He also didn't retain the British Empire the way he could have. Instead his tenure in the early 50s set the pace for the colonies in Africa to become independent and eventually fall to communism and decades of war & corruption.
Truman either couldn't see the Russian writing on the wall or he didn't care who got control of China or Korea, and he kicked that can down the road.
Stalin was the only one with his thinking hat on. He made serious gains at the end of the war.
>>30261142
>Churchill doesn't want to fight the Soviets on the beaches
Honestly, at least read about the guy before you start chatting shit about him.
>He also didn't retain the British Empire the way he could have. Instead his tenure in the early 50s set the pace for the colonies in Africa to become independent and eventually fall to communism and decades of war & corruption.
There was no way Britain could have kept its colonial possessions after the war, especially with American pressure and the need to keep them happy.
>>30261114
by nuking every russian city within B29 range along with conventional bombing campaigns a la dresden.
for how much the luftwaffe assfucked the soviet airforce it was all pretty pointless since the krauts didn't even have medium bombers, let alone heavy bombers, to take advantage of the hole.
>instead the ruskies made their own OC do not steal little boys from stolen plans a few years after Pattons mysterious car crash, ensuring almost 6 decades of stalemate until we won the cold war economically
>>30260949
Churchill and FDR during Yalta:
>Poor Neville Chamberlain believed he could trust Hitler. He was wrong. But I don't think I am wrong about Stalin.
>I think that if I give him everything that I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work for a world of democracy and peace.
Churchill and FDR after Yalta:
>From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron Curtain has descended across the continent.
>Averell is right. We can’t do business with Stalin. He has broken every one of the promises he made at Yalta.
>>30260974
Hitler was as close to a cartoon villain as we have seen in history, arguable surpassing many actual cartoon villains in sheer comical evilness.
>>30261156
>There was no way Britain could have kept its colonial possessions after the war, especially with American pressure and the need to keep them happy.
Hmm....let's see here...how about telling America to fuck off? America kept its colonies after the war, even if it didn't call them colonies. Why should England have to divest completely from all their holdings?
>>30261114
German industry had been in complete shambles since 1942 and their weary and armies tired since the invasion of Russia. Meanwhile the Americans had millions of fresh new recruits, a population far from the front and enthusiastic about the war, and a bustling wartime industrial base, and the British had half the world under their command and a fortress of a homeland which would be more difficult to invade than Russia in winter.
The Red Army was in no position to hold their new territories if the West had even attempted to liberate them.
>>30261056
>Nazi apologist
Nah, I think they did a lot of things wrong and definitely should have chilled out on the Jews and only gone after the communist ones.
>>30261197
That's what the wartime and post war propaganda says, yeah. Just like the German wartime propaganda depicted him almost God like and infallible. Reality lies somewhere in between. He had a lot of problems and definitely wasn't a nice guy nor were a lot of the policies of Nazi Germany agreeable or even remotely acceptable, however the comic book villain shit is clearly just dehumanizing propaganda.
>>30261197
>I remember this thread
>>30261291
Have you read Mein Kampf? The man was severely deranged, and wholly incompetent as anything more than a figurehead charismatic leader. If comic book villains have ever existed, Hitler is the prime example of one.
>>30261335
Have YOU read Mein Kampf? And not one of the shitty translations that makes him sound like a sociopath. I'll admit it's a shit book but and it's written weird, which might be an element of the translation into English.
>inb4 you claim to be a German speaker
>>30261217
The French tried keeping their empire and all it got them was two major lost wars. There was no way UK could have kept India or Egypt. They could have kept those little emirates, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, the emirs even offered Britain to stay, protect them and they would pay for it but the Brits refused. Abandoning those gulf emirates was probably the biggest mistake Britain ever committed.
>>30261178
>nuke every city
The Americans wouldn't have had the balls I'm afraid, some of the crazier top brass might have done, but it would have been political suicide.
Not to mention that by that point, you'd have to be nuking large chunks of Europe since they'd occupied it, which wouldn't have flied either.
That's before you even get to the stumbling block that they didn't have that many nukes and that they'd have to capture airfields closer to Moscow.
Really, just screaming 'we cud nuke 'em back to the stone age' is fairly childish and ill thought out.
>>30261183
>Treatment of Stalin by Churchill and FDR was the same as the treatment of Hitler by Chamberlain
Bollocks. They needed Stalin and Stalin had power to throw around if he didn't get what he wanted, their treatment of Stalin was necessary, a bitter pill to swallow, but necessary.
>>30261217
The vast amounts of debt we owed the US? The US's aid after the war that the British absolutely needed? The fact that Britain physically wouldn't be able to stop India leaving, not without large scale warfare (i.e. political suicide).
>Why should England
Britain, you dolt.
>>30261240
And do you propose the allies would do that? The Russians already had half of Europe to ransom, millions of troops in theater and logistically they didn't have to ship all of their material across an ocean, they also weren't fighting the Japanese at the time.
>>30261348
I've read the Murphy translation. It's not just the manner of writing but the ideas expressed within that make it obvious he was crazy. We're getting tangential here though. The point is that Hitler has been both the inspiration for many examples and the embodiment of the archetypal comically evil villain.
>>30261396
>Really, just screaming 'we cud nuke 'em back to the stone age' is fairly childish and ill thought out.
But that was the plan with the Japanese if they were still too subborn to surrender. Could do the same with Russia but instead of nuking the Eastern Europe, we could have gotten their remaining populous cities and their capitals. It would be a heavy inflicted loss of morale on the Red Army seeing such a weapon of massive power wipe out their assets and their civillian populations
>>30261335
Mein Kamp is a terrible durge, its bollocks, toxic bollcoks.
Hitler had some truly disgusting ideas, he enacted and allowed great horrors to happen etc etc
He also loved his dog, abhorred animal cruelty and spear headed an effort to ban smoking Germany, among other things. He was even quite charming at dinner parties etc (before he lost it due to stress/stroke/drugs).
Was he responsible for evil? Yes. Was he a deranged cackling madman? Not particularly, its very dangerous to assume that people capable of great evil would actually stand out from a crowd; the potential to do what say Hitler did is within a lot of people, problem withing you, me and everyone in this thread.
>>30261411
I didn't propose the Allies attack the Russians. But they most certainly could have been more forceful in ensuring the freedom of Eastern Europe, or at the very least Poland and Czechoslovakia, considering the fact that the Soviets were in no position to keep their gains if they were contested at all.
>>30261433
That's true, but it doesn't make him any less disturbed, nor does it make his character any less comical in hindsight.
>>30261439
Soviets had every advantage possible. Along with Soviet units, there were also Yugoslavs with a million men, Bulgarians with an intact army as they didn't fight the Soviets. Plus a huge communist movements in France and Italy, where communists played the leading role in resistance. In '45 the only advantage West had over Soviets were nukes.
>>30261487
>Plus a huge communist movements in France and Italy
You do realize that even Britain and the US could do an inside anti communist job like the Soviets did with the Polish Home Army, right?
>>30261386
>>30261217
It was those marxists in the British government talking about fucking "winds of change" or other bullshit.
They willingly dismantled the empire
>>30261396
? They didn't need Stalin at all
FDR was a communist cripple close to death however
So much would have been different if that piece of shit just had died earlier
>>30261429
And its still childish and ill thought out to assume that what was planned for the Japanese would be used against the Russians in 1945.
Completely different situations.
>>30261487
The only advantage the Soviets had was contiguous landmass with their conquered territories and a defensive position. Tito had been an uneasy ally of Stalin since they first started working together, more concerned with his own country than anything else, and it is unlikely he would have ignored the immediate problem of holding Yugoslavia together to help a foreign ally defend foreign lands. I'm not so sure about Bulgaria's commitment to the Soviet cause either, considering they also were more concerned about self-preservation than anything else, but assuming they joined their half a million men with the Soviets' seven million, the total manpower was still less than the eight and a half million active duty members of the US Army alone. Granted, there was still Japan to deal with, but it would be wrong to claim that the western Allies were in a worse position that the Soviets in terms of manpower. There would be no need for Italian or French units, and many of the resistance movements that fought the Germans were by that point actively resisting the Soviets. It would have been a terribly bloody and expensive slog, but an American/Commonwealth push to the Curzon Line was not by any means impossible.
>>30260582
>implying Russia wasnt planing to attack
It would been just a bit more time and everything would have gone like it had.
>>30261439
>I didn't propose the Allies attack the Russians
> But they most certainly could have been more forceful
How? What bargaining chip did they have then? Stalin knew this. And the Soviet people almost certainly felt like the other allies owed them for their sacrifices (before you jump on me, that is what I think your average Soviet citizen would have felt, not what was necessarily true).
>>30261452
He really wasn't comical, then or now.
>>30260582
>weapons
>>30260592
The dude wasn't even on an official diplomacy mission, he stole and then crash-landed a plane in Scotland.
>>30261696
You have the benefit of hindsight, they didn't.
The Japanese were still fighting, they still had a million men in Manchuria, they had no way of knowing that they'd just have folded like they did.
>FDR
>Communist
He wasn't, you're an idiot.
>>30261969
>He really wasn't comical, then or now.
>>30260638
The peace proposal would mean that Germany would retreat from all territories west of it with the exception of the Elzas. The only condition being that there would be no allked armies stationed there. How does that sound to you? Consider this was the proposal by Germany, opem for negotation. it was made xuring a time when thi gs were looking good for them.
>>30261885
It wasn't and if it had it would have actually lost. The Russians learnt the hard way what needed to be changed about their military, if they'd have attacked, they'd have attacked before those lessons were learnt.
Their numbers would also have been nulified in the offense, the Germans would have had the advantage.
Look what happened in Finland, now imagine what would have happened if Finland had had a massive, industrial military.
>>30262037
>this random picture proves a point
How wrong you are friend.
>>30260688
>saved Europe
(((you)))
>>30262042
It sounds like Germany can go fuck itself.
>>30260920
>I don't have an argumement
>>30261386
>The French tried keeping their empire and all it got them was two major lost wars.
To be perfectly fair, the French weren't in as triumphant a position as the British at the end of the war. The fact that they had an entire Vichy government to prosecute and the whole bowing-out that de Gaulle pulled after the war, only to come back a few years later when France was REALLY in trouble of losing overseas holdings.
>There was no way UK could have kept India or Egypt.
Your opinion. Social policies lost those colonies. Not a lack of power or ability.
>>30261411
>The vast amounts of debt we owed the US? The US's aid after the war that the British absolutely needed? The fact that Britain physically wouldn't be able to stop India leaving, not without large scale warfare (i.e. political suicide).
None of those things are concrete reasons why the Empire had to kneel to the US and release its colonies. You're also ignoring the revenue that Britain would receive in the post wars years as they had to spend less on the war. And as for India, that same principle could have been said of any of the strategically important European countries that the Brits gave up to Hitler before the war. Its a silly blanket statement that could be crudely applied to any situation.
>Britain, you dolt.
Kill yourself. You see any faggots in Glasgow or Edinburgh running the Empire at that time? Seriously, kill yourself.
>>30262054
Are you seriously saying them acting logical?
>>30260592
I thought England pretty much was the Allies after France fell. The Slavs and the Burgers weren't part of it yet.
