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

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

Molly, in July, Britain was questioning both France and Germany about their respect for Belgian neutrality, and was openingly saying they would defend the French ports facing England if the Germans were to attack them.

The British Empire was a guarantor of Belgian independence, as were France and Germany. Only one of those three was planning to break the treaty and invade Belgium. Guess which one ?

In other words, Britain was making it clear that any German (or French for that matter) invasion of Belgium would be met with British arms.

I think I've pointed out in other threads that the British were trying even at the last minute, to get the nations that were looking more likely to become engaged in a pan-European war to a conference table, in the old Congress system fashion.

Odd behaviour for a a supposedly 'greedy ambitious' warmongering nation.

Clearly, Albert could also rely on French support.

If you have proof that Albert knew he could rely on British and French support before the Germans crossed the Belgian frontier, show it.

I've demonstrated that Albert did not make his call for support from the other guarantors of the treaty outlining Belgian independence and neutrality until after the Germans had issued him with an ultimatum and they had crossed over into sovereign Belgian territory. I even gave you the time of day he made the call for help...

Well, British and French support was not enough, his country was overrun and virtually destroyed. Tens of thousands, if not more, lost their lives, etc., etc., etc.

The Belgian army put up stiffer resistance than the Germans thought they would, and the Germans were never able to occupy all of Belgium. Again, you seem to be missing the salient points:

1. Germany had been planning to break an international treaty of which it was a signatory

2. Germany attempted to bully Belgium into surrendering its sovereignty so that Germany could go to war with a third party with which Belgium had no quarrel

3. Germany planned to annexe Belgium

4. Germany failed to respond to peace overtures from the British and, fatally, gave Austria-Hungary a 'blank cheque'.

But it did by Britain time to get its troops to the continent, which was the British plan all along, I submit.

If you have any proof for this, then submit it.

Contrast the horror that happened to Belgium with what happened to Luxembourg.

Ah yes, another 'neutral' whose independence was also guaranteed by Germany.

Its army was limited to a ceremonial palace guard. Is there a difference in size between Luxembourg and Belgium, perhaps ?

When Britain told Germany that it could guarantee French and Belgian neutrality, the Kaiser told the army to stop its plans regarding France and direct their efforts towards Russia. When Britain later clarified its message, the war was back on.

Quotes, references, please...


You again seem to be ignoring the salient point: the Germans wanted war, and wanted a war with France. They had been planning for it. The Schlieffen Plan was not made up in August 1914.

The people who were pushing for war were the Russians, the French and Churchill's party in Britain.

Quotes, proof, references....

Germany completed the widening of the Kiel Canal in June 1914. This allowed Germany's dreadnoughts to pass from the Baltic Sea to the North Sea, and thus attack the Channel and the coast of Great Britain.

Von Moltke said on a visit to Conrad von Hotzendorff in May 1914:

...any adjournment will have the effect of diminishing our chances of success (in the coming conflict) .

Again, on June 1st he mentioned to Baron Eckhardstein that:

(the Germans)...are ready, and the sooner the better for us.

Fell free to regale us with similar quotes outlining French and British lust for conflict from the same dates.

If there is anyone truly responsible for the war, it is the Serbs.

Given that the assassination was carried out by a secret organisation and not all Serbs, and that the Serbian government acquiesced to all reasonable Austrian demands, I don't understand how you work that out.

The war began when the Austro-Hungarian forces started shelling Belgrade.

"The Royal Navy seizes the newly constructed Turkish battleships Sultan Osman I and Reshadieh in the Tyne "

As it was entitled to do under the terms of the contract to build them. They were not yet in the Ottoman Navy, so no act of war was committed. It seems your desire to smear the British as the warmongerers knows no bounds...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


No, we have been fed very skillful Brit propaganda for a very long time.

You are taking as proof the writings of someone who disgraces the title of historian, and who has been revealed in open court to be little better than a racist propagandist and Holocaust denier.

Congratulations.

Mr Justice Gray witheringly described Irving as anti-Semitic, racist and a Holocaust denier who had "deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4578534.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/

[molly bloom]

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.

Uhh, right...


So, like his predecessors, Hitler breaks international treaties and then says:

"But this is the last time- really, it is,"

and everyone should believe him. Given that Germans were a minority in Prague, what exactly was Germany doing annexing territory where Germans were not most populous peoples ?

Perhaps you think they should have been allowed to coopt large tracts of the United States where people of German descent lived too...

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.

I have the feeling that sinking American shipping and killing American passengers on British ships may have played a part, as would German sabotage in New Jersey and the Zimmermann Telegram.

Or do you serously expect us to believe that none of those played a part in Wilson's decision making ?

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

The same Soviets who had a 'Non-Aggression Pact' with Nazi Germany ?

Another treaty that Hitler broke as I recall....


Still, a drowning man will clutch at a snake, and the invasion of Russia was a stroke of good luck for Churchill. But perhaps you think he secretly persuaded Hitler to launch Operation Barbarossa....

"We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down,"

said Herr Hitler. The script was not, as I recall, written by Churchill.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

Could you perhaps tell me how the bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam and the treatment of Germany's ethnic minorities and political prisoners was 'legitimate' ?


I may have missed out on that in my Greater Britannic Homeland Indoctrination Classes.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by notyoueither


When did the USN begin escorting convoys, and actively engaging UBoats?

Note that if your answer is Dec 1941 you will be incorrect.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/53.htm

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want

This sounds remarkably like an agreement to accomplish an end by economic and military means. Sort of like an alliance against a foe that is recognised as being in common.

yes american ships were in convoy duty before dec 1941, yes we recognized a common foe, and shared asprations. What they did not do was sign a formal treaty of alliance.

If you believe they did, what were the terms of that alliance? Under what specific conditions was each obligated to come to the military aid of each other? The Atlantic Alliance of 1949 had such clauses, as does any formal alliance.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
LotM, Just the first site I could find that had the speech in full.

There is no doubt that Hitler's prior behavior was the very reason Britain refused to negotiate now. But it still would be interesting to see transcripts of the War Cabinet meetings where Hitler's peace offer was discussed.
.

If youd like to see a detailed historical discussion based on war cabinet transcripts of the May 1940 offer by Mussolini to negotiate, theres an excellent book by John Luckacs, called "Five Days in London" Go read it, and DONT post here on WW2 until you have done so.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
What? No one wants to argue that the sacrifice of tens of millions of innocent people was not a proper price to pay for Britain to contain Germany, to keep her from her colonies, to make sure that Britain had first call on the world's resources?

IF britain had accepted German rule of Czecho and Poland, and given its colonies to Germany that would NOT have been the end. Hitler hated Russia and France, and was looking for a war of revenge and domination of the European continent. He just didnt want one quite yet, in 1939, he didnt think Germany was ready. For Britain to have made a deal in 1939 would meant France could no longer look to Britain, and with its eastern european alliance system in tatters, would have had to subordinate itself to Germany. Eventually Hitler would have launched his war against the USSR, and tens of millions would have died. The entire world would have been far worse off.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


If youd like to see a detailed historical discussion based on war cabinet transcripts of the May 1940 offer by Mussolini to negotiate, theres an excellent book by John Luckacs, called "Five Days in London" Go read it, and DONT post here on WW2 until you have done so.

Ned for some reason keeps refering to an offer of peace in 1939, and he alleges that the UK cabinet papers are sealed on the subject, because Churchil refused that nice MR Hitlers offer of humilaition and subjugation

H

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


You again seem to be ignoring the salient point: the Germans wanted war, and wanted a war with France. They had been planning for it. The Schlieffen Plan was not made up in August 1914.

oh come now. French politicians had been calling for war to retake Alsace Lorraine for a long time, and since Kaiser Bill had foolishly alienated the Russians, France had an alliance that could have made such revanche possible. Given the prospect of a two front war, what plan would have made sense? Too wait while Russia mobilized, and face both enemies at once? Too attack into Russia, and get lost in the Russias vast area, while France attacked in the West? The France-first strategy was a natural response to the strategic dilemma, and not a sign of poliitcal aggression.

Of course Von Moltke emphasized that a war sooner was better than one later. Russia was industrializing rapidly, building up its railroad infrastructure and military power, using financing provided by French bond holders, whose republican principles were not deterred by Russian authoritarianism or antisemitism. The longer Germany waited, the greater the likelihood of being overwhelmed by Russia.


Despite this German civilians politicians like Bethman Holweg were running around trying to avoid war in July 1914. To abandon Austria to Russia, however, would have left Germany diplomatically isolated in Europe.

John Keegan, no Brit-hater he, suggests in his "First World War" that if AH had given its ultimatum to Serbia immediately, instead of waiting several weeks, Europe in shock at the murder of the Archduke, probably would have gone along.


If Germany was lusting for aggression, why didnt they attack France in 1905, when Russia was in the throes of revolution, and the opportunity for German victory greatest?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


oh come now. French politicians had been calling for war to retake Alsace Lorraine for a long time, and since Kaiser Bill had foolishly alienated the Russians, France had an alliance that could have made such revanche possible.

Sure thing.

France must not think of war. She must accept the fait accompli; she must renounce Alsace.

President of the French National Assembly, Jules Grevy

Since the ending of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, German policy had been to neutralize French military and economic effectiveness.

The annexation of Alsace-Lorraine (advised against by Bismarck) was intended to place France permanently on the defensive geographically and the financial indemnity imposed was designed to hamper France's recovery for decades to come.

Sedan was unfinished business as far as the Germans were concerned- this is hardly a state secret, as either a glance at Franz Fischer's work or Martin Gilbert's 'Atlas of World War One' indicate.

A war against France or Russia or both would be in terms of propaganda and diverting domestic unrest quite beneficial to the ruling Prussian classes- as one inhabitant of Alsace-Lorraine quipped before the beginning of World War One- 'We are all obligatory Prussians'.

The France-first strategy was a natural response to the strategic dilemma,

The Schlieffen Plan was an aggressive plan, not a defensive one. It involved the invasion of a neutral non-combatant and recognized that the British Empire would become involved.

Despite this German civilians politicians like Bethman Holweg were running around trying to avoid war in July 1914.

The Kaiser and the military were where power rested- and as Bismarck had noted when Wilhelm II came to the throne, he wanted a war with Russia, and the sooner the better.

If Germany was lusting for aggression, why didnt they attack France in 1905, when Russia was in the throes of revolution, and the opportunity for German victory greatest?

Firstly because the Germans wanted to present themselves as the party sinned against, rather than sinning- this is quite clear in the ultimatums delivered to the Belgians. They were even prepared to invent fictitious French aerial bombardments of German territory to make themselves appear as the injured party. What worked for the more diplomatically agile Bismarck would not work for the politically inept Kaiser Wilhelm.

Secondly, France and the British Empire had signed an agreement in April 1904, resolving outstanding global differences of opinion. The regular French army was also larger than the German army at the time.

Thirdly, France and Russia had a defensive alliance and the German navy was not in a state to challenge the British and French Navies in 1905- no wider Kiel Canal and a distinct absence of ships capable of challenging the new British dreadnoughts- October 1905 saw the keel of the first, H.M.S. Dreadnought, laid down. It made all other fleets of the time obsolete.

Also in 1905, the British had transferred ships from their Mediterranean fleet to the North Sea.

and not a sign of poliitcal aggression.

Von Moltke to Conrad, 1912:

...a European war must come sooner or later in which ultimately the struggle will be one between Germanism and Slavism.

Von Moltke's revision of the Schlieffen plan meant a German attack on France was inevitable, no matter what France's political position was.

At the 'War Conference' of December 1912, von Moltke said:

I believe a war is unavoidable and the sooner the better. But we ought to do more through the press to prepare the popularity of a war against Russia, as suggested in the Kaiser's discussion.

The Kaiser instructed Tirpitz to use his contacts in the press to work up popular support for an anti-Slav conflict.

[Ned]

Molly, try reading the below link. It is an hour-by-hour summary of the diplomatic moves just before WWI started. From this, it is clear that Germany was desperately trying to get both the French and Russians to stand down. Very strange behavior for a country that wanted war.

As to your assertion about all the "reasonable" Austrian demands on Serbia, the one demand that was turned down was the only one that would have uncovered who in the Serbian government was behind the plot. Turning it down, under the circumstances, almost invited war.

As to Belgium, the German high command was agast that Molke had no other plan. They were against going into Belgium because they did not was war with Britain.

So much of what you say about Germany of that day is pure propaganda and utter BS. Sure there were people in the military who wanted war with Britain, just as there were people in Britain who wanted war with Germany. But the behavior of the government, particularly the Kaiser, belies the assertion that they went out of their way to seek war with Britain or anyone else, for that matter. They worked hard to the very last moment to avert war.

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/Wars/JulyCrisis/JulyCrisis05.htm

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Could you perhaps tell me how the bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam and the treatment of Germany's ethnic minorities and political prisoners was 'legitimate' ?


I may have missed out on that in my Greater Britannic Homeland Indoctrination Classes.

FDR tried to get the war in China to stop because of Japanese attrocities.

Did Britain do the same wrt Germany?

Hardly.

When they had a chance to stop the war, the chose to continue it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


IF britain had accepted German rule of Czecho and Poland, and given its colonies to Germany that would NOT have been the end. Hitler hated Russia and France, and was looking for a war of revenge and domination of the European continent. He just didnt want one quite yet, in 1939, he didnt think Germany was ready. For Britain to have made a deal in 1939 would meant France could no longer look to Britain, and with its eastern european alliance system in tatters, would have had to subordinate itself to Germany. Eventually Hitler would have launched his war against the USSR, and tens of millions would have died. The entire world would have been far worse off.

And, just where is this "plan" published. I think the expected war between France and England in the future primarily because those two nations were constantly at war with Germany, in one way or another. You cannot deny that British and French diplomacy was enormously hostile to Germany.

There was a Military Channel special the other day that was specific about Hitler's decision to attack Russia. It was because Britain wanted to continue the war after the fall of France and had turned down his second peace offer. He reasoned, somewhat incorrectly it seems, that Britain was about to make a breakthrough in its negotiations with Stalin and that soon the USSR would switch sides and attack Germany.

Another poster here noted that the whole point of WWI from the Brit point of view was to contain growing German power, and that the structure of Versailles was its implementation. To undo Versailles entirely would to be to restore Germany to its status-quo-ante.

Just so.

And Britain would have non of it. That's why Britian chose war over peace talks.

[Ned]

Originally posted by TheStinger


Ned for some reason keeps refering to an offer of peace in 1939, and he alleges that the UK cabinet papers are sealed on the subject, because Churchil refused that nice MR Hitlers offer of humilaition and subjugation

H

Who attacked whom?

Britain declared war on Germany.

Hitler's offer was to negotiate rather than fight another European war. England's subjugation was not on the table except if she chose to continue the war.

Face it, Britain was out to destroy Germany as she stated. It was the fate of Germany, not Britain, that was at stake.

[notyoueither]

Oh yes, Ned. The Brits wanted war with Germany so bad that they delayed their offensive when the Rhineland was remilitarised. Later they were just about ready to attack again and then Germany began openly rearming. It wouldn't be safe to attack while factories were building weapons and the army was training recruits, would it?

Still later, the IGS was about to give the order, but that Anschluss thing threw plans into disarray. That forced a lot of rethinking. So much so that the British government convinced the French to help force the Czechs into capitulation when half of Europe would have gone to war and the Nazis would have had their butts kicked, if the regime weren't overthrown by the army first.

After all that, what were guarantees to Poland? Going to war over Poland? It is surely obvious that the British wanted war all along! It is obvious from their (in)actions.