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

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned


It is interesting that when they no longer have sufficient facts to argue their case, they just stop posting. Never ever admit that I might have a point.

Facts ain't the issue here though, are they mate? It's your bizarre inferences and unsubstantiated conclusions that are detached from reality to the point that a sane debate can not be had. Convincing you that you are wrong is a rather Sisyphean task that I am surprised others are attempting.

[TheStinger]

Normal people who have issues with the UK's actions in the run up to WW2 argue that any blame the uK has is in not confronting Hitler earlier.

That is a sane debate, with intersting arguments on both sides

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I gave the Wiki link in an earlier post to another participant in this thread.

Actually, no you didn't. If you're going to show something, I expect you to be able to quote chapter and verse of what you are referring to, not just post a link and hope I'll have patience to fish through it all.

I had thought people would have realised on the History Forum of all places that simply linking to a Wiki article really isn't enough.

As to what Britain thought or did not think about Hitler's reaction is irrelevant.

Of course it isn't! Good grief...

Great Britain had enough proof after Hitler broke the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, the Locarno Treaty, the Munich Agreement and the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact to know that finally, he was supremely untrustworthy- and this is without all his anti-Bolshevik speeches and anti-Communist speeches which suddenly seemed to have been all window dressing and bravado when Molotov and Ribbentrop kissed and made up, enabling Nazi Germany to invade Poland without having to worry about Russia's response.

In any case, shall I go through your posts and see what people are meant to have thought or how they acted on what they believed people thought, or what you imagine they thought ?


Still not directly quoting the people involved, are you ?

She did told the Poles one thing and secretly agreed with the French to do another.

Be specific.

The question is why lie to the Poles?

The Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact, you mean ? A big fat lie, right there... It was meant to last for ten years...

Clearly Britain's lies were intended to affect Polish actions.

Which lies ? Just imagine if Great Britain's words and treaty with Poland were meant to forestall German actions...

Poland detrimentally relied on Britian's fraud and was destroyed because of it.

Poland was destroyed because Hitler was determined to invade Poland. It is foolish in the extreme to think that Hitler was not aiming to invade Poland:

...our first objective ...must be to overthrow Czechoslovakia and Austria simultaneously.

Hitler's secret meeting with German military chiefs, November 5th, 1937

Within a week of Nazi Germany occupying Prague (March 23rd 1939) a press campaign was launched in Nazi Germany accusing the Poles of mistreating the German minority in Poland- and as Count Ciano noted in his diary at the time:

...it was a disareeable reminder of the tone of the German press towards Austrians and Czechs at other times.

Guess what happened after those campaigns...

On 23rd May 1939 Hitler met his military chiefs again in secret conference, announcing this decision:

...to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity. [...] Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our Lebensraum in the East...

The date for the invasion of Poland was set for August 26th, but was delayed for two reasons:

1. Mussolini said he needed to rearm and re-equip following the Italian intervention in the Spanish Civil War

2. The formal signing of the defensive alliance between Great Britain and Poland

These two pieces of news only delayed the decision (which had already been taken) to invade Poland. Do not delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

Britain must have intended this very result

And Hitler must not, presumably...

From the May 23rd 1939 secret meeting:

Further successes can no longer be attained without the shedding of blood. [...]

There is no question of sparing Poland and we are left with the decision: To attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity.

We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair.

Adolf Hitler

Now why would Britain want Poland to be brutally destroyed by the Germans?

Propaganda?

Ah, I see, Great Britain was secretly mind-controlling Hitler so that he broke the Treaty of Versailles, Locarno, the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact and invaded Poland all so that Great Britain could say:

Look, this Hitler chap is a bit of cad, actually.

Brilliant reasoning Ned.

A pretext to declare war on Germany?

Oh, so that's why Great Britain had done exactly the same with its armed forces that Nazi Germany had- and moreover had acquired the Austrian army, Rhineland military police and the Skoda armaments' manufacturers.

Oh no, that was only Nazi Germany....

If someone voluntarily gives their word, there is a deal. If it is not voluntary, there is no deal.

That might work in the playground Ned, but not in international law or diplomacy. Show how Germany was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles.

Now as to Munich, I am not sure just what Hitler agreed to or not,

Evidently. He also broke the terms of the Treaty of Locarno.

..but what he did, in taking Czechoslovakia, was the real cause of WWII, no doubt.

Which strangely didn't break out until 1939...a year later. Was everyone in Europe asleep ?

As to the Polish NA pact, Germany cancelled that in '38 I believe.

You can believe what you like. It was repudiated by Nazi Germany on 28th April, 1939.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, I assume you do not know or that you deny that the Black Hand was an arm of the Serb government?

Define what you mean by 'an arm of the Serb government' and give proof for this.

As to whether the Serb reply was satisfactory, you continue to quote Germans and not Austrians.

The King-Emperor of Germany who gave the blank cheque reassurance to Austria-Hungary, declared that he believed the Serbs had done enough to satisfy Austrian demands.

It was the Hapsburg heir that was killed.

You don't say. So why was Imperial Germany involved ?

They were sure that people high in the Serb government were behind it and demanded that they be party to the investigation.

Firstly, you haven't shown how they were 'sure that people high in the Serb government' were behind it, and secondly, they demanded rather more than that they be

'party to the investigation' as is clear from the Austrian ultimatum.

Now you say this is an unreasonably demand.

I did ? Where ? As I recall, I said that Serbia had complied with all reasonable Austrian demands, and surprise! so did Kaiser Wilhelm. What exalted company I keep...

But, when Serbia denied the request, it was tantamount to an admission of quilt.

Err, no it isn't. It's one sovereign state insisting on its right to territorial integrity and independence.

How many foreign police forces does the United States agree to let enter the U.S. to investigate crimes which may have been committed by U.S. citizens in foreign countries ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


"the war."

Let me understand this.

We live in hope...

Germany and the USSR both invade Poland.

Date of German invasion? Date of German decision to invade Poland ?

Date of Russian invasion ?

But, Britain declares war only on Germany and makes no objection whatsoever about the USSR's invasion?

Date of British declaration of war on Nazi Germany ?

Thus we find ourselves at this juncture in October, 1939. Hitler calls for peace and for an avoidance of another European War. He calls for a European Peace conference where all can attend and negotiate. The matter of Poland is potentially still open for discussion at such a conference. The USSR will be at the table.

Could we please have the text of this 'call for peace'. It shouldn't be hard to find, as I've quoted original documents.

What Hitler really had in mind instead of this piece of propaganda which you so eagerly lap up, is this:

Memorandum to Commanders-in-Chief, from Adolf Hitler, October 9th 1939 :

The German war aim is a final military settlement with the West, that is, the destruction of the power and ability of the Western Powers ever again to oppose the State Consolidation and further development of the German people in Europe.

As fas as the outside world is concerned, this aim will have to undergo various propaganda adjustments, necessary from a psychological point of view.

This does not alter the war aim.

That is and remains the destruction of our western enemies.

Rather a different Hitler in private, isn't it ?

She continues the war against Germany and still does nothing about the USSR being in Poland.

I'll ask again- how do you propose that Great Britain attacks the Soviet Union in Poland ?

This makes it clear that Britain's declaration of war and "the war" that it now waged against Germany was not a war to save Poland

Uh huh. It was obliged by the terms of the treaty it signed with Poland to come to its aid. Nazi Germany invaded Poland, without a prior declaration of war, and refused to respond to British ultimatums.

but a different war, a war of aggression against Germany

Is this the same Nazi Germany which had just somewhat 'aggressively' invaded Poland ?

Britain made it clear that "the war" she declared on Germany would continue so long as the government of Germany remained the same and regardless of whether Poland was occuppied by Germany, by the USSR or by only Poles.

Please demonstrate where this was made clear by Great Britain.

Why don't you Brits just admit that it was all about Germany from the get go and had nothing to do or very little to do with Poland? Britain viewed Germany as a threat and acted to contain her.

Ah-hah! So that's why Great Britain stopped Hitler remilitarising the Rhineland, expanding the army and air force and navy, prevented the Anschluss and kept Nazi Germany out of the Sudetenland and the remainder of the Czech Republic.

And undoubtedly why Great Britain had such a huge rearmaments' programme in 1934 and forced conscription.

Oh wait, it didn't....

WWI was not about Belgium, but about German power and expansionism. WWII was not about Poland, but about German power and expansionism.

Correct! Even Adolf Hitler agreed with you.

In British history books, the Germans are the aggressors even though in both wars it was Britain who declared war on Germany

That's probably because in history in this universe, Imperial Germany invaded Belgium, and Nazi Germany invaded Poland.

Both invasions occurred before Great Britain's declarations of war, and both invasions took plave without a formal declaration of war from the Germanies involved.

Sorry, who did you think was the aggressor again ?

It was Britain who was constantly meddling in German affairs, telling her what she could do and could not do, what land she could have and what she could not have.

Be specific.

Who appointed Britain King of Europe?

Dunno. When is this coronation meant to have taken place ?

Why if it were not for two rather naive US presidents who were easily duped by British PM's, Britain may have lost both wars she started.

Didn't Nazi Germany declare war on the United States ?

Aggressor detected !!!!

British aggression was more than predictable.

Sadly not to the British government, which in this reality hadn't done nearly enough preparation for this supposed 'war of aggression' against Nazi Germany.

You can't have it both ways Ned.

It is interesting that when they no longer have sufficient facts to argue their case, they just stop posting.

Who did you have in mind ? I've posted quite a lot of facts. Rather more than you indeed.

Never ever admit that I might have a point.

If you had a point then you'd back it up with facts, not wild surmises, guesses and interpretations.

[Ned]

Molly, you are always up for a good discussion. I thank you and applaud you.

This whole topic can be reduced to a few lines. English foreign policy, at least from the days of Elizabeth I, has been about undermining if not actively engaging in war with the most powerful nation in Europe. First it was Spain. Then France. Then Germany. For the last 50 years, it has been the USSR or Russia, but she has let the US take the lead here.

Britain does this by allying herself with the smaller players who are also threatened by the big kid on the block. She seeks these alliances out as much as they seek her protection.

Germany under Bismarch was a power, but he specifically did not challenge Britain by building a fleet. The two powers were at peace.

The Kaiser changed that. When he did, Germany became Britain's target # 1.

Britain's wars with the POWER de jure usually began by the POWER attacking a smaller party with who Britain had a pact. This provided Britain with the necessary pretext to wage war, not just to protect the attacked power, but to destroy, if she could, the POWER itself.

From the viewpoint of such a power, no move to enhance one's position on the continent or in the NEW WORLD was left unmet by British opposition, interference or open war. Britain was a constant pest, but due to her island haven and numerous allies, she was virtually impregnable and had to be tolerated or fought as the case may be.

WWI began as a Balkan crisis, but soon devolved into a contest between Britain and her allies, and Germany and her allies. It was a contest she could have avoided and those arguing for neutrality almost won out. But the war party, lead by Winston Churchill, won the day.

Had Britain stayed neutral, WWI might have been a very short war. But her presence made the contest "equal." As a result, it dragged on for years and cost millions their lives.

In the end, Britain won and handed out the goodies to her allies, keeping some choice prizes for herself. But her main objective in the peace treaty imposed on Germany was to maim her and reduce her power permanently.

Regardless of how it happened, Germany would eventually want to undo significant portions of Versailles. It was the very existence of this treaty that fueled the Nazi rise to power. Had the allies been less revengeful in 1919, WWII would never have happened because the Nazi's woud never have gotten into power.

But, once Hitler was there, it was clear to any impartial observer that he wanted to undo major portions of the treaty. He went about it by first taking an inch, then taking a mile. But anyone would have or should have had known that he wanted to undo almost all of it.

That is why Britain and France should have faced facts sooner rather than later. They should have recognized that Germany would not rest until Versailles was rescinded. But they chose to do nothing, or concede to his demands, for far too long. When they acted by drawing a line in the sand that Hitler could not cross, they must have known that war would be the result and not that Hitler would back off.

Hitler has to be blamed for what happened just as much as Britain and France. While they should have called for a European Peace Conference much sooner to discuss a wholesale revision of Versaille, Hitler's bombastic humiliation of Britain and France at Munich so harded these countries against him that they would no longer negotiate.

Looking back, one could see how the war happened. But, the better question is how could it have been avoided, even as late a date as October 1939. It continued, I submit, in large measure because both Churchill and FDR wanted it to continue.

[Ned]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Normal people who have issues with the UK's actions in the run up to WW2 argue that any blame the uK has is in not confronting Hitler earlier.

That is a sane debate, with intersting arguments on both sides

But, isn't this the same as saying that the only confrontation that should have occurred should have been at a time where the confrontation would not have lead to war?

[Ned]

The Polish-British Common Defence Pact was an annex to the Franco-Polish Military Alliance signed on August 25, 1939 between representatives of the United Kingdom and Poland. The pact contained promises of mutual military assistance between the nations in the event either was attacked by another European country. The United Kingdom, sensing a dangerous trend of German expansionism, sought to prevent German aggression by this show of solidarity.

The pact was preceded by a written "guarantee" of military assistance, issued by the governments of France and Great Britain to those of Germany and Poland on March 30. Both the guarantee and the pact were directed specifically against a possible German invasion and pledged to defend Polish independence. At the time Adolf Hitler was demanding cession of the port of Danzig, military access to the Polish Corridor, and special privileges for the German minority within Poland. By the terms of the military alliance with Great Britain and France, it was left to Poland to decide whether to compromise. Fearing all-out German invasion no matter what, the Poles rejected the German demands.

The March 30 guarantee also promised to defend neutral Romania if it were attacked.

In case of war, the United Kingdom was to start hostilities as soon as possible, initially helping Poland with air raids against the German war industry, and joining the struggle on land as soon as the British Expeditionary Corps arrived in France. In addition, a military credit was granted and armament was to reach Polish or Romanian ports in early autumn 1939.

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, and the Polish-British talks in London were continued. Also in May 1939, Poland signed a secret protocol to the 1921 Franco-Polish Military Alliance in which it was agreed that France would grant her eastern ally military credit "as soon as possible." In case of war with Germany, France promised to start minor land and air military operations at once, and to start a major offensive (with the majority of its forces) no later than 15 days after a declaration of war. A full military alliance treaty between Poland and Great Britain was ready to be signed on August 22, but the British government postponed the signing until August 25, 1939.

Because of the pact's signing, Hitler postponed his planned invasion of Poland until September 1. But the pact was unsuccessful at preventing the invasion on that date. The invasion of Poland marked the outbreak of World War II in the West.

On September 17 the Red Army forces invaded Poland through the eastern Polish border. Even though Britain should have acted against the Soviet Union according to the Polish-British Common Defence Pact, this never happened.

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

[Ned]

Now, Molly, et al., pray tell why did the Brits and French decide to tell Poland that they would come to her immediate assistance while privately agreeing not to. What was the likely outcome of such a public guarantee and private betrayal?

Poland going to war thinking it could win?

Britain and France wanting Poland to go to war, knowing it would lose, but providing them with the pretext they needed to DOW on Germany?

[notyoueither]

If they wanted a pretext, they wouldn't have caved at Munich. They would have had a much more able ally in the Czechs combined with the Poles.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, you are always up for a good discussion. I thank you and applaud you.

This whole topic can be reduced to a few lines.

Yes Ned.

The lines are:

'Ned makes many assertions about the role of Great Britain in World War I and World War II.

He fails to back up these assertions with a coherent argument based on facts, quotes from the relevant politicians or judicious references to historians other than an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier, who has been exposed in open court as a falsifier of evidence.'

I think that sums it up quite well.

English foreign policy, at least from the days of Elizabeth I, has been about undermining if not actively engaging in war with the most powerful nation in Europe.

I had thought we were trying to address who was responsible for World War I and World War II. You won't win by referring back to periods of history where I imagine your knowledge rests on even shakier foundations.

Let me start with Elizabeth I: her foreign policy was to avoid war if at all possible. She subsidised Dutch rebels, and turned a blind eye to English pirates. The Pope declared her a bastard and permitted assassination attempts on her by Roman Catholics.

Spain and France were the leading Roman Catholic powers at the time. Philip II of Spain decided to invade England. How exactly is this England's fault ?

James VI & I: foreign policy- to avoid war if at all possible, even when his own daughter and son-in-law were deposed in the Palatinate by Catholic Habsburg forces. Sought a marriage alliance with Spain.

Charles I: attempted to relieve the besieged Huguenots of La Rochelle. Married a French princess, aunt of the future Louis XIV.

Oliver Cromwell: foreign policy to ally with France (now most powerful nation in Europe) against Spain. Significantly captured Jamaica from Spain. Went to war with the Dutch Republic, a fellow Protestant power.

Charles II: foreign policy to ally with France (his mother being Henrietta Maria) and receive subsidies from Louis XIV. Not disposed to war, but nevertheless his reign saw war against the Dutch, twice.


I could go on, but it's not really the thread for discussing centuries of English and British foreign policy, is it ?

Start one if you feel like it.

Germany under Bismarch was a power, but he specifically did not challenge Britain by building a fleet. The two powers were at peace.

No, under Bismarck Prussia went to war with Denmark, Austria-Hungary and then Prussia led the German states against France in the Franco-Prussian War.

Bismarck said:

"This is my map of Africa."

pointing to a map of Europe on being approached by eager would-be German colonialists.

He also notably said that :

...the whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of one Pomeranian Grenadier.

The problems arose when less adept men became Chancellor after Bismarck, and an unstable monarch came to the throne.

When he did, Germany became Britain's target # 1.

Really ? And how did Great Britain go about making a target of Imperial Germany ? Tariffs perhaps, invasions of German colonies, seeking to detach Austria-Hungary from her alliance with Germany, naval blockades of Germany...

...or none of the above.

Britain's wars with the POWER de jure usually began by the POWER attacking a smaller party with who Britain had a pact.

I see. So Great Britain is at fault because a militaristic nation in Europe seeks European hegemony by attacking smaller European states. Not quite sure how you work that one out....

This provided Britain with the necessary pretext to wage war, not just to protect the attacked power, but to destroy, if she could, the POWER itself.

Oh of course. This explains why, until the first decade of the 20th Century Great Britain saw France and Russia as greater threats to its empire than Germany. I seem to recall Great Britain going to war with Russia in the nineteenth century too.

From the viewpoint of such a power, no move to enhance one's position on the continent or in the NEW WORLD was left unmet by British opposition, interference or open war. Britain was a constant pest, but due to her island haven and numerous allies, she was virtually impregnable and had to be tolerated or fought as the case may be.

As interesting as you find your opinions, that's all they are, until you back them up with facts.

WWI began as a Balkan crisis, but soon devolved into a contest between Britain and her allies, and Germany and her allies.

Well, you could say World War I bgan as a Balkan war, which Austria-Hungary and Imperial Germany thought they could confine to the Balkans, but when Germany decided to invade Belgium as part of its pre-emptive plan to knock out French forces, it dragged in Great Britain, as indeed German military planners knew it might.

This idea that only Great Britain went about constructing European alliances is entirely false, as anyone familiar with European history of the Nineteenth Century could tell you.

You may not have heard of the Dreikaiserbund or the Dual Alliance, or the Triple Alliance, but I have.

It was a contest she could have avoided and those arguing for neutrality almost won out. But the war party, lead by Winston Churchill, won the day.

If you say something like this, you need to back it up, preferably with direct quotes and pertinent references to dates, et cetera.

Had Britain stayed neutral, WWI might have been a very short war. But her presence made the contest "equal." As a result, it dragged on for years and cost millions their lives.

If pigs had wings, they might fly. Had Great Britain stayed neutral, Imperial Germany could have quite happily occupied Luxembourg and Belgium, occupied more of France, asset-stripped the remainder, and gone on to occupy the Netherlands and Denmark and parts of Russia.

Why would any of that have been a good thing ? Why are Belgian or Dutch or Russian or French lives worth less ?

In the end, Britain won and handed out the goodies to her allies, keeping some choice prizes for herself.

Wow. German South-West Africa, German East Africa, Kaiser Wilhelm Land, some Pacific Islands and bits of West Africa.

Oh and parts of the Ottoman Empire. Exactly what do you think Great Britain 'handed' to her allies ?

But her main objective in the peace treaty imposed on Germany was to maim her and reduce her power permanently.

And what had been Bismarck's policy at the Treaty of Versailles on the capitulation of the French ?

Shall we see:

Germany was to take all of Alsace and northern Lorraine and impose a five million france indemnity. To guarantee payment a German army of occupation was left in France to live off the land until the debt was paid off.

Hannah Pakula, 'An Uncommon Woman: The Empress Frederick'.

The Crown Prince of Prussia was revolted by the peace terms dictated by Bismarck, and said that the 'whole non-German world' would be highly critical of them.

Bismarck had been much the same when dealing with the German states which had not supported Prussia in the Austro-Prussian War, and worse with those which had aided Austria.

He had hoped to cripple France financially, industrially and strategically, if not permanently, then certainly for a period of decades. He had also hoped to shackle and mute liberal opposition in Germany.

As he said:

But for me three great wars would not have taken place, eighty thousand men would not have been killed and would not now be mourned by parents, brothers, sisters and widows.

Back to World War II...

It was the very existence of this treaty (Versailles) that fueled the Nazi rise to power

No it wasn't. It was the Great Depression.

Had the allies been less revengeful in 1919, WWII would never have happened because the Nazi's woud never have gotten into power.

A hypothetical, unsupported by any facts. You remember facts, Ned ?

But, once Hitler was there, it was clear to any impartial observer that he wanted to undo major portions of the treaty.

Who did you have in mind ?

But anyone would have or should have had known that he wanted to undo almost all of it.

Ain't hindsight grand ?

...they must have known that war would be the result and not that Hitler would back off.

Show this, by quoting the relevant politicians. Give copious examples.

Hitler has to be blamed for what happened just as much as Britain and France.

Actually rather more, as I've outlined in direct quotes from Hitler's 'Mein Kampf', his testimony at his trial in Munich and memoranda to German military chiefs.

Hitler's bombastic humiliation of Britain and France at Munich so harded these countries against him that they would no longer negotiate.

Demonstrate this with relevant quotes. Explain why Czechs and Austrians didn't deserve to have separate countries.

Looking back, one could see how the war happened.

Most of the rest of us have.

But, the better question is how could it have been avoided, even as late a date as October 1939.

By Hitler not invading Poland. However, he had already (without any British help!) decided otherwise.

It continued, I submit, in large measure because both Churchill and FDR wanted it to continue.

F.D.R. wanted World War II to continue in 1939 ?

Remind us when the United States entered the war.

Here's Adolf Hitler on long wars:

'If England wants to fight for a year, I shall fight for a year; if England wants to fight for two years, I shall fight two years.'...

(screaming) ...If England wants to fight for three years, I shall fight for three years...

Und wenn es erforderlich ist, will ich zehn Jahre kampfen.'

Meeting with Hermann Goering and Birger Dahlerus, September 1st 1939

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

The United Kingdom, sensing a dangerous trend of German expansionism, sought to prevent German aggression by this show of solidarity.

You don't say. You must mean the absorption of Austria by Nazi Germany, the occupation and annexation of the Sudetenland and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and the occupation of the remainder of the rest of the Czech state.

Oh, and getting Memelland from Lithuania too.

Now, Molly, et al., pray tell why did the Brits and French decide to tell Poland that they would come to her immediate assistance while privately agreeing not to.

Did you happen to notice that little marker which said 'citation needed' next to the quote in the article ?


You see, Ned, the difference between the internet and books is that any old rubbish can be posted on the net and be eagerly believed.

With books, they get published. They get peer-reviewed, and mistakes and assumptions and opinions are laid out permanently for all to see and discuss.

"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"

Who is meant to have said this, where and to whom ?

Britain and France wanting Poland to go to war, knowing it would lose, but providing them with the pretext they needed to DOW on Germany?

I believe I have already established with copious quotation from Hitler, that it was his intent to invade Poland regardless of what France or Great Britain did.

Neither France nor Great Britain needed to 'create' a pretext to go to war against Nazi Germany. Hitler provided the impetus himself.

[molly bloom]

Ned, rather than rely on the assertions and lies of David Irving and anonymous Wikipedia entries, I have a suggested reading list which might, just might, give you a more well-balanced, and certainly better informed, idea of who did what, when and why in the run up to World War II.

And no, it isn't by any means an entirely British-authored list.


A Social History of The Third Reich: Richard Grunberger

Republic to Reich: The Making of the Nazi Revolution- edited by Hajo Holborn

A German Identity-1770 To The Present Day: Harold James

Anatomy of The S.S. State: Helmut Krausnick/Martin Broszat

Hitler: A Study in Tyranny: Alan Bullock

Hitler as Military Commander: John Strawson

English History 1914-1945: A.J.P. Taylor

Myths of Empire- Domestic Politics and International Ambition: Jack Snyder

Europe of the Dictators, 1919-1945: Elizabeth Wiskemann

[Ned]

Here is another view, with supporting documents, that lays the blame for WWII solidly on the doorstep of FDR.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html

One of the more interesting bits is the last minute appeal from Chamberalian to FDR to ask him to intervene with Poland in order to avoid war. Chamberalain realized, it is said, that they could not save Poland, but that any war with Germany would be a bloodbath for Europe and he wanted to avoid it.

FDR, who had long been urging Chamberlain to stand up to Hitler, declined.

"On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities, Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that we could." Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of all Europe."[31]

31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253; A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback], 1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom



I believe I have already established with copious quotation from Hitler, that it was his intent to invade Poland regardless of what France or Great Britain did.

Neither France nor Great Britain needed to 'create' a pretext to go to war against Nazi Germany. Hitler provided the impetus himself.

I don't think even the Brits agree with this. Chamberlain realized, perhaps too late, that Poland's refusal to negotiate had a great deal to do with Germany's decision on war.

Now, it could be argued that Poland's intransigence was entirely of its own making, but clearly there were people telling the Poles that they would actively support them immediately upon war breaking out.