Cook
Banned
What the fuck has any of that got to do with terms that Britain would accept with Germany in the Second World War?Italy got...
What the fuck has any of that got to do with terms that Britain would accept with Germany in the Second World War?Italy got...
What the fuck has any of that got to do with terms that Britain would accept with Germany in the Second World War?
Italian ‘public opinion’ is completely irrelevant; Italy was a dictatorship. And the string of treaties that Italy did sign with Britain and other parties in the 1920s and ‘30s renders your argument completely without basis. Since Mussolini was a peripheral player out to pick up choice morsels of real estate in the Mediterranean for the lowest cost possible, he is hardly likely to refuse to sign a peace treaty.Could the UK be trusted to honor a treaty?The public feelings in Italy...
Italian ‘public opinion’ is completely irrelevant; Italy was a dictatorship. And the string of treaties that Italy did sign with Britain and other parties in the 1920s and ‘30s renders your argument completely without basis. Since Mussolini was a peripheral player out to pick up choice morsels of real estate in the Mediterranean for the lowest cost possible, he is hardly likely to refuse to sign a peace treaty.
All your posts have done is derail the thread.
It was wholly irrelevant; there was no popular enthusiasm in Italy for going to war in June 1940, or for widening the war in December 1941.I believe that public opinion matters even in a dictatorship. It maters less, but it still matters.
Churchill’s behaviour is not significant because he would not have been the Premier of any British government willing to sign a Peace Treaty. Dr Luny acknowledged that with his original post regarding reshuffling the cabinet.I find it a bit strange that the UK not trust Hitler because he has broken treaties impacts negotiations, but the reverse is not true. Also, Churchill …His prior behaviour would likely be important in review the details of a peace offer.
Your so called historical fact is nothing of the sort. Mussolini had no reluctance to sign treaties with Britain and France in the ‘20s or ‘30s, so referring to a treaty that was signed in 1915, years before he came to power, is fairly pointless and fails to explain his willingness to sign the treaties he did sign.What derailed the thread was at least two other posters disputing known historical facts.
It was wholly irrelevant; there was no popular enthusiasm in Italy for going to war in June 1940, or for widening the war in December 1941.
Churchill’s behaviour is not significant because he would not have been the Premier of any British government willing to sign a Peace Treaty. Dr Luny acknowledged that with his original post regarding reshuffling the cabinet.
Your so called historical fact is nothing of the sort. Mussolini had no reluctance to sign treaties with Britain and France in the ‘20s or ‘30s, so referring to a treaty that was signed in 1915, years before he came to power, is fairly pointless and fails to explain his willingness to sign the treaties he did sign.
Getting back to the actual subject of the thread. People need to realise that any Peace treaty would be dependent on the relative strength of the two parties and if Britain was willing to seek terms it means they are in a very poor state, or at least do not see any future improvement of their war effort and no hope of eventual victory.
I don't think they exist. After the invasion of rump Czechoslovakia, the British Establishment decided there was no point negotiating with Germany at all, as they couldn't be relied upon to keep to the terms of their agreements.
It is just not the 1914 borders, but also Austria, Sudetenland, Poland, etc. Britain would have had to recognize most the Greater German Reich.
As to how to prevent blockade, it is just not saying it, but taking actions to make it very hard to do, including:
1) Fortified Antwerp
2) Brest (France) as fortified German Naval bases.
3) A few other Naval bases on French soil, including at least one in the channel.
4) A DMZ in the channel, limiting Britain ability to blockade. This probably involves limits on fortifying ports, and types of ships allowed in the Channel.
5) Probably some naval limitation treaty where Germany is allowed to build as many ships as the UK.
6) German naval bases in Africa might also be required.
The sides were too far apart to make peace, only after years more of war just between the UK and Germany would peace be considered.
I am sure this was believe by the UK, but in reality lots of treaties are broken. For example the UK betrayed Italy in WW1, and it defaulted on USA loans. We can also talk about Oran or not coming to the Czechoslovakia aid. So one could also say with good basis that the UK could not be trusted.
IMO, if Britain had made peace, Britain will use this time to prepare for the next war. If Germany was doing badly in Russia, the UK might also break the peace deal.
BlondieBC, it was believed in the UK because it was true.
The British and French in 1938 provided Germany with terms of astounding and undeserved generosity solely because if Hitler's word diplomatically was shown to be trustworthy it meant that war in Europe could yet be averted. Instead Hitler shredded the treaty as soon as he could seize the remnant Czech state, making clear in the process that he could not be trusted.
As for this fantasy of Great Britain betraying Italy in WWI there were certain goals Italy was supposed to meet. These goals did not include near military collapse and becoming a drain on Anglo-French supplies and even requiring substantial numbers of troops.