Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cancerballs69420 t1_j7le898 wrote

Hitler thought Britain would make peace at some point during the blitz

306

Nyghtshayde t1_j7mcbok wrote

All we remember now is Britain's resistance, but there were absolutely people who wanted to sue for peace. It's understandable but it's fortunate that Churchill really had a handle on Hitler and knew that this was basically a war to the end, either now or later.

205

cancerballs69420 t1_j7menl5 wrote

Say what you will about Churchill but he really nailed the whole WW2 thing

148

unknownintime t1_j7mltgp wrote

Some folks know how to deal with bullies.

It's just unfortunate that it's incredibly difficult for them to stop treating everyone that way once the bully has been beaten.

64

hallofmirrors87 t1_j7mxw9v wrote

Considering Churchill LOVED bullying the colonized, he’d know Hitlers playbook to a t.

2

kawhi_2020 t1_j7moz3y wrote

His highest priority was the preservation of the British Empire. The whole Mediterranean campaign from North Africa to Italy was about British control of the routes to India, not about defeating Germany. Churchill wanted US-UK joint attack to go through the Balkans and try to hit Germany from the southeast to get there before the Soviets did. America had to negotiate to attack Italy instead, which was not strategically relevant to the main war.

It was also Churchill's decision to continue exporting food from India to build stockpiles while people in India starved to death. There wasn't a food shortage in Britain but he helped make one in India.

He deserves credit for the things he did like keeping Britain engaged but he did not "nail' the whole thing. He made plenty of mistakes and oversights.

64

quarky_uk t1_j7msocl wrote

I am pretty sure the Med campaign was because Italy was much easier to assault (and an easier place to open up a second front, which the Soviets were crying out for), and also because I think there was oil in the Middle East.

No need to make up conspiracies.

38

Fireantstirfry t1_j7mpufy wrote

It's always really nice seeing a balanced and objective comment regarding Churchill. So refreshing.

31

the_better_twin t1_j7ms9rw wrote

I mean you just have read about Gallipoli to know he wasn't infallible and made plenty of mistakes. It is very easy to judge someone with the benefit of hindsight however.

18

Nonions t1_j7mwmi6 wrote

In fairness about Gallipoli, I don't think they actually followed through with Churchill's actual plan. If they had steamed through and just taken the losses in old obsolete battleships it might have worked with considerably fewer deaths.

3

kawhi_2020 t1_j7mxcis wrote

Roosevelt judged Churchill accurately at the time. Churchill was an imperialist and Roosevelt (while certainly always pushing American political and commercial interests) did support the independence of India and other colonial territories.

De Gaulle was another imperialist that Roosevelt didnt like too much, but agreed to work with (though certainly not at the level of Churchill, for practical reasons).

2

Andrew5329 t1_j7mrr5v wrote

> exporting food from India to build stockpiles while people in India starved to death.

In fairness, 70 years after the end of the British Raj this hasn't really changed. About 40% or children under 5 in India still experience stunted growth from malnutrition, about 20% experience wasting from starvation, and about 800k children die from starvation, double that if you include malnutrition related disease.

Roll back to 2000 and the figures were much higher.

8

Jackanova3 t1_j7mx1qm wrote

You're making the opposite point you think you're making.

−1

Kronzypantz t1_j7mneg6 wrote

This is still just nostalgia baiting.

No British government was going to make peace with Hitler on any terms that made Britain second fiddle to Germany. No Greater Germany, no Lebenstraum, no colonial concessions. Any of these would mean Britain being eclipsed as the leading superpower in Europe.

16

thebardbecoming t1_j7muid0 wrote

>All we remember now is Britain's resistance, but there were absolutely people who wanted to sue for peace. It's understandable but it's fortunate that Churchill really had a handle on Hitler and knew that this was basically a war to the end, either now or later.

The foresight required to make that decision.. incredible.

1

cavendar t1_j7msn44 wrote

I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate. There was a debate amongst the Nazis about how to proceed. One side wanted to attack both East and west. The other wanted to set up a treaty of sorts with Britain while they attacked to the east. Hitler in his hubris made the grievous error of attacking both at once, severely diluting his attack forces. Read the story of Rudolf Hess and his daring escapade into Scotland. He was the second in command (basically the equivalent of vice president) under Hitler and then after he defied Hitlers wishes he was basically written out of the story. If Hitler had thought or wanted Britain to make peace he wouldn’t have attacked them the way he did and the whole Hess incident never would have happened.

9

Wheredoesthetoastgo2 t1_j7mljt8 wrote

That's forcing submission. The question asks more of a ,"yep, that's enough Europe..."

7

cancerballs69420 t1_j7mndxu wrote

Pretty sure there were some cases where hitler wasn’t trying to force submission. In the period before the blitz I remember reading hitler wanted to end the war in the west so he could focus on the east. Then the blitz was an attempt to force that submission when England didn’t do it on their own

6

SigerMakkerMeget t1_j7mq8c3 wrote

The blitz was intended to force the RAF to fight the Luftwaffe, in the hopes of destroying it. That would have given Germany free reign over the English Channel, opening a route for a naval invasion.

But since Germany couldnt break the RAF, there would be air cover for the Royal Navy, making an invasion utter suicide.

4

Arkslippy t1_j7mx7j2 wrote

That's what they teach kids in school history in Britain, but the actual fact is that Germany had no way of crossing the channel, especially with the Royal navy fully in the game, the luftwaffe was worn from the campaign in France and Poland as well as mechanically stretched after the first few weeks of the Battle of Britain, tye narrative has been, the raf were struggling and were saved by the change to bombing cities, but they actually had more aircraft available then than they did at the start, no hitlers error was attacking them at all, instead of pausing for a while and trying to negotiate, but Britain had Germany blockaded too.

Lots of ifs and buts

3

Wheredoesthetoastgo2 t1_j7mnkjf wrote

Either way with him on the upper hand. Can't have a messiah complex and get a bum deal, now.

2

cancerballs69420 t1_j7mnsey wrote

Messiah complexes are lit tbh. Must be a hell of a life thinking that way all the time

4

Wheredoesthetoastgo2 t1_j7mo17c wrote

I mean if I survived an active bomb assassination I might start having some thoughts...

4

Stormfists t1_j7mqkfo wrote

And he almost won. The RAF was on the brink of collapse when Hitler ordered the blitz to be reduced significantly. A lot of experts say that another 4 months of massive bombardment would have eventually crippled Britain's air defences and meant a land invasion was potentially possible, supported by massive air drops.

6

Hattes t1_j7mte5j wrote

It's fascinating to me that their intelligence was so bad, they didn't even know this (if it's true).

3

Stormfists t1_j7mtue8 wrote

I'm English and have watched a LOT of WW2 documentaries. This factor has always fascinated me. If Britain had capitulated then Churchill would have had zero influence over Roosevelt. I'd probably be speaking German now if they'd have persisted.

6

TRex19000 t1_j7mv2td wrote

Doubtful, Soviet Union and USA still existed and partisans.

3

Stormfists t1_j7mvqiw wrote

The US wouldn't have got involved without the persistence of Churchill's personal relationship with Roosevelt, even despite Pearl Harbour - the US would have just focused on Japan. And by that time Hitler would have directed every resource to the Russian offensive, and even probably paid Britain for their tanks, resources, and aircraft... bare in mind the total capitulation of the French essentially bolstered the German war machine significantly - the same would have happened with Britain. Also, Mussolini would have probably supported too given Italy wouldn't have had issues in the Mediterranean, and Franco could have been pursuaded to throw the Spanish navy behind the German offensive. People underestimate just how significant Britain holding out made such a difference to WW2. It really is a remarkable story, albeit I wish it was just a story... Unfortunately it actually happened.

3

raymondcy t1_j7mxer2 wrote

> the US would have just focused on Japan

I don't buy that. By the time Pearl Harbor happened the entire world knew what was at stake. Hitler had to be defeated at all costs. Japan was formidable and not to be taken lightly but I think the main US goal was always Germany / Europe.

1

Stormfists t1_j7mxrfw wrote

I have contemplated the same but for me my opinion comes down to the question of... how would have the US waged a war with no European foothold?... there is zero way they could have staged a landing such as Normandy without a significant allie like Britain had they folded to German rule.

3

sean_psc t1_j7mxg0u wrote

This is not at all true. The Blitz wasn’t even targeting British air defence, and it was extremely ineffective at anything beyond killing civilians.

0