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

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Damned Russians. They should have left the border clear, so that the Germans would have an easier time with their invasion. No wonder the Germans were so pissed at them.

Russians, keeping an army on the border, at the precise time the Germans had set to invade. Britain, refusing to allow Germany to dominate Europe. FDR, likewise. Damn, it was just like, so unfair!!!!

LoTM, you are conceding my point even while saying I'm wrong. My contention all along is that Britian and the US were trying to contain Germany as a strategy, particularly for the benefit of Britain.

You admit there were millions of Soviet troops at the border at a time of war and at a time where England was openly trying to ally with the Soviets to destroy Germany. But, of course, Germany was wrong to be concerned and any attack on the USSR was completely, utterly and wantonly unjustified.

[lord of the mark]

BTW, you keep harping on the Conference for Poland

You know there WAS a conference for Czecho, dont you.

Germany took only Sudetenland, just as (per you) she would only have taken part of Poland. The result was that rump Czecho, betrayed by the allies, fell under German influence, and was then invaded by Hitler.

So the desired course for Hitler was to have a conference and A. get part of Poland B. Retain the Polish treasury, which was used to finance continued German armament. and C. Leave a Poland betrayed by the West, and just as submissive to Germany as rump Czecho had been. And to show any neutral how worthless French and British promises had been. and D, to keep rearming. while hopefully, the collapse of western policy would interfere with western rearmament.


IOW a formula for another war, but with Germany in a better position.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Well I dont think so. Nazi ideology indicated Jews were at least as dangerous to Germany outside as in.

Maybe. But Hitler could do nothing about that, could he?

But you still haven't fully addressed my point that Hitler was so concerned about the bad image that his Final Solution would be to the world that he kept it secret even during a time of war that he would have be unlikely to implement such a thing during a time of peace.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
BTW, you keep harping on the Conference for Poland

You know there WAS a conference for Czecho, dont you.

Germany took only Sudetenland, just as (per you) she would only have taken part of Poland. The result was that rump Czecho, betrayed by the allies, fell under German influence, and was then invaded by Hitler.

So the desired course for Hitler was to have a conference and A. get part of Poland B. Retain the Polish treasury, which was used to finance continued German armament. and C. Leave a Poland betrayed by the West, and just as submissive to Germany as rump Czecho had been. And to show any neutral how worthless French and British promises had been. and D, to keep rearming. while hopefully, the collapse of western policy would interfere with western rearmament.


IOW a formula for another war, but with Germany in a better position.

Which is probably why the Brits said no to Hitler's offer. He was completely untrustworthy.

I agree that simply having the Brits and French at the table with the Germans was not enough to make any such conference a success for lasting peace. They didn't have the power or the respect of Germany to make any deal last for more than a few months.

The USSR and the US had to be at the table as well.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


LoTM, you are conceding my point even while saying I'm wrong. My contention all along is that Britian and the US were trying to contain Germany as a strategy, particularly for the benefit of Britain.

You admit there were millions of Soviet troops at the border at a time of war and at a time where England was openly trying to ally with the Soviets to destroy Germany. But, of course, Germany was wrong to be concerned and any attack on the USSR was completely, utterly and wantonly unjustified.

1. Given the size and strength of the German army, Germanys record of invading its neighbors, and its previous rhetoric wrt to the USSR, it would have been folly for the russians not to defend their border.

2. If Germany didnt want to be contained, there was a simple option. Stop invading other countries. Containment was required because of German aggression, and would have been meaningless in its absense. Your argument reduces itself to the notion that was unfair of the allies to oppose German aggression

3. England wanted to ally with anyone it could against Germany. Given that England was at war with Germany, a war triggered by German aggression against Poland, this is pretty reasonable.


at the same time, Germany was trying to get Spain, to go to war against England. Would this have justified a British attack on Spain?


4. If a German preemptive strike on the USSR was justified, why would a USSR preemptive strike on Germany not be? Esp seeing as Germany actually DID attack the USSR.

In any case if Soviet Aggression was actually a German concern, Germany should not have invited the USSR into Poland the Baltic states. Germany could have attempted an alliance with the West against the Soviets - but that would have meant respecting western interests from 1936 on, which she did not do. To then complain of being isolated against the USSR is absurd.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Which is probably why the Brits said no to Hitler's offer. He was completely untrustworthy.

I agree that simply having the Brits and French at the table with the Germans was not enough to make any such conference a success for lasting peace. They didn't have the power or the respect of Germany to make any deal last for more than a few months.

The USSR and the US had to be at the table as well.

and the US wasnt going to guarantee a settlement, and the USSR was no friend of the West or of Poland.

Stop harping on your obsession, and go read a good back on the era, so you can figure out, for example where in Poland Jews lived.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



1. Given the size and strength of the German army, Germanys record of invading its neighbors, and its previous rhetoric wrt to the USSR, it would have been folly for the russians not to defend their border.

2. If Germany didnt want to be contained, there was a simple option. Stop invading other countries. Containment was required because of German aggression, and would have been meaningless in its absense. Your argument reduces itself to the notion that was unfair of the allies to oppose German aggression

3. England wanted to ally with anyone it could against Germany. Given that England was at war with Germany, a war triggered by German aggression against Poland, this is pretty reasonable.


at the same time, Germany was trying to get Spain, to go to war against England. Would this have justified a British attack on Spain?


4. If a German preemptive strike on the USSR was justified, why would a USSR preemptive strike on Germany not be? Esp seeing as Germany actually DID attack the USSR.

In any case if Soviet Aggression was actually a German concern, Germany should not have invited the USSR into Poland the Baltic states. Germany could have attempted an alliance with the West against the Soviets - but that would have meant respecting western interests from 1936 on, which she did not do. To then complain of being isolated against the USSR is absurd.

I'm sorry, but you conflate events that occured after October '39 as justifying the view that Germany began a general assault on Europe when it invaded Poland. You fail to note that England said in response to the German peace offer it would continue the war until the Nazi regime was destroyed.

Germany was in a fight from that point on for its survival against the greatest power on Earth who had allies and potential allies that were just as strong. A lot of what happened next was a result of the British declaration.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


and the US wasnt going to guarantee a settlement, and the USSR was no friend of the West or of Poland.

Stop harping on your obsession, and go read a good back on the era, so you can figure out, for example where in Poland Jews lived.

Given that the US went to war against Germany, in fact, and occuppied Germany since to guarantee peace, I think your view is shortsighted.

The US would have gone a long way to assure peace in Europe.

But the USSR is a different story, to be sure. We would have had to deal with Soviets conquests at such a conference as well. The fate of Finland, the Baltic States and the piece of Romania they took would all be on the table for discussion. For this reason alone, the USSR might not want to attend such a conference and this may have been a critical factor in the Brit decision not to go forward.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


I'm sorry, but you conflate events that occured after October '39 as justifying the view that Germany began a general assault on Europe when it invaded Poland. You fail to note that England said in response to the German peace offer it would continue the war until the Nazi regime was destroyed.

Germany was in a fight from that point on for its survival against the greatest power on Earth who had allies and potential allies that were just as strong. A lot of what happened next was a result of the British declaration.

1. I am responding to your assertion about the USSR position in 1941, so why wouldnt i bring in all that had occured prior to summer of 1941.

2. I was discussing the british-US joint statement in August 1941, so again, why wouldnt i bring in all that had occured in august 1941.

You keep bringing in the Atlantic Charter, from August 1941, as relevant to October 1939, and then YOU complain that others are conflating events across different dates.

Have you no shame?

[lord of the mark]

mods please lock this thread.

[lord of the mark]

http://members.tripod.com/~Comicism/390822.html

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
http://members.tripod.com/~Comicism/390822.html

Obersalzberg
"The decision to attack Poland was arrived at in spring. Originally there was fear that because of the political constellation we would have to strike at the same time against England, France, Russia and Poland. This risk too we should have had to take. Goring had demonstrated to us that his Four-Year Plan is a failure and that we are at the end of our strength, if we do not achieve victory in a coming war.

Since the autumn of 1938 and since I have realised that Japan will not go with us unconditionally and that Mussolini is endangered by that nitwit of a King and the treacherous scoundrel of a Crown Prince, I decided to go with Stalin. After all there are only three great statesmen in the world, Stalin, I and Mussolini. Mussolini is the weakest, for he has been able to break the power neither of the crown nor of the Church. Stalin and I are the only ones who visualise the future. So in a few weeks hence I shall stretch out my hand to Stalin at the common German-Russian frontier and with him undertake to re- distribute the world.

Our strength lies in our quickness and in our brutality; Genghis Khan has sent millions of women and children into death knowingly and with a light heart. History sees in him only the great founder of States. As to what the weak Western European civilisation asserts about me, that is of no account. I have given the command and I shall shoot everyone who utters one word of criticism, for the goal to be obtained in the war is not that of reaching certain lines but of physically demolishing the opponent. And so for the present only in the East I have put my death-head formations' in place with the command relentlessly and without compassion to send into death many women and children of Polish origin and language. Only thus we can gain the living space [lebensraum] that we need. Who after all is today speaking about the destruction of the Armenians?

Colonel-General von Brauchitsch has promised me to bring the war against Poland to a close within a few weeks. Had he reported to me that he needs two years or even only one year, I should not have given the command to march and should have allied myself temporarily with England instead of Russia for we cannot conduct a long war. To be sure a new situation has arisen. I experienced those poor worms Daladier and Chamberlain in Munich. They will be too cowardly to attack. They won't go beyond a blockade. Against that we have our autarchy and the Russian raw materials.

Poland will be depopulated and settled with Germans. My pact with the Poles was merely conceived of as a gaining of time. As for the rest, gentlemen, the fate of Russia will be exactly the same as I am now going through with in the case of Poland. After Stalin's death-he is a very sick man-we will break the Soviet Union. Then there will begin the dawn of the German rule of the earth.

The little States cannot scare me. After Kemal's [i.e. Ataturk] death Turkey is governed by cretins and half idiots. Carol of Roumania is through and through the corrupt slave of his sexual instincts. The King of Belgium and the Nordic kings are soft jumping jacks who are dependent upon the good digestions of their over-eating and tired peoples.

We shall have to take into the bargain the defection of Japan. I save Japan a full year's time. The Emperor is a counterpart to the last Czar - weak, cowardly, undecided. May he become a victim of the revolution. My going together with Japan never was popular. We shall continue to create disturbances in the Far East and in Arabia. Let us think as "gentlemen" and let us see in these peoples at best lacquered half maniacs who are anxious to experience the whip.

The opportunity is as favourable as never before. I have but one worry, namely that Chamberlain or some other such pig of a fellow (Saukerl) will come at the last moment with proposals or with ratting (Umfall). He will fly down the stairs, even if I shall personally have to trample on his belly in the eyes of the photographers.

No, it is too late for this. The attack upon and the destruction of Poland begins Saturday early. I shall let a few companies in Polish uniform attack in Upper Silesia or in the Protectorate. Whether the world believes it is quite indifferent (scheissegal). The world believes only in success.

For you, gentlemen, fame and honour are beginning as they have not since centuries. Be hard, be without mercy, act more quickly and brutally than the others. The citizens of Western Europe must tremble with horror. That is the most human way of conducting a war. For it scares the others off.

The new method of conducting war corresponds to the new drawing of the frontiers. A war extending from Reval, Lublin, Kaschau to the mouth of the Danube. The rest will be given to the Russians. Ribbentrop has orders to make every offer and to accept every demand. In the West I reserve to myself the right to determine the strategically best line. Here one will be able to work with Protectorate regions, such as Holland, Belgium and French Lorraine. And now, on to the enemy, in Warsaw we will celebrate our reunion.

Adolf Hitler"

[Ned]

I'm sure Hitler would never have said such things publicly. In, truth, the speech does make him sound like a madman and not just untrustworthy.

But the speech does say that he planned to attack the USSR some time in the future after Stalin was dead. He does this to assure his people that he has not given up his stated goals in Mein Kampf to destroy the USSR.

But, given his plans to kill off the Polish people, can't you agree that getting Hitler out of Poland sooner rather than later would have been preferred? I think the Brits agonized over the German peace offer.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
I'm sure Hitler would never have said such things publicly. In, truth, the speech does make him sound like a madman and not just untrustworthy.

But the speech does say that he planned to attack the USSR some time in the future after Stalin was dead. He does this to assure his people that he has not given up his stated goals in Mein Kampf to destroy the USSR.

But, given his plans to kill off the Polish people, can't you agree that getting Hitler out of Poland sooner rather than later would have been preferred? I think the Brits agonized over the German peace offer.

It was given to German officers prior to the invasion of Poland.

It shows Hitler had no intention of making real peace, and that any conference would only have been another Munich.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
I'm sure Hitler would never have said such things publicly. In, truth, the speech does make him sound like a madman and not just untrustworthy.

But the speech does say that he planned to attack the USSR some time in the future after Stalin was dead. He does this to assure his people that he has not given up his stated goals in Mein Kampf to destroy the USSR.

But, given his plans to kill off the Polish people, can't you agree that getting Hitler out of Poland sooner rather than later would have been preferred? I think the Brits agonized over the German peace offer.

So WTF are you arguing?

You think making peace with Hitler would have gotten him out of Poland sooner?

Or perhaps you've a peculiar notion that leads you to pull **** out of your ass to the effect that the Nazis would have said 'oops, we didn't think you were serious. Here, we'll give back Poland, or most of it anyway.'

In that case, what about the Czechs?