Britain planned Collusion with Nazis to Rule the World

Britain planned Collusion with Nazis to Rule the World

Released through the Official Secrets Act after 60 years, the Plan that Britain would Hatch with Germany to Rule the World.

The attempt to discredit this as the work of an amateur and maverick WILL NOT WASH

I am sorry, but i see no British rule over the world. British empire crumbled after WW2. I can understand theories that Britain helped "raising" Hitler as offset to Stalin, or Stalin "raising" Hitler to get in the central Europe. I do not know if those things are correct or not but at least result shows that it could be.
What is the result of British imperialistic plan?

Ye its very unlikely that britain was going to join Forces wih Hitler.

I read about this in todays Sunday Express, oddly enough.

There was a group of British Nazi sympathisers associated with Lord Halifax in Neville Chamberlain's government (replaced by that of Winston Churchill in 1940), who were planning to strike a deal with Hitler, whereby Britain would leave Hitler to conquer Europe in return for Hitler leaving Britain to dominate the rest of the globe.

The British Empire crumbled due to the anti-Empire sentiments that lingered after the war.. however, had Hitler established an Empire in mainland Europe, whats to say that the British Empire might not have flourished in the post-WW2 world?

@selfisolated


You are spot on, in face I have always contended that Edward VIII was forced to resign as King of the UK, for his close ties with the Nazis and personal friendship with Hitler, of course it was easy to blame his choice of Wife!

Churchill and Hitler were alike in MANY ways however painful that might be to hear, and it needed someone like Churchill to defeat Hitler. Churchill advocated the forced sterilisation of people deemed as disabled or retarded, and another interesting point was that people often ask why did Hitler never use Gas on London? because oddly enough he hated the use in warfare and Churchill had threatened respond in like if he did.

Wether this is actually true I do not know but have found no evidence either way.

One last point they say that the Victors are the ones who write the History and the nanquished are demonised, one of Churchill quotes is "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it. "

@setfree...

Nobody won the war really.
Millions died on both sides, tens of millions more were left hungry and homeless... all for what?

So one fat man in a bunker could say he was better than a fat man in a bunker in a different country.

True about the victors writing history though.. I just hope that in 60 years time people aren't praising current Western leaders for being "valiant" in their campaigns against.. well, anything they don't particularly like.
But thats the way its gonna go.

reply to post by selfisolated



Good points. People all over are too quick to forget just how pervasive the ties the Nazis formed with rich and powerful people really were. It isn't that whole governments were secretly in league with National Socialism--it's that there were just enough very highly placed sympathizers to make the hair on your arms stand up and your blood run cold.

Interesting thread.

It would make for a very interesting ''What if'' TV program.

If the British and the Germans had signed a non-agression pact, would the Germans have influenced their Japanese allies to leave the British far east colonies alone I wonder? Would the Japanese have still attacked Pearl Harbour? What would have happend to Russia?

Most importantly, what would the world be like today?

This is a mere drop in the ocean, there were countless peace overtures from both sides. Hitler never wanted to attack Great Britain, and he made it clear that he did not wish to engage in conflict with the British in Mein Kampf. He visualised Britain and Germany 'walking hand in hand' in domination of the Eurasian World Island. Unlike Winston Churchill, many in the UK saw Germany as our natural ally, and with good reason, we are after all Anglo-Saxons and they are Germano-Saxons, we are of the same blood.

In 1941, when Hitler made his last ditch attempt at peace with Britain, he did so with the offer to return to pre-1939 territories, as long as we would consider the Sudetenland and the Danzig corridor as German provinces. This meant he would withdraw from most of Poland, Czechoslovakia and leave France unmolested. Britain refused, as they refused every subsequent offer (though no more offers were received directly from Hitler).

It should also be noted that Edward VIII was a weak and ineffectual man, driven by financial avarice. He willingly toadied up to the Nazis as he thought they would offer him and his wife wealth and prestige. When Hitler realised he had no real power however they were dropped from favour...and spirited far out of reach by the British Foreign Office so that they could do no further damage to morale on the home front.

There were numerous plots to oust Churchill, most notably one led by Lloyd George, who Churchill decried as willing to be Hitler's 'Petain' to Britain. It was Churchill's dedication alone that prevented any peace being agreed with Germany, and there were many intelligence operations aimed at securing information in exchange for the implied promise of a peace settlement, promises that Churchill had no intention of fulfilling. He also ensured that our allies, France included, knew nothing of these offers. They might afterall see sense in such a peace. Churchill wanted a world war.

This latest release into the National Archives is a mere piffle considering the secrets that are still under lock and key, and that will remain that way for many years to come.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
I am sorry, but i see no British rule over the world. British empire crumbled after WW2. ...
What is the result of British imperialistic plan?

The "British Empire" is about 12% owned by Britain & about 78% owned by the "City of London, aka "The Crown" empire. The "City of London" is a recognized sovereign state that comprises the bankers that own the Fed and Bank of England.

'Crown' is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule independent sovereign state known as London or 'The City'. 'Crown' is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule independent sovereign state known as London or 'City.' 'City' is not part of England. It is not subject to Sovereign. It is not under rule of British parliament. Like Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state. It is Vatican of commercial world. (also, Sovereign Knights of Malta are a sovereign state)

"The City of London" also known as, "The Crown) is explained in detail in the following 3-post series (Note: when the Queen visits the mayor of The City of London -- she walks BEHIND HIM, not in front of him, as he is the higher authority:
(1) www.abovetopsecret.com...
(2) www.abovetopsecret.com...
(3) www.abovetopsecret.com... ]

While the people who rule the City of London are "British", it is not a "British" subject. I realize this is a difficult paradox; however, it is similar to the premise that the U.S. is being ruled by the "corporation of the U.S." -- which I still am fuzzy about. Although, the District of Columbia is NOT a State, it is another legal entity ... I don't think it is recognized as a "sovereign country", is it?; however, what really is the "district"? Anyone?



[edit on 1-9-2008 by counterterrorist]

[edit on 1-9-2008 by counterterrorist]

What a load of rubbish. The Lord Mayor of London is a Queens Subject, she does not bow to anyone.

You need to review what you have written. The City is part of the UK and comes under UK laws and the Crown.

I suggest you research further and not use links to posts you yourself provided in the first place.