Ukip Leader Nigel Farage Thinks The Armistice Was The Biggest Mistake Of The 20th Century

Nigel Farage has made use of this week's Remembrance Day by saying that he thinks the armistice was the biggest mistake of the 20th century and voiced his opinions on how he would have stopped Hitler and World War Two.

In a discussion on the "myths" of the First World War and the impact of the conflict, the Ukip leader said he believes Germany should have been forced to unconditionally surrender - even if it had cost 100,000 more lives.

Trying his hand at some "What if" theoretical history, Farage argued that if Britain and its allies hadn't ended the fighting in western Europe for another six weeks, Adolf Hitler and the rise of the Nazis could have been stopped.

Farage claimed that if the war had been prolonged for a bit longer, with the further loss of thousands of lives, Germany's history would have been dramatically altered in the wake of the "harsh" Versailles treaty.

"But I don't actually think Versailles was the mistake. I believe the real mistake, the anniversary of which we remember today, was the Armistice," he said, in a speech published on The International Business Times.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/12/nigel-farage-armistice-_n_6144586.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


It is an interesting view, though one that fails to understand how and why Hitler rose to power, where again his hypothesis still will allow for blame to be cast on those who concede defeat.
What do others think?

i think he is of the opinion that had germany been forced into unconditional surrender, It could have been made into an "occupied territory" and thus controlled.....
Hitlers comming to power relied on a complex web of circumstances, many of which are unlikely to have occured if germany had been forced into surrender in the first WW.

whether what then occured would have been any better is debateable...we might have gone to war against russia....

victorisnotamused wrote:i think he is of the opinion that had germany been forced into unconditional surrender, It could have been made into an "occupied territory" and thus controlled.....
Hitlers comming to power  relied on a complex web of circumstances, many of which are unlikely to have occured if germany had been forced into surrender in the first WW.

whether what then occured would have been any better is debateable...we might have gone to war against russia....

Of course, the reality is Germany was occupied in the Rhineland anyway and to me it would have had to have been Germany fighting until they were literally defeated, which would have caused far more than 100,000 lives and longer than 6 weeks, where they entered Germany all the way to Berlin. The thing is given the situation after so many causalities on all sides, anyone would have jumped at the chance of peace, which he is not factoring in here. By then people wanted out of the war, so even if this was played over a thousand times, I expect the likelihood the same would be repeated 999 times out of a thousand.


In fact the political map could have been very different after WW1, if the allies had continued all the way to Berlin, further weakening Germany to the point Poland during the Posnanian War, could have taken over an ever greater part of former Germany creating a smaller Germany through this affects and agreement on the Versailles treaty, which could have had two affects. One Hitler still has the use of German nationalism to regain territory, which they would still have lost other chunks of land or Germany lost much of one its industrial areas in Silesia leaving in two weak to even constitute a threat.

wouldn't have done anything.
Yes maybe different in Europe but WW2 would still have occurred.

World history lesson
Europeans exploited the overthrow of the Manchurian gov't of China for Economic gains doing so meant maintaining significant military power in East Asia. they forced/inspired Japan to a similar expansionist mindset.
WW1 meant the withdrawing of the European forces to fight the war in Europe this created a power vacuum in China that the Japanese moved to Fill and initially did using the political and economic mean the Europeans did, But it desired greater expansion and more complete control. That is why Japan engaged in the first military action of WW2 with its invasion of Korea and China.
this would have eventually led them to invasions of Hong Kong and Philippines, and probably engaging USA and Britain to defend their East Asian assets.

Even in Europe you still have Mussolini and Stalin. So if in alternate timeline WW1 was fought a little longer and Germany left unable to recover for WW2 you still have 2 other leaders that would potentially take advantage of any opportunity.
Plus if there wasn't the rise of Fascism in Germany(because they are completely smashed from WW1) the Communist Political movement that was sweeping west from Russia would not of hit a blockage in Germany and we might have seen 'an event' occur further west that still caused WW2, keep in mind the Nazi initial rise as a political party is running against a Communist party (KPD - Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands)
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/communist_party_weimar_germany.htm

So It might have started in France and Britain could have already been engaged in the defence of Hong Kong.

OR it could have skipped the fascist movement altogether and went straight tot the political division of the cold war. With Germany to Mongolia United under a Communist Banner there would definitely be significant resistance probably military from the capitalist nations. If the nuclear deterrent wasn't a factor than the Cold war would probably not have been cold. Interestingly this might have lead Japan to be on the allies side.

I'm gonna put out a wild Idea that Genghis Khan uniting the tribes would eventually lead to the creation of the Nuke(which is still the main thing preventing full scale World War today)
If Genghis hadn't made the Empire that under his son stretched all the way from China to Austria that opened up trading from east to west in a manner never possible before, than you would never had the "Marco Polo's" that visited China under Kublai Khan (Genghis's Grandson) not only would such a trek be almost impossible without the law and order the Khans imposed but a foreigner's reception in the Chinese Imperial Courts might have been very different Under a Jin Emperor (or Han) and if the "Marco Polo's" hadn't returned to Europe in success than with tales of riches than the voyages for trade that lead to the discovery of the Americas and the Period of Colonial empires may never have set sail.

With out their colonial empires the European nations would never have been powerful enough to disrupt the Manchurian gov't that allowed the Boxer revolution which opened up China and east Asia to Exploitation.
Germany's previous lack of Colonial power (due to lack of unification of Germany) meant it did a lot to secure economic 'interests' in China (one of the last places to be opened for exploitation)  this provided significant economic wealth may well be a factor driving them to WW1 or at least making them an industrial power and making WW1 economically possible.

As in Previous Post WW2 is directly linked to WW1... so there is you "7 step from Kevin Bacon" the Genghis Khan Historical Edition

I think the Europeans would still have gone off sailing for riches (a number of reasons for that, including increasingly materialistic values and primogeniture), but they might have stopped at Africa if it weren't for the Khans, I agree with that part.

But would they have been able to take on the Islamic empire if it hadn't been smashed by the Khans?
http://lostislamichistory.com/mongols/

The 1200s started out looking good for the Islamic world. The Crusaders had been defeated and Jerusalem liberated in 1187, the Ismaili Fatimids had finally been removed from harassing the Muslim world in the mid-1100s, and a powerful Khwarazmian Empire had emerged in Persia. However, all that would soon turn around when the ruthless Mongols would make their way into Southwest Asia. The destruction and devastation they left in their path has scarcely been seen anywhere else in history.

even the taking of North African interests was largely possible because the Caliphate had been so weakened

Despite ultimately being unsuccessful in their attempt to destroy Islam, the Mongols left a deep political, economic, and military scar in the heart of the Muslim world. Entire regions were depopulated. Irrigation canals, fields of crops, and economic infrastructure were destroyed beyond repair. The political institutions, such as the caliphate, that held the Muslim world together for centuries were simply abolished. The empire established by Hulagu stretched over most of Muslim Southwest Asia The Mongol Il-Khanate established by Hulagu’s descendants would rule over Persia, Iraq, and Anatolia for over 100 years. Over decades and centuries, the Mongols in Southwest Asia slowly converted to Islam and became absorbed in a Persian/Turkish culture. But there is no denying the immense negative effect the Mongols had on the Muslim world in the 1200s.

I really fail to see what bearing if the Mongols had not united that China would not have had the instability they would have had, because the Europeans advancement would have nothing still to deter them let alone China unlike Japan who took on never took on the advancements available in technology. Christians had been in China since the 8th century so the bases around Marco Polo are really irrelevant. Islamic nations were both checked at Vienna and Malta, where they had significantly recovered after the Mongol attacks, so again the invasions would have little bearing on this empire also how in the end this also after its initial scientific advancements also became stagnated. I can see you are attempting to go off the fact Japan was not affected by the Mongols who later embraced western technology, but China again who recovered after its devastation by the Mongols again would still have had European nations interact with them because China, unlike European nations lacked the one thing that enabled these countries to dominate, powerful navies. The Ottoman Empire also once had a powerful navy but this also declined, because being as the Empire was so big again, as happens with many Empires they are hard to maintain through so many different populations, plus the fact as stated they became stagnated.

So again if the Mongols invasions never happened, it would have little relevance, as all these Empires affected recovered, thus having little affect on later outcomes.
The one point you actually do make any relevance to is Russia, where as seen Russian expansionism into Europe would have gone unchecked, though Japanese expansion would have still happened, though doubtful the global war with the west would not have started in 1941, due to the fact their plans did not entertain attacking until the Americans had left the Philippines in 1946. This again may have happened thus much later, but is very unlikely they would have attacked in 1941, based around no Germany and their military successes to this point which gave them the false belief that Russia was going to be defeated and that a powerful Germany would join them in the event they attacked the US..

Lots of what ifs, but Russia would no doubt have annexed parts of eastern Europe, but further expansion would still have I believe at some point forced the other western nations into a global war, one of which the Russians would not have had the possibility of winning, if American was dragged into also, as they would have been fighting themselves a war on two fronts, where again they would not have had the mass resources they received from the west which helped them survive the initial German onslaught where they would not have had the mass vehicles they received, where also nobody would have learnt from the Germany Blitzkrieg tactics also for mass encirclement plans. Russia would have been again a land empire though as they had not the navy at the time, their advancement would have been limited because there is no doubt at the time, other European nations at some point would have been dragged into action. All though would be down to if and how America would have been dragged into this conflict, which no doubt the spread of Communism would been a factor that again would have brought them into action.

On Genghis you miss the point,
Marco Polo would never have happened and thus the Renascence, the discovery of the Americas and European Colonialism would not have occurred as there was nothing to inspire them.
It was the Wealth the Mongols made possible in trade that caused Europeans to Start looking outside of Europe.

And it can be argued that Baghdad Still hasn't recovered. the canal network is still not as expansive as it was the Great Library is gone. Vast amounts of knowledge from the early Islamic scholar in maths, astronomy and physic is gone thrown into the Tigris. You do Know it was the Mongols that ended Scholarly devotion in the Islamic world, it is often said they were more advanced than Europe and then went backward... which I know the institutionally racist version of history explains as 'Europe just start going really good'. BUT the more realistic version of history is that when

Entire regions were depopulated. Irrigation canals, fields of crops, and economic infrastructure were destroyed beyond repair. The political institutions, such as the caliphate, that held the Muslim world together for centuries were simply abolished.

Occurs all the Libraries and store houses of knowledge and learning are also lost.
And reality is they have never been the same again. And that almost complete destruction has made the Muslim world far more militant that it had been in the past.

And China also Never 'recovered' either the Han people over threw direct Mongol rule and had like 80 years of rule then the Manchurian (non-Han/Mongol Chinese half castes) take over again and rule until the boxer revolution of 1901.

And the Europe being largely spared the Mongols conquest still took advantage of the unprecedented trade routes that became opened allowing it to get ahead on the rest of the world which it proceeded to use to create Colonialism when the Mongol Empire fell apart. Even the Columbus voyage and the long sea voyage trading only started after the fall of the Mongol empire in 1368 probably because the overland trade routes that the Mongol empire enabled became infeasibility again due to too many borders and bandits.(also Mongols largely took over china without massive destruction of knowledge, compared to Islam due to Buddhist monks early acceptance amongst the Mongols)

the Big navies only get created to maintain the overseas empires, Europe would never even have looked overseas let alone had the power and wealth to make those empires If it hadn't been for the fact they weren't heavily impacted by direct conquest and were able to make the most out of the Mongol trade routes. The Discover of the Americas then gives then even more wealth allowing the total dominance that we have had for the past couple of centuries. Which includes ironically facilitating the fall of the Manchurians which then opens up China to exploit by Europe. And like you say Japan is also largely unaffected by the Mongol possibly assisting them in resisting European exploitation.
then this links to the First post about WW1 causing the withdrawal of the European forces and the power vacuum that Japan was able to Exploit.

and the Old Chinese Christians are non European based at all there teachings coming from the middle east directly (like Europe's did )

And If Marco Polo Had not been able to go to China because the Mongol empire hadn't open the trade routes Europe Would not have had Gunpowder which could have made the battles for the Americas very different.

yeah the brits would have won
with 10,000 bowmen