What If Britain and France Did Not Declare War on Germany After the Polish Invasion?

Dang you got me! He declared it to the USA!:-(

 

no, i still dont get it. why you ask? because i read mein kampf? if i want to talk about a certain topic like the nazis or nationalsocialism i have to read and learnd why they do some things, or where their ideology came from.

 

Not really he did the one of the few things that would guarantee a US declaration of war. He declared war first.

 

As he had fought against a negotiated peace after the fall of Poland, so he continued to resist any suggestion of negotiations with Hitler. Many of the relevant documents are still sealed after all these years but it is clear that a strong peace party existed in the country and the government. It included Lloyd George in the House of Commons, and Halifax, the Foreign Secretary, in the Cabinet. Even after the fall of France, Churchill rejected Hitler's renewed peace overtures.

Rethinking Churchill, Part 3

 

good for you, sir.

 

your first source is BS
and I would not trust the 2 Hess things neither.

Moderator edit: Since the member who originally posted the links is now banned, I broke the links to the pages so that I could leave your post LJAD. Thanks for your rebuttal. - Slipdigit

 

Well,that's blahblah and it's wrong :Hitler was an old fashioned 19th century German nationalist,who had no estimation at all for non German Aryans ;for Hitler,Mussert (Holland) and Quisling (Norway) were less than quantité negligable .
That Hitler was going to the East because he did not want to destroy the aryan race in the UK,I have read a lot of extravagancies(to remain polite),but ,this beats everything .

 

Your first source "Sealion" is IMHO,BS,or to put it more polite,totally unreliable
1) it stated that at Dunkirk 338226 allied soldiers were rescued,of which 26175 French,while (and this will be confirmed at the Dunkirk sources),the number of French+ Poles,...was some 140000
2)your source is also claiming that the Duke of Windsor had a meeting with Hess in Madrid in june 1940,and demanded in a letter to the king and cabinet peace with Germany:this,without giving a proove
3)your source also is claiming that if the ruling British classes made peace with Germany,they would be moral,economical and political bankrupt,while it is the opposite :at the end of the war,the British ruling classes were economical and political bankrupt .
I am wondering if you have read your source .
About Hess:we all know the history:Hess was going to Britain,because he suspected that certain members of the ruling classes were willing to make a compromise peace .All the rest is vain and irrelevant speculation:the role of the illuminati,Hess being murdered in 1989 by the British,and other irrelevant nonsens .
The fact that you were giving 2 sources about Hess (one of them in Spanish),and knowing that the whole Hess thing is totally irrelevant fot the subject we are discussing,makes me not expecting any good coming from these sources .
BTW:the topic is :What if Britain and France did not declare war on Germany in september 1939
Thus:things as ,Hess in may 1941,Windsor in june 1940, are,IMHO,totally irrelevant and of-topic .

 

I`m not a fan of conspiracy theories, but i´ve seen an interesting report on TV where the forensic Dr.`s said that Hess had wounds on the back of his skull which could only coming from an other person who hit him with something. Later they were´nt allowed to talk about this case any longer. Strange and you can now interprete a lot into this.

 

I bought a book called "Ten Days To Destiny", which I guess is about how Hess was going to meet with Lord Halifax and a few other MPs to get Churchill removed as PM. I haven't read it yet. Do you all think it's hogwash as a waste of time to do so?

 

I have not read it myself, but even a flawed book might provide a gem or two. Give the first chapter a go, if it doesn't draw a vacume, it may be worth the effort.

 

If he was flying to meet Halifax he would have needed a really long, long, range aircraft because Halifax was the British ambassador to the USA at that time.

 

Perhaps he was counting on a tailwind?

 

it is hard to state that France and Britain would have done much of anything about an attack on the Soviet Union. Chamberlain was an appeaser as well as many other leaders in power. Most of the leaders did not care for Stalin and were afraid of communism. Germany would have had more resources available without all the losses suffered in 1940 invasion of Belgium and France plus the Battle of Britian. France and England showed that they were not going to do anything when Germany invaded Poland. The opportunity there if France would have launched a major assault would have changed everything. So Germany got half of Poland while keeping only a token force guarding it's west. The US would have been still anti-war and probably would have been ill prepared to help. if you look back it was only after the invasion of 1940 western Europe where then people in the US really started aiding GB and gearing our economy up for war

 

Chamberlain was willing to appease when he thought the Germans were much better prepared for war than the British but he also significantly up Britains miltlary build up at the same time. The Polish attack also made it clear to him that he just couldn't trust Hitler. They were going to war the question is when supporting the Soviets might have been the time if Poland wasn't.

 

This is not correct :The German forces on the western border in september 1939 were more than strong enough to block any allied (better : French only) invasion .This has been discussed at the AHF and ACG.

And it is not so that only in the summer of 1940 the US economy was gearing up for war : the preparatory work had already been done = the billions of £ and francs invested in the US by the British and the French .