WWI: What if the U.S. stayed neutral?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
Dr. Bernd Martin of Freiburg University has revealed the extent to which secret negotiations on peace continued between Britain and Germany in October 1939

In october of 39 Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty. He would not have had a veto over a decision to negotiate, AFAIK. I think some folks underestimate the extent to which Chamberlain had gone hawkish after the Germans had marched into Prague in spring 39 and made him look like a fool for Munich. (Overy, in a revisionist (but not THAT kind of revisionist) bio of Chamberlain suggests he was a hawk all along)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


What are you talking about? I specifically refer to the German peace offers and nothing else. The question presented to the Brits was whether they would negotiate rather than fight. In '39, Hitler had offered to give up Poland and Czechoslovakia provided there be an internationally conducted referedum by the people living in the Corridor as to whether they wanted to be Germans or Poles. The Brits chose to fight, but only after a long week's silence. The issue must have been close in the cabinet.

Now given that it was Churchill who was advocating strong measures before and after, I am sure he was among those who argued to reject the German initiative(s).

1. I dont believe Hitler made that offer
2. If he did, I doubt anyone would have taken it seriously. He had promised not to make any more demands after Munich. No one serious believed him any more. I dont think you get that.

[lord of the mark]

Ned, quick googling shows this Bernd Martin as publishing on Heidegger, and on German-Japanese relations. The only references to him saying something about peace offers to Britain are on holocaust denial websites. Do you have any link to a reliable source quoting a specific work by this man saying hes found such records? Right now all we have is a denial website quoting David Irving saying Martin said something based on some newly revealed sources. Thats like fourth hand. This is supposed to be a history forum, not a rumor forum. When you assert a novum, its your obligation to give us a reasonable source.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And yes, pathological.

You propose the British should have tolerated a situation akin to Castro taking over one country after another in Central and South America while the US would have been being bad boys to object.

Simply ****ing pathological.

Hitler had made it clear from his earliest days that his whole object was to undo Versailles. Chamberlain negotiated the way he did because he recognized some merit in the German position. But Hitler kept saying this is my last demand, etc., and then, once he got his way, would make further demands. Hitler's style is what undid him in the end because by the end of 1939, no one could trust him.

So it was not like Castro conquering one country after another. There was some justice in what Hitler demanded. But he, himself, was also the problem.

On the Brit side, there was Churchill who preferred war over negotiations and was constantly pushing in that direction against people who preferred to negotiate.

As to propaganda, the Brits were doing all they could in WWI and WWII to get America into the war by demonizing Germany. You cannot deny this. What you should also know is that Hitler attacked Russia in '41 because he believed that British negotiations with Stalin were making progress and that is why Britain was not accepting his peace offers.

Churchill, of course, was a leading advocate of an alliance with the Soviets.

We will never know how history would have turned out had the peaceniks prevailed, but it is clear that a central reason they did not prevail in both wars was Winston Churchill.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Hitler had made it clear from his earliest days that his whole object was to undo Versailles. Chamberlain negotiated the way he did because he recognized some merit in the German position. But Hitler kept saying this is my last demand, etc., and then, once he got his way, would make further demands. Hitler's style is what undid him in the end because by the end of 1939, no one could trust him.

That wasnt style, that was strategy. If hed come out in 36 and said when going into the Rhineland, that he would march into Austria, threaten war for the Sudeten land, and then take the rest of Czecho, hed have had a war in '36, and hed have lost badly. It was a strategy of deception, not a "style".

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Ned, quick googling shows this Bernd Martin as publishing on Heidegger, and on German-Japanese relations. The only references to him saying something about peace offers to Britain are on holocaust denial websites. Do you have any link to a reliable source quoting a specific work by this man saying hes found such records? Right now all we have is a denial website quoting David Irving saying Martin said something based on some newly revealed sources. Thats like fourth hand. This is supposed to be a history forum, not a rumor forum. When you assert a novum, its your obligation to give us a reasonable source.

I have been looking for specifics on the German offer. I have previously linked to it in other threads.

But don't you think it is queer that British records concerning that peace offer and their considerations of it remained sealed to this day?

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


That wasnt style, that was strategy. If hed come out in 36 and said when going into the Rhineland, that he would march into Austria, threaten war for the Sudeten land, and then take the rest of Czecho, hed have had a war in '36, and hed have lost badly. It was a strategy of deception, not a "style".

Now you are kidding yourself. All you have to do is read his book to know his overall plan and objective.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned


I have been looking for specifics on the German offer. I have previously linked to it in other threads.

But don't you think it is queer that British records concerning that peace offer and their considerations of it remained sealed to this day?

I'm not sure I beleive they are sealed, the stuff from 1940 which showed we nearly gave up has been released. Stuff saying we were prepared to fight Hitler despite his offers is hardly embarrasing

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Hitler had made it clear from his earliest days that his whole object was to undo Versailles.

The object of just about every German pol, including the socialists, was to undo Versailles. The question was how, via economic pressure and gradual diplomacy, or via war or threat of war.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Now you are kidding yourself. All you have to do is read his book to know his overall plan and objective.

You mean Mein Kampf? No one in the UK, other than Churchill and his followers was taking that seriously.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
Churchill, of course, was a leading advocate of an alliance with the Soviets.

Churchill had been about the leading Anti-soviet pol in the UK, going back to 1918. He advocated a soviet alliance only once the war began (and even in fall 1939 he was supportive of going to war with the USSR over Finland). There isnt any Brit pol, not Chamberlain, or Halifax or anyone else who didnt want a Soviet alliance once UK was isolated.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned

Chamberlain negotiated the way he did because he recognized some merit in the German position.

according to Overy's bio, which is based on Chamberlains diary and private letters, among other sources, Chamberlain negotiated the way he did because he thought Briton wasnt ready for war in 1938, he didnt trust the Soviets to come in on the allied side, he was esp concerned with the weakness of British air defenses.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned

There was some justice in what Hitler demanded.

Lets see, an annexation of Austria against the wishes of probably a majority of its population, who were almost half socialists, that annexation being followed immediately by the suppression of anti-Nazi political parties? The annexation of the Sudetenland, the sovereign territory of a League member, by threat of force - and the effective denial of that countrys defenses by said annexation? Followed a mere six months later by the annexation of that country, taking advantage of that countrys weakness due to the prior annexation of the Sudetendland? And then the confiscation of that countrys assets, to finance the further buildup of the German war machine? And then the dispute over Polands only access to the sea, a few years after Germany had signed a non-aggresion pact with Poland? And then, after only a few months of claims, of a war on Poland, and her partition alongside the USSR, the threat from whom had been Hitlers justification for much of what he did? and then the seizure of Polands financial assets, to further finance his war machine?

Ned, you are sounding loony here. Very loony. Time for a reality check. Read some real historians of the period, and stay away from the pro-Nazi websites.

[Dr Strangelove]

How did you two get shifted to WW2?
The British seized the 2 ships being built for Turkey not because Turkey was allied with Germany or Austria - they weren't, but the Brits wanted to bolster their battle fleet. The thought that every ship would count, not realising that the war would become rather a dud with respect to traditional naval warfare. The Germans at that time had two cruisers in the Mediterranean, but realized that the two ships had little chance of making their way back to Germany. They decided to capitalize on Britain's insult to the Ottomans by giving the ships to Turkey. The British fleet pursued the two vessels across the Mediterranean, failing twice to trap them. This diplomatic coup went a long way toward convincing the Turks to join the Central Powers.

[Ned]

LoTM, looney? The US Senate refused to ratify Versailles. Perhaps they disagreed with it?