Anonymous
Anonymous asked in News & EventsCurrent Events · 1 month ago

Should the United Kingdom have remained neutral during World War II?

It gained nothing from the war and lost so much. In 1943, the US Navy overtook the Royal Navy to become the largest in the world, and in 1944, the US dollar formally replaced the British pound as the world's primary reserve currency at the Bretton Woods Conference. The United Kingdom had gone from the most powerful country in the world in 1939 to the third-most powerful in 1945, after the United States and the Soviet Union. It lay bankrupt, its cities and industry in ruins, and on the verge of losing the empire. Clearly, fighting a Jewish war to destroy National Socialist Germany was unwise.

7 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    That wasn't ever an option. Even with a King Edward VIII and Queen Wallis on the throne we'd have been exterminating our own Jews (David and Wallis toured the camps and watched retarded children being gassed as tests before the Jews were even rounded up) and have had to use our Empire to help the Third Reich conquer the world. Failing to do that inevitably would have led to an attempt to conquer us. We were going to fight either way. Here's how much Kings are gods: Edward VIII chickening out meant that brave Bertie got his pick, and he decided to spare the Jews and Hindoos and Blacks from the intended Genocide. It all flipped on a single man, yet historians will NEVER teach you that Royalty can do that.

  • F
    Lv 6
    1 month ago

    By remaining neutral , do you mean turning a blind eye and making a fortune out of supplying an evil regime like Sweden and Switzerland did and the USA for the first two years ?

  • 1 month ago

    Its help was needed to contain and destroy the Nazis. Moreover, the Blitz had destroyed much of the United Kingdom so much that it could no longer remain neutral.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Post in History.

    Google : What is a current event?"

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    --  Definitely not.  Britain had a treaty obligation with Poland. Also, fascism had to be combatted, especially the fascism of German and Austrian Nazis.

  • Foofa
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Not sure it had the option to remain neutral once things progressed past a certain point. It's not like it wouldn't have been invaded eventually and probably with much greater loss of life. Britain didn't fight a "Jewish war", it was fighting for its mere survival. In fact no one was really aware the how dire the situation was for Jews in German until near the end of the conflict. 

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    I believe neutrality would have been a better stance

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.