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

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I'm sorry, but I don't understand the logic of this.

Are you saying that Great Britain was responsible for the aerial bombardment of Warsaw and Rotterdam and for the Nazi regime's treatment of ethnic minorities and political opponents in Germany prior to September 1939 ?

No, when Hitler offered to free Poland in October, Britain chose to continue the war, a war that Hitler was fighting by going after civilians. Britain must have known that continuing the war would result in massive loss of innocent human life.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Nazi Germany invaded Poland. And faked a 'Polish' attack on German territory in order to do so.

The answer to the question is that Britain declared war on Germany.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom



It seems to me that as sovereign nations, Poland and Great Britain were fully entitled to make any treaties between them without regard to Nazi Germany's feelings.

It is interesting how a German blank check makes them the aggressors in WWI, but that a British blank check is completely innocent in WWII?

No doubt both had a great deal with the outbreak of war in both cases.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Oh right. That's why Great Britain persuaded Nazi Germany to break the terms of the Treaty of Versailles regarding rearmament and expansion of the Germany military and to invade Poland using a cunning plan designed to make it look like Poland had attacked Germany first!


I must say I think you're giving Neville Chamberlain rather more credit for being a modern Machiavelli than he actually deserves.

Break the treaty?

Sounds like something that Germany voluntarialy signed. Why of course, breaking such a treaty "voluntarily" entered into would be a cause for war.

You know you Brits are outrageous in your thinking. You betray Germany at the end of WWI, and kick her around a bit between the wars, and when she objects, you declare war on her again.

[notyoueither]

The Brits aren't the outrageous bit in this debate...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
sigh. Im not saying that the US was neutral after dec 7 1941, nor contesting that the US leaned pro-UK before that, and that FDR did all in his power to assist the UK. I am specifically addressing the question of whether there was a formal alliance, with a formal obligation on the part of the US to come to UKs aid. There was not. This is relevant, not so much wrt actions during the war - when the US and UK coordinated more closely than UK and USSR did, despite a formal alliance in the latter instance - but IS relevant to the question of alliance afterwards.

I think it is relevant that the agreement contained a military objective (the defeat of Nazi Germany) as well as agreed upon political goals of global importance for later. It sounds like an alliance, in broad strokes. Beyond words, the US government acted as if it was an alliance by committing US forces to combat with the forces of Germany prior to actually be at war. It was a strange alliance, at first, because of the limits of the US executive, but it was an alliance of some consequence.

As of Sept 1945, when the war with the axis ceased, while there continued to be coordination between the US and UK govts, there was NO formal alliance, nor is it even necessary to ask when and how the formal alliance was dissolved, for none existed.

I disagree. Commitments made to Churchill that would get the leader of an Empire to sign a document mandating self determination of peoples of the Empire had been honoured with the defeat of Germany. The agreement in that regard had run it's course. Churchill got what he wanted, convoys guarded and greater aid from the US. FDR got what he wanted, the cooperation of the British in very far reaching global change.

The first formal alliance was the Atlantic Alliance/ NATO which explicitly extended only to Europe and North America. Ergo, when the US failed to support the UK at Suez in 1956, the US was in violation of NO alliance obligations - the declaration of shared principles at Newfoundland, the years of coordinated planning and operations, did not change that.

I don't disagree with any of that other than to say NATO was the first conventional alliance. The Atlantic Charter was a very unconventional one that preceded it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The Brits aren't the outrageous bit in this debate...

Sure they are. They brought us WWII. Millions died, and not just soldiers.

Now if you say that this was all "necessary," I ask, why?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


Well bully. I contend that Britain had no intention of defending Poland either when it issued its blank check or when it made its defensive alliance. I contend that Britain was using Poland as a pretext to declare war on Germany.

Rearmament was a pretext. The Rhineland was a pretext. Austria was a pretext. Czechoslovakia was a pretext, twice.

Poland was a rubicon. Hitler crossed it, not Chamerlain.

And Britain had no ability to directly defend Poland. The Poles knew that. The Brits had the ability to mobilise and get to Northern France as they had planned with the French.

The Poles knew they were alone. They knew no direct help was coming as none was promised.

What happened in September '39? Germany and the Soviets both invade Poland. Britain declares war on Germany but not on the Soviets and does not send troops to Poland or attack in the West.

No, what happened is the Germans destroyed the Polish ability to fight... and then Uncle Joe took his slice. There would have been very little point, other than a suicidal one, in declaring war on Russia.

And again, no troops were ever promised to Poland, and the BEF was barely on the ground in France (if at all) when Warsaw fell.

Now it appears if there is any debate about Britain's real intentions, it is settled by events and what actually happened. Britain did not defend Poland and declared war on Germany, but not on the USSR.

Later, much later, it pushes the Polish government in exile out the door and hands the keys to Poland to Stalin. So much for Britain's guarantee.

Later was complicated by a guy in a wheelchair helping with the door, Ned. Have you forgotten that bit?

Real intentions? Pretty obvious. Hitler proved for the final time that Germany under his regime could not be coexisted with. It was time to fight.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


No it didn't ! The Austrians went to war to punish Serbia, not because Serbia had refused any reasonable demands made of it.

The demand that was refused was the only way Austria could determine who in the Serbian government was behind the plot to kill the Archduke. When the Serbs denied this demand, their guilt was admitted.

If I were the Emperor, I would have fired the first shot. The Serb government had willfully killed the heir to the throne of their neighbor state. If anything was a just cause for war, this was it.

That we, the United States, later joined the side of the aggressor nations against Austria is shameful indeed.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


Sure they are. They brought us WWII. Millions died, and not just soldiers.

Now if you say that this was all "necessary," I ask, why?

*whoosh*

Ned, I want to grant that you have a point of view and that should be OK, but then you say bat-**** crazy stuff like WW2 was all the fault of the Brits and I have to say you're either trolling or off in la-la land.

[Ned]

NYE, did Britain even object to the USSR invasion?

Contrary to you assertions, the military campaign in Poland was still being hotly contested when the Soviets invaded. So much for the British defensive alliance with Poland.

If Poland was done for and Britain had no hope to help her, why did Britain continue the war with only one aggressor? Of course it would have been suicidal to take on both the USSR and Germany at the same time. But, since that was what was necessary to help Poland, why choose to continue the war when Poland was beyond help?

Why of course!!!!!

Poland was but a pretext.

Britain's real goal all along was to destroy Germany, exactly as I contended. Britain had no hope of helping Poland. You say the Poles knew this. But I assure you that they did not. In fact, Britain (and France) intentionally mislead Poland for the very purpose of instigating the war.

"However, both the British and French governments had plans other than fulfilling their treaties with Poland. On May 4, a meeting was held in Paris at which it was decided that "the fate of Poland depends on the final outcome of the war, which will depend on our ability to defeat Germany rather than to aid Poland at the beginning."[citation needed] Poland's government was not notified of this decision."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_Alliance

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


*whoosh*

Ned, I want to grant that you have a point of view and that should be OK, but then you say bat-**** crazy stuff like WW2 was all the fault of the Brits and I have to say you're either trolling or off in la-la land.

I am not saying it is all the fault of the Brits. Hitler has to personally share a lot of the blame with his more than arrogant style, abusive behavior and constant lying. If he were a better diplomat, he might have achieved his goals without so pissing Chamberlain off that. But he humliated that man, and the rest is history.

[notyoueither]

If you want to take a walk down lunacy lane, how about this for size.

The Yanks caused it all. Their support for the British enabled Britain to fight on alone. No evil FDR, war over in 1940.

However, I will maintain that FDR and the US goivernment manipulated the British with just enough benefits to keep them alive and paying. Their object was all of the wealth of the British Empire being transferred to New York.

However, that wasn't enough for them. So they pushed Japan around. The result of pushing a people such as the Japanese around is pretty obvious, but since it would be the Japanese attacking the US, they would be the bad guys.

It's all due to FDR and the US that tens of millions died due to a prolonged war. It should have been over with an occupied Poland and France, and a defeated Britain. The worst of WW2 is all on FDR. What an evil bastard.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


Sure they are. They brought us WWII. Millions died, and not just soldiers.

Now if you say that this was all "necessary," I ask, why?

OK. I'm going to make a big mistake, and treat your question as genuine.

How did Britain cause the invasion of the USSR?

How did Britain force the Japanese invasion of China, their behavior there, or the subsequent attack on the US, the Empire, and other European outposts?

How did Britain force the Italians to get in?

What is Britain responsible for? Being part of a coalition that decided to stand up to Hitler and his regime. That's it. Fini.

FDR is actually much more responsible for the scope of suffering by your logic. He kept the Brits going when the war would have ended right then and there in 1940. His administration adopted the policies that provoked a Japanese attack. US support of the USSR enabled them to continue fighting and prolonged the misery of tens of millions.

Britain was a puppet show. The US was Hannibal Lector.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Well bully. I contend that Britain had no intention of defending Poland either when it issued its blank check

Please be so good as to give us the wording of this British 'blank cheque' to Poland.

It's not a good idea to muddy the waters between one world war and another, by using a phrase associated with Imperial Germany's and Kaiser Wilhelm's promises to Austria-Hungary and the Austrian Emperor in World War One with regard to a treaty between Poland and Great Britain in 1939.

I contend that Britain had no intention of defending Poland when it made its defensive alliance.

Then show this, and give reasons why, with quotes from these perfidious British politicians.

Do you not think that perhaps, like Hitler, the British thought that the mere threat of a Franco-British-Polish set of defensive treaties might stave off the kind of German adventurism that had already seen Czechoslovakia dismembered and Austria swallowed up, and Memel occupied ?

Britain declares war on Germany and does not send troops to Poland

Could you explain how the British troops were meant to get to Poland ? Interrail ? Thomas Cook tours ?

Now it appears if there is any debate about Britain's real intentions, it is settled by events and what actually happened.

Are you suggesting it was Great Britain's intent to make Nazi Germany ally with Stalin and dismember Poland so that a world war could start so that Russia could occupy Poland ?

I must say, it seems a rather long way of going about things.

Britain declares war on Germany but not on the Soviets

Of course, because to fight two wars from the Arctic to Central Asia and the Far East and Western and Eastern Europe is such a good idea. As Hitler later proved....

and hands the keys to Poland to Stalin. So much for Britain's guarantee.

It 'handed the keys to Poland' to Stalin. Any idea where the Red Army might have been in 1945, say, December of that year ?

This is the same Great Britain which at the war's end gave a home to thousands of Poles, as did other countries of the British Commonwealth.

Clearly, World War II was started so that Great Britain could acquire Polish delicatessens and cafes serving beetroot soup.

Later, much later, it pushes the Polish government in exile out the door

Would that be, like, 1990 ?

A symbol of the continued opposition to Poland's dependent national status was, until 1990, the Polish government-in-exile in London. Emigre groups, most notably the Kultura Literary Institute in Paris run by Jerzy Giedroyæ, made possible a continuation of independent political thought by publishing articles and books which could not have appeared at the time in Poland.

http://www.warsawvoice.pl/archiwum.phtml/6035/