A deal with Hitler depends on when you make the deal and what the terms are. I would argue that maybe it would've been better if they had made a deal with Hitler over Danzig, instead of daring Hitler to invade Poland thinking that he wouldn't. Another interesting scenario would've been to make a deal after significant gains following D-Day instead of grinding all the way to Berlin. Unconditional surrender was a non-starter because of the Red Army and not making terms with Germany meant Stalin basically had a free hand in the East when all was set and done. The absolute worst time to make a deal however was during the Battle of France when the US had not yet joined the war, the USSR was still officially allied with Germany and the UK was at its most vulnerable.
The British nationalists think that the UK lost their empire and super power status to the US because they went to war with Germany and a deal would've prevented that. However, it is doubtful that a deal with Hitler would've changed this outcome. After all, Hitler couldn't win against England and didn't have the means to invade. Apart from the Africa Corps and the Italians by far the biggest threat to the British Empire were the Japanese and only with the help of the US could the Brits hold them back. Making a deal with Hitler over mainland Europe would've likely sped up the process of 'losing the empire' as they wouldn't have been able to fight in Africa and Asia either. What little of the Empire they kept was mostly due to the fact that they fought alongside the US and allied governments in exile.
And the British empire, while prosperous at times was always smoke and mirrors like most empires. The maintenance cost of the Empire in terms of defense, policing, education, public services etc. was high. A lot of areas weren't as developed and didn't have the same economic output and food production was already a problem prior to WW2 (and WW2 only made it worse). In fact many citizens from the empire who would later visit London, the 'capitol of the Empire' were dissapointed that it wasn't at all what they imagined it to be based on what they had been taught in school. At the same time many people living in the UK had been told fantastical stories about the riches of the empire, which were hardly true. In reality Brittain wouldn't have been able to afford their empire, with or without Hitler.
The British nationalists think that the UK lost their empire and super power status to the US because they went to war with Germany and a deal would've prevented that. However, it is doubtful that a deal with Hitler would've changed this outcome. After all, Hitler couldn't win against England and didn't have the means to invade. Apart from the Africa Corps and the Italians by far the biggest threat to the British Empire were the Japanese and only with the help of the US could the Brits hold them back. Making a deal with Hitler over mainland Europe would've likely sped up the process of 'losing the empire' as they wouldn't have been able to fight in Africa and Asia either. What little of the Empire they kept was mostly due to the fact that they fought alongside the US and allied governments in exile.
And the British empire, while prosperous at times was always smoke and mirrors like most empires. The maintenance cost of the Empire in terms of defense, policing, education, public services etc. was high. A lot of areas weren't as developed and didn't have the same economic output and food production was already a problem prior to WW2 (and WW2 only made it worse). In fact many citizens from the empire who would later visit London, the 'capitol of the Empire' were dissapointed that it wasn't at all what they imagined it to be based on what they had been taught in school. At the same time many people living in the UK had been told fantastical stories about the riches of the empire, which were hardly true. In reality Brittain wouldn't have been able to afford their empire, with or without Hitler.