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

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
LoTM, America's involvement in WWI got us nothing but a lot of Americans killed and the emnity of Germany. WWII lead to the killing of tens of millions of innocent people including six million Jews.

Hitler murdered the Jews. Had the allies not fought him he would eventually have done so anyway. The murder happened during the war, but that in no way proves it was CAUSED by the war.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, I think Bush I's involvement with Kuwait was wrong as well. We were poking our head into "Arab" business for no good reason at all. While we got Saddam out of Kuwait, we also got a hostile Arab world, al Qa'ida, and the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that seem to have no end in sight.

Was this predictable at the time?

I think so.

We did not get a hostile Arab world as a result of GW1. Egypt, KSA, even Syria were on our side. The arab street shrugged it off.

AQ is a whole nother matter. Had we not supported Kuwait, but instead defended KSA, AQ would have been just as offended.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


See, this is what I mean. On the one hand Mollys post is a misreading of Ned, who was clearly thinking of Woodrow Wilson,

Two things not commonly connected: Ned & 'clearly thinking'.

who I think was still at Princeton (or was he already Gov of NJ?) in 1898. And whose party generally objected to the annexation of the Phillipines.

Can't see that I said anything to contradict that. I'm aware of American opposition to American imperialism in the 1898 War and after during occupation and the ignoble war against the Filipinos (Mark Twain was a vocal and notable critic).

Still, given what Ned said, one might have though that the European Revolutions of 1848 had never taken place, let alone the Putney Debates of 1647, or the Dutch 80 Year War against Spain.

and which would include some further snipes at "US imperialism" Which, if I take issue with them, will turn out to have been "sarcastic" and my reaction will be proof I lack a sense of humor.

Oh, Gypsy Rose Lee, how wrong can you be.

I'll leave it to Mark Twain to provide a rebuttal of your poor attempt at prognostication:

But I have thought some more, since then, and I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Phillippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way.

And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.

New York Herald, October 15th 1900

unencumbered by US vs UK sniping and bitterness?

It might be if Ned could actually cite some relevant facts to buttress his empty theories, refrain from insulting all Europeans when lacking an a coherent argument, and you could leave out mentioning me by name in conjunction with supposedly 'controversial' things I'm meant to have posted- which you then fail to find-

Like I said, Im not going to discuss it in this thread. Im not going to let it get lost in your debate with Neds absurdities.

Nor am I going to the efforts of hunting it down in your massive response to Neds massive responses.

Its simply not worth it.

Funny, those things I've said are so 'controversial' you remember ME as having written them, but just can't find where- or can't expend the effort to find them.

Then one might ask, why bring them up ?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Hitler murdered the Jews. Had the allies not fought him he would eventually have done so anyway. The murder happened during the war, but that in no way proves it was CAUSED by the war.

There are good reasons to think the Final Solution was caused by the war itself.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

I say that England allies with other against the major power on the continent. What is the difference but language?

You appear not to understand the difference between a defensive alliance and an alliance based on aggression.

It's the difference between the Nazi-soviet Pact to carve up Poland and the 'Little Entente', for instance.

The language is the difference, because the words are meant to mean specific things. Joint defence against aggression as opposed to joint attacks on a country which has not attacked either of the other states.

It takes an Olympian level of obtuseness not to understand the difference.

Either that, or the adult equivalent of a child sticking its fingers in their ears and going 'LA! LA! LA!' at the top of its voice...

England's alliance with Poland was in British interests.

Mmm, possibly in Poland's too ? As a way of forestalling Nazi aggression ?

Explain what other 'British interests' were involved- with relevant facts and figures.

and after Germany sued for peace and called for a European peace conference where the status of Poland and Czechoslovakia clearly would have been on the table.

I've already mentioned what the purpose of this call for a 'peace treaty' was, and you have simply ignored it.

As you've ignored the treatment of any anti-Nazi elements in Germany, Austria, the Sudetenland, and the remainder of Czech territory. None so blind...

Essentially what you want is for Great Britain and France to have given in to open Nazi aggression when Germany gained Polish territory by military force. Why, exactly ?

Because you think Hitler was trustworthy ?

As in May 1935, when he said:

Germany has concluded a non-aggression pact with Poland...we shall adhere to it unconditionally...

Germany neither intends nor wishes to interfere in the internal affairs of Austria, to annex Austria, or to conclude an Anschluss.

Mmm, fine words butter no parsnips.

Again my Iraq analogy.

How about sticking with the history you're meant to be discussing ?

Perhaps you're tiring of repeating the same dreary speculations, devoid of facts to support them.

To listen to Molly, it would appear that German demands at the time were to conquer everything to the East, destroy all Jewry in Europe and snuff out every socialist in the world.

Actually, I was quoting Hitler. Something you've notably avoided doing. A little learning is a dangerous thing...

Hitler, May 1939:

We are left with the decision to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair. There will be war. One task us to isolate Poland. The success of this isolation will be decisive.

That seems clear to me. And look at the date, before the formal agreement between Great Britain and Poland was signed.

Even though that eventually happened, it happened because the war continued, not because it did not continue.

I can't tell whether you really are so stupid as to believe this, or are simply trying to be offensive.

You don't make any reference to the domestic situation in Nazi Germany or the occupied areas except to say the Nazi regime was popular- and then you write bilge like this.

Hitler on Eastern Europe and Slavs:

Thirty years would have been sufficient to reduce again to barbarism those territories which the Germans, painstakingly and with industry and thrift, had saved from barbarism. ... The fate of Germans in this State (Poland) was horrible.

There is a difference whether a people of lower cultural value has the misfortune to be governed by a culturally significant people, or whether a people of high cultural value has forced upon it the tragic fate of being oppressed by an inferior...

What was for us and also for me most depressing was the fact that we had to suffer all this from a State which was far inferior to us...

A discussion on the Fuhrer's train at Ilnau, on 12th September 1939 indicates that Hitler was undecided about the exact disposition of the German occupied Polish territories: whether there should be a complete partition of Polish lands with Russia (which had been caught napping by the rapid advance of German forces) or a rump, quasi-independent Polish state on the Napoleonic model of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, which should exist as a German vassal.

The second choice was Hitler's preference, with a combination of a separate Ukrainian State carved out of Poland's south-eastern land.

As to Hitler's sincerity in offering peace terms and a conference (I note you quote none of the terms offered by Hitler- why is that ?) after invading Poland, I can reveal Ned, the lie underneath the propaganda:


9th October 1939:

If it should become apparent in the near future that England, and under England's leadership, France, are not willing to make an end of the war, I am determined to act actively and without much delay.

Directive No. 6

On 27th September 1939 he had in fact told the three Commanders-in-Chief and Keitel that he intended to attack the West.

As his memorandum of 9th October to the Commanders-in-Chief lays out:

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 our war aim.

That is and remains the destruction of our western enemies.

Adolf Hitler

Molly, trying to discuss things with you is very frustrating because you seem to deliberately misunderstand me, mistate my positions

I'm sorry, what is your position exactly ? Ostrich ?

and when it gets to a hard point you cannot deal with,

Which would be ?

you simply do not answer the question,

Not true.

but ask one yourself

I try to ask pertinent questions that require detailed answers, supported by direct quotes from involved parties or relevant documents. You fail to provide these, again and again.

ask me to cite sources even after I have cited sources.

See above.

David Irving and anti-Semitic websites and a television programme you recently watched (!) aren't really up to scratch when it comes down to citing sources to prop up your empty theories with the equivalent of hard facts.

You could learn a thing or too by reading my posts properly. Names, dates, places, treaties, et cetera.

That's real meat, not your ersatz kibble.

In September 1939, Germany had indeed made life miserable for his political opponents and had conducted assassinations.

Oh well done. Glad to see you're catching up with the rest of us.

But these pale by comparison to what Stalin had done at that point.

Gosh, really. Do tell. Give us a blow by blow comparison, a dateline and figures.

Otherwise, it's just hot air.

You conflate things that happened during the war and as a consequence of the war to justify Britain's reasons for continuing the war in '39 and for FDR's selective hostilty towards Hitler and not Stalin.

I do ? Where ? Be specific- if you can.

'39, there is nothing that Hitler had done in kind that Stalin had not done in the same kind, but worse.

Be specific.

But more, there is nothing of THIS kind that Hitler had done by September of '39 that justified a DOW by anyone.

I'm sorry, but didn't Nazi Germany invade Poland in 1939 ?

Now if Hilter were committing genocide at the time, I would have a different view.

How compassionate. I may weep...

I think our involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo was justified by Serbian attrocities.

Gee, how consistent- and how irrelevant.

So, what was the reason for FDR's hostilty towards Hitler that justified his support of England to the point that the US was all but sending bombers to downtown Berlin?

Bombast and bullsh!t. Not a single fact to support this rubbish.

He even signed an alliance with England that called for the final destruction of Germany before Germany had declared war

Please show us this document, or refer to it by name.

And, what was the reason England carried on the war against one party after Poland was conquered by two parties, at a time where there was an offer of a European peace conference on the table? The fate of Poland could have been decided peacefully at such a conference.

See above, for the benefit of the wilfully naive and uninformed the relevant answer begins '9th October 1939'....

But that was not England's objective, was it? They stated in response to Germany's peace offer that their objective was to destroy Germany.

Then clearly you can quote the person who said this, and where and when.

Should't we should assume that in October of 1939 that England meant what she said and that she had no real interest in saving Poland (at a peace conference) because that would not have solved the problem of growing German power?

I don't like baseless assumptions Ned, and you're a good reason why. I prefer information not empty speculation.

I agree with the untrustworthy part.

Wonderful.

That is the reason Britain did not join the peace conference, and Hitler, if he truly wanted to avoid war in the West, should have acted differently after Munich.

I'm sorry your lack of scholarship is showing.

I have actually read the text of that offer, but I can't find it on the internet now

No really, you do surprise me. Ever heard of libraries and bookshops ? Amazon ?

But that the offer was made is somewhat confirmed by the fact that British archives on its discussions of the German peace offer remained sealed to this day. The Brits have something to hide.

Support this with evidence if you can.

LoTM, America's involvement in WWI got us nothing but a lot of Americans killed and the emnity of Germany.

The same Germany which welcomed J.F.K. and imported American goods and had American bases on its soil ?

Laughably poor historical analysis.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by molly bloom
The same Germany which welcomed J.F.K. and imported American goods and had American bases on its soil ?

Laughably poor historical analysis.

That wasn't a result of WWI though....

[Dauphin]

Or was his a typo I missed?

[Fake Boris]

Whether Ned meant WW1 or 2 doesn't matter. It doesn't make much sense to talk about the general enmity of a country if that country happens to be one of your strongest ally - even though the road might have been somewhat bumpy.

[Fake Boris]

The correlate is that it makes more sense to consider the whole 1914-1945 period as a 'Thirty Years War'.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

Funny, those things I've said are so 'controversial' you remember ME as having written them, but just can't find where- or can't expend the effort to find them.

Its kinda like I know it snows in the winter, but cant expend the effort to look up if it snowed on January 18, 2005.

Then one might ask, why bring them up ?

Alright, as long as you "do your thing" only in response to Ned, I wont bring it up again.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dauphin


That wasn't a result of WWI though....

Ned is still wrong. Was there particular enmity toward the US in Weimar Germany? Aside from the anti-republican right? And the Communist Left?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Ned is still wrong. Was there particular enmity toward the US in Weimar Germany? Aside from the anti-republican right? And the Communist Left?

I have no source, but probably... after all, the Versailles sanctions were bleeding the country dry.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


There are good reasons to think the Final Solution was caused by the war itself.

I know theres one historian who claims that the actual mass murders began in response to set backs on the Eastern Front. IIUC thats highly disputed, not only his larger theory, but the specifics of when the murders began relative to specific incidents on the eastern front.

In any case, the situation of the Jews in Poland was deteriorating from 1939 to 1941, and I dont see how it was tenable. I think the Nazis were going to have to face a resolution, and given who they were, I dont think any other would have been chosen.

This all assumes of course that there would have been no war in the USSR in the absence of UK continuing to fight Germany, which I think is highly questionable.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I have no source, but probably... after all, the Versailles sanctions were bleeding the country dry.

1. Thats not actually an accurate charecterization of the German economy. In fact the German economy was massively exporting to pay the sanctions, so much that the European trade and currency situation was being thrown out of balance. When the French and Belgians occupied the Rhineland, the German authorities deliberately followed fiscal policies (like encouraging taxation boycotts, IIUC) that led to the hyperinflation.

In any case that largely changed with the Dawes plan, that eased repayment. In the late 20s there was considerable recovery, until 1929 put a stop to it.

2. Was the US particularly blamed by those who disliked Versailles? My impression is that France was blamed rather more. Again, Id like a cite for US hatred, rather than diffuse resentment of Versailles and the allies.

[Fake Boris]

I believe that the war created the conditions for an action as drastic as the Final Solution. If Hitler had really wanted to exterminate the Jews, he could have done it long before '42. He did previously ponder other "solutions", such a creating a Jewish State.
Historically, you see that most of the times a minority is abused, is when things start getting ugly for the power in place. The Ottoman empire became increasingly suspicious of non-Muslims when it met its downfall. The Romans turned on its German citizens in the 4th and 5th century, etc. If America strikes Iran, I suspect the Jews there will face difficult times...