People of the New World can't differanciate when it comes to Europe.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Ned
SD, I see some degree of justification for England to retaliate. But England went far beyond this and were quite effective in completely destroying German cities and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process. The only way they were able to do this and continue to do this throughout the war was a complete news blackout. When the news of Dresden became public in in early 1945, the American people, indeed the world, reacted with outrage.

Then the Americans wiped out 2 cities with nukes.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
When the news of Dresden became public in in early 1945, the American people, indeed the world, reacted with outrage.

And the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't?

[Ned]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Ned

The UK lost over a million people in WW1 those sort of casualties affect your policies. When Hitler took back the Rhineland, something shold have been done , however as that was one of the more blatantly unfair provisoions of the treaty of versailles its not surprising people wern't going to go to war for it.

The country had lost an entire generation, my Grans mother lost 6 brothers in WW1, people were reluctant to go through it again.

Obviously it would have saved alot of lives to have stopped Hitler earlier, however at the time people in britain were trying to forget an earlier war and get over a depression, fighting Hitler over a bunch of countries no one cared about was not top of anyones priorities.

Germany had grievances over WW1 and found it diffcult to accept they lost, however for the people of britain and France it was quite difficult to accept they won.

Spencer, in fairness, I understand. Britain was traumatized by WWI just as Vietnam traumatized America. But Chamberlain chose appeasment not only to avoid war, but because he felt the Treaty was unjust.

Looking back, I don't know how Britain could have continued to avoid war except to continue the policy of appeasement. But this policy became extremely unpopular in Britain after Czechoslovakia. Thereafter, Britain deliberately chose the path of war, a war they knew they could not win on their own. And it is at this point, I stop understanding the British policy - unless they were somewhat certain that the United States would again back them up.

Does anyone have any informtion on British discussions with Roosevelt in mid 1939?

[Dauphin]

Thereafter, Britain deliberately chose the path of war, a war they knew they could not win on their own. And it is at this point, I stop understanding the British policy

The longer the delay in a declaration of war the less likely the chances of winning a future war, which was perceived as inevitable. Better to fight when the odds are marginally for/against, rather than when completely against.

"If you are losing the peace, declare war" - I think that's a Star Trek quote, but its true enough.

But their actions soon after of going into a defensive posture seem to indicate that they knew they could not win it.

Defence followed by counter-attack was a common ploy, also used in WW1 - an occasion when the Allies certainly did believe they would win, and win quickly.

[Ned]

SD, et al., Well I looked at the original diplomatic documents in the Roosevelt Library and found the opposite - FDR expressly warned England that they could not win a war with Germany even with the USSR and France as "loyal" allies. He advised the UK not to go down the path for war but to instead call for a European conference to settle borders. Failing that, he advised England make no declaration of war, but merely blockade Germany.

He said that if the US were to get involved, it would only be by means of supporting the blockade and that he could not send troops.

He is a link to the original document.

Secret Meeting with FDR

[TheStinger]

We did deliberatley chose war because it was the right thing to do, not the most sensible, not the most realistic the right thing.

A blockade would have caused Germany to declare war anyway.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
FDR expressly warned England that they could not win a war with Germany even with the USSR and France as "loyal" allies.

Did he know more about German military strength and tactics than Britain? How much did he know about the state of the Allies militaries?

I don't think Roosevelt was in a position to judge what was or was not possible. The possible permutations were too many and the possible conclusions too varied.

[TheStinger]

Since whenn did Roosevelt become a military strategist.

For the first year of the pacific war the Japenese were quite succesful( I know they whupped Britain too).

[Ned]

Well, Roosevelt turned out to be right.

[TheStinger]

Hindsight, at the time it was perfectly reasonable to take the opposite view.

Oh and rosevelt thought stalin could be trusted

[Sava]

paiktis you generalize too much

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, Roosevelt turned out to be right.

If I toss a coin I have a 50% chance of being right.

[Ned]

Well, I went through the logic my self early in this thread. The coalition of Russia, UK and France (and Italy) could not beat Germany and Austria in WWI. Why was there any reason to believe that the fundamentals had been altered in any significant way? I think even the common man on the street could figure this one out.

But, let's drop that issue for a second. Do you think a European conference would have been successful in maintaining peace - especially if the re-arranged borders would be guaranteed by the United States as Rooselvelt offered?

(This raises an interesting question about America's status in the world. WWII really made America into a superpower by forcing us to invest in our military and to end our isolationism.)