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

[Ned]

Then there were all those Neutrality Acts which were intended to avoid the circumstances that drove America into WWI.

Didn't work because FDR manuevered Japan into attacking the US and Germany to declare war.

Ah, and for saying that WWI and WWII were both horrible wars for mankind, I am a looney?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

But the Atlantic charter was a statement of principles, not an alliance.

Churchill signed on in exchange for something.

Could the something have been continued and closer cooperation from the US to help defeat Germany?

[notyoueither]

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).

It was time to fight, Ned. Churchill knew it since '35, but he was isolated. He was brought into cabinet in '39 only because he had to be. He was the only one who was right on the major issues for the previous 4 or more years. That didn't put him in the drivers seat.

He got the drivers seat in the aftermath of the debacles that the interwar and earlywar leadership had wrought.

You come off here as a fine example of the Chamberlain tradition. Peace at all costs! Sometimes it is right to fight. When there are Nazis overrunning the Continent, it is time to fight.

[notyoueither]

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

Yes, loony.

The issue isn't redress over Versailles. The issue is Hilter's behaviour and the total folly in thinking that negotiations with Hilter's regime could ever have borne fruit.

You've sited 'the book.' Very good. Then you should know very well what 'the book' says about the prospects for peace and the treatment of peoples to the East.

Yes, very loony.

[lord of the mark]

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

Disagreeing with Versailles =! to the array of things youve been posting, including holding Churchill blameworthy for WW2, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Churchill signed on in exchange for something.

Could the something have been continued and closer cooperation from the US to help defeat Germany?

He certainly wanted to strengthen the relationship with the US, and the Atlantic Charter was part of that. There was still no treaty of alliance binding the US in any fashion.

Ned (or was it someone else who brought it up) seems to think the US violated a treaty obligation in 1956, by not supporting UK in Suez. The fact remains, the only US treaty of Alliance with the UK (unless there was one during WW1) was the Atlantic Alliance/NATO, signed in 1949, and binding only wrt an attack on a signatory in Europe or North America. Ergo not binding in Suez, even if you see Nasser as aggressor.

Now did the US fail to come voluntarily to the aid of an allied country, when it could have chosen to do so to strengthen the alliance? Yes, just as France and Germany did wrt Iraq, as UK and France did wrt Viet Nam, etc. In all case the benefits of strengthening the alliance by going beyond the letter of the treaty obligations had to be weighed against broader foreign policy objectives, including regional impacts. all are debateble as far as prudence - none, I think, deserve to go down as historys greatest betrayals.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
Didn't work because FDR manuevered Japan into attacking the US

Thats also looney. The US clearly wasnt go to let Japan take China, and then IndoChina as well.

Theres abundant evidence from now public documents that FDR until fairly late didnt think Japan WOULD go to war, but thought they would succumb to pressure and make a deal.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You come off here as a fine example of the Chamberlain tradition. Peace at all costs! Sometimes it is right to fight. When there are Nazis overrunning the Continent, it is time to fight.

Even Chamberlain clearly thought it was time to fight in Sept 1939, and had been getting ready for it at least since the German seizure of Prague that spring. Ned is NOT in the Chamberlain tradition. At least in this thread hes more in the Nazi apologist tradition.

[Dauphin]

Ned strikes me as the troll tradition. He's posted in threads in the past the exact opposite, about how bad Chamberlain was to have not stood up to Hitler and how appeasement was an awful notion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Thats also looney. The US clearly wasnt go to let Japan take China, and then IndoChina as well.

Theres abundant evidence from now public documents that FDR until fairly late didnt think Japan WOULD go to war, but thought they would succumb to pressure and make a deal.

Well, I for one agree with FDR here. Japan had lost any claim for legitimacy with Nanking. The way they were conducting that war was far beyond illegitimate.

But you do seem to agree that at some point FDR became aware that Japan might choose war. At that point, he essentially stopped negotiating himself, preferring war over any negotiated peace.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Ned strikes me as the troll tradition. He's posted in threads in the past the exact opposite, about how bad Chamberlain was to have not stood up to Hitler and how appeasement was an awful notion.

True.

Lawyers should be able to argue both sides of a case with conviction!

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Yes, loony.

The issue isn't redress over Versailles. The issue is Hilter's behaviour and the total folly in thinking that negotiations with Hilter's regime could ever have borne fruit.

You've sited 'the book.' Very good. Then you should know very well what 'the book' says about the prospects for peace and the treatment of peoples to the East.

Yes, very loony.

You will note that before Hitler made a mockery of Munich, no one in England knew that Hitler's word was no good.

The issue for England then was not whether there was any justice in Germany's demands. It was Hitler himself. You couldn't trust him.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


It was time to fight, Ned. Churchill knew it since '35, but he was isolated. He was brought into cabinet in '39 only because he had to be. He was the only one who was right on the major issues for the previous 4 or more years. That didn't put him in the drivers seat.

He got the drivers seat in the aftermath of the debacles that the interwar and earlywar leadership had wrought.

You come off here as a fine example of the Chamberlain tradition. Peace at all costs! Sometimes it is right to fight. When there are Nazis overrunning the Continent, it is time to fight.

As I said, until Hitler made a mockery of Munich, no one knew you could not negotiate with Hitler. But even before Munich, Churchill was pressing for a harder line, as you said.

The real point here is whether the Brits should have agreed to a European conference in October '39 to settle all issues. (Roosevelt had offered to participate.) I see from the above that you agree with the view that war, with all the human suffering it brought, was preferrable to peace at that juncture.

[Ned]

BTW, one could make the same arguments concerning any dictator, but particularly the one in North Korea, that you cannot negotiate with them and expect them to keep deals.

So, what does this imply? That war is the ONLY alternative?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
I see from the above that you agree with the view that war, with all the human suffering it brought, was preferrable to peace at that juncture.

Yes, if you are losing the peace.