Hartlepool

Because if that war had not taken place,the Germans and Italians would have possibly had their European Union sixty years ago,instead of still being thwarted by some of us today in 2008.

The apeasement option was also available at that time before the war started,it was better known in those days as the surrender option though.

I'de be interested to know which option you would have chosen Imperium,both then ,and now,tell us all,which one?

Imperium

The Fuehrer made it quite clear as did the Kaiser before him that the independence of Britain was not at stake as it was a key part of Hitler`s plan that the British Empire remain intact whilst Germany be given a free hand on the continent.
The results of such a pact or understanding would have been the saving of millions of European lives, the saving of the British Empire and the prevention of the USSR and the USA becoming the superpowers that they were at the expense of Britain and Europe.
We would also have avoided the catastrophe of a multiracial society and the destruction of the social fabric of British society.
Britain did not gain from the war-it lost everything, all to become a satellite state of the USA.

Westcountryman

So were supposed to sit by whilst Hitler occupied continental Europe? We were just supposed to let numerous sovereign countries succumb to German fascism, and then sit idly by whilst Hitler murdered all the Jewish people, homosexuals and gypsies etc in Europe?

I don't think so. We warned Hitler that if he invaded Poland there'd be war. He didn't listen and he lost. As a result, Europe (or at least, 'Western' Europe) was freed from occupation and fascism.

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

Imperium

[quote=Eurosceptic Atlanticist;502190]Why not? Britain sat by whilst the USSR swallowed up Poland from the east but strangely there were no declarations of war made by Britain against her!
Here we go again, you really do seem to believe all that British propaganda don`t you?
Countries tell lies about their enemies in war time or didn`t you know?

And because of this war which "you" waged against Germany Europe was ruined and we are now flooded out with millions of African and Asian immigrants placing our own biological existence at stake!
That is not to mention the millions dead and the destruction of the British Empire!
Well done! I would call that a home goal!

Westcountryman

Are you a holocaust denier?

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

Akria

Whether or not the liberation of European Judaism was an aim of the nation when we stepped into the war or at any point during the war, and whether or not we made the right decisions to aid in doing this during the war, it was nonetheless a direct outcome of the war and thus the points regarding Judaism are irrelevant.

As for the occupation of Europe by Stalin following the war, it shows merely that the fight for democracy is not won by a single battle or war; hardly cause to give up, it is more cause to continue fighting in hope at some point of ultimate victory, an ultimate victory which Fukuyama seemed to think we had assured by the time he wrote his essay The End of History?.
It doesn't show that the Second World War was pointless because tyranny arose nonetheless, but rather that when we have defeated one tyrant we cannot rest on our laurels but remain vigilant, in case another should come along.

If you will claim that the Second World War was pointless, then you claim too that the Cold War was pointless, as it was essentially the same battle - the free world against that which would seek to destroy it.

Hitler would never have stopped with Europe and his 'Lebensraum' to the east; his ideology, that of safeguarding and spreading his 'pure Aryan race' and bringing it together in one empire, would never have allowed Britain to remain independent for long even had we not interfered with his plans.
And when he eventually turned on us, after he had come to dominate much of the technologically advanced world, would you believe that we would have had the resources to fight back effectively?

Given that virtually all the corrupt and brutal communist governments which arose following the Second World War and the rise of the USSR have fallen since that point, and that even in many of the most gone-to-pot nations there is at least some semblance of democracy, if often not true democracy, Fukuyama would seem to be correct. Even a show democracy is at least recognition of the fact that democracy is dominant, and that it would be folly to fight against it.

It is no longer acceptable on the international stage to be totalitarian, and given that the Western democracies have been taking greater steps against totalitarian regimes recently (no matter the justification, the result is the same) it simply shows that by continuing to fight we have brought about a degree of freedom to the world which would have been practically non-existent had we not fought.

__________________
I am getting very tired of people not reading my posts properly.
Please do not reply to me unless you are sure you have not missed out the key points I am making and key words I am using.

http://real-democracy.co.uk | Admin and proud

The commonality of mankind:
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die?

Imperium

Which holocaust would you like me to deny? There have been many throughout history, some real and some fictitious.

Hartlepool

So,can we count that non answer as a YES then?

Akria

Even if this were true, and I would argue against it, what difference does it make?
Whether the people be British biologically (whatever that means) or foreign what does it matter? They are people nonetheless.

I suggest you read Shylock's speech in The Merchant of Venice; though he was disgusting, Shakespeare gave him the most meaningful lines in the play.

Posted via Mobile Device

tito

No!

World War II was conducted very well by Churchill, it was the right action and we put a stop to Nazism.

In Iraq we've set up a brand new Islamist, terrorist-breeding state. We might as well have taken up arms against ourselves.

__________________
For life, Liberty and Prosperity
http://lpuk.org/