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

[lord of the mark]

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.

But you do seem to agree that at some point FDR became aware that Japan might choose war. At that point, he essentially stopped negotiating himself, preferring war over any negotiated peace.

In the last few days when Magic intercepts showed Japan was planning on ending talks abruptly, FDR knew negotiations would fail and war was coming. (BTW he did NOT know it the blow would fall at Pearl) That does NOT mean he preferred war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dauphin


Yes, if you are losing the peace.

Even with 20-20 hindsight, WWII was preferrable to a European Peace conference with US participation and a US guarantee?

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


In the last few days when Magic intercepts showed Japan was planning on ending talks abruptly, FDR knew negotiations would fail and war was coming. (BTW he did NOT know it the blow would fall at Pearl) That does NOT mean he preferred war.

FDR knew this as provided no alerts at all to anyone in the military?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Even with 20-20 hindsight, WWII was preferrable to a European Peace conference with US participation and a US guarantee?

and a pony, dont forget the pony.

What the hell are you talking about?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


FDR knew this as provided no alerts at all to anyone in the military?

I will have to check my copy of War in the Pacific, but im quite sure the US military was generally aware of the deteriorating diplo situation. The White House did not know where the strike would come (though they tended to expect it would be at the Phillipines, for which they had been building up forces for some time) nor did they know precisely when.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


and a pony, dont forget the pony.

What the hell are you talking about?

Hitler's October 1939 call for a European peace conference. FDR had earlier (before Poland) urged just this and said he would attend/host it.

"[I]n my opinion by far the most important task, is the creation of not only a belief in, but also a sense of, European security.

For this it is necessary first that aims in the foreign policy of European States should be made perfectly clear.

As far as Germany is concerned the Reich Government is ready to give a thorough and exhaustive exposition of the aims of its foreign policy.

In so doing, they begin by stating that the Treaty of Versailles is now regarded by them as obsolete; in other words, that the government of the German Reich, and with them the whole German people, no longer see cause or reason for any further revision of the Treaty, apart from the demand for adequate colonial possessions justly due to the Reich, namely, in the first instance, for the return of German colonies.

This demand for colonies is based not only on Germany's historical claim to German colonies but above all on her elementary right to a share of the world's resources of raw materials. This demand does not take the form of an ultimatum, nor is it a demand backed by force, but a demand based on political justice and sane economic principles.

Secondly, the demand for a real revival of international economic life, coupled with an extension of trade and commerce, presupposes a reorganization of the international economic system; in other words, of production in the individual States. In order to facilitate the exchange of goods thus produced, however, markets must be organized and a final currency regulation arrived at so that the obstacles in the way of unrestricted trade can be gradually removed.

Thirdly, the most important condition, however, for a real revival of economic life in and outside of Europe is the establishment of an unconditionally guaranteed peace and of a sense of security on the part of the individual nations.

This security will not only be rendered possible by the final sanctioning of the European status, but above all by the reduction of armaments to a reasonable and economically tolerable level. An essential part of this necessary sense of security, however, is a clear definition of the legitimate use of an application of certain modern armaments which can, at any given moment, have such a devastating effect on the pulsating life of every nation and hence create a permanent sense of insecurity.

In my previous speeches in the Reichstag I made proposals with this end in view. At that time they were rejected -maybe for the simple reason that they were made by me. I believe, however, that a sense of national security will not return to Europe until clear and binding international agreements have provided a comprehensive definition of the legitimate and illegitimate use of armaments.

A Geneva convention once succeeded in prohibiting, in civilized countries at least, the killing of wounded, ill treatment of prisoners, war against noncombatants, etc., and just as it was possible gradually to achieve universal observance of this statute, a way must surely be found to regulate aerial warfare, use of poison gas and submarines, etc., and also so to define contraband that war will lose its terrible character of conflict waged against women and children and against noncombatants in general. A growing horror of certain methods of warfare will of its own accord lead to their abolition and thus they will become obsolete.

In the war with Poland I endeavored to restrict aerial warfare to objectives of so-called military importance, or only to employ it to combat active resistance at a given point. But it must surely be possible to emulate the Red Cross and to draw up some universally valid international regulations. It is only when this is achieved that peace can reign, particularly in our densely populated continent - a peace which, uncontaminated by suspicion and fear, will provide the only possible condition for real economic prosperity.

I do not believe that there is any responsible statesman in Europe who does not in his heart desire prosperity for his people. But such a desire can only be realized if all the nations inhabiting this continent decide to go to work together. To assist in assuring this co-operation must be the aim of every man who is sincerely struggling for the future of his own people.

To achieve this great end, the leading nations of this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up, accept, and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive basis which will insure for them all a sense of security, of calm - in short, of peace.

Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation; this is, without exact elucidation of every point at issue.

It is equally impossible that such a conference, which is to determine the fate of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannon are thundering or mobilized armies are bringing pressure to bear upon it.

If, however, these problems must be solved sooner or later, then it would be more sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to death and milliards of riches destroyed.

Continuation of the present state of affairs in the West is unthinkable. Each day will soon demand increasing sacrifices.

Perhaps the day will come when France will begin to bombard and demolish Saarbruccken. German artillery will in turn lay Mulhouse in ruins. France will retaliate by bombarding Karlsruhe and Germany in her turn will shell Strasbourg.

Then the French artillery will fire at Freiburg, and the German at Kolmar or Schlettstadt. Long-range guns will then be set up and from both sides will strike deeper and deeper and whatever cannot be reached by the long-distance guns will be destroyed from the air.

And that will be very interesting for certain international journalists and very profitable for the airplane, arms, and munitions manufacturers, but appalling for the victims.

And this battle of destruction will not be confined to the land. No, it will reach far out over the sea.

Today there are no longer any islands. And the national wealth of Europe will be scattered in the form of shells and the vigor of every nation will be sapped on the battlefields.

One day, however, there will again be a frontier between Germany and France, but instead of flourishing towns there will be ruins and endless graveyards.

Mr. Churchill and his companions may interpret these opinions of mine as weakness or cowardice if they like. I need not occupy myself with what they think; I make these statements simply because it goes without saying that I wish to spare my own people this suffering.

If, however, the opinions of Messrs. Churchill and followers should prevail, this statement will have been my last.

Then we shall fight. Neither force of arms nor lapse of time will conquer Germany. There never will be another November 1918 in German history. It is infantile to hope for the disintegration of our people.

Mr. Churchill may be convinced that Great Britain will win. I do not doubt for a single moment that Germany will be victorious.

Destiny will decide who is right.

One thing only is certain. In the course of world history, there have never been two victors, but very often only losers. This seems to me to have been the case in the last war.

May those peoples and their leaders who are of the same mind now make their reply. And let those who consider war to be the better solution reject my outstretched hand.

As Fuehrer of the German people and Chancellor of the Reich, I can thank God at this moment that he has so wonderfully blessed us in our hard struggle for what is our right, and beg Him that we and all other nations may find the right way, so that not only the German people but all Europe may once more be granted the blessing of peace. "

http://www.hitler.org/speeches/10-06-39.html

[lord of the mark]

so having

1. tossed off the non-territorial aspects of Versailles, which were designed to contain German territorial expansion
2. Having then confirmed that Germany WAS expansionist by taking Austria and the Sudetenland
3, Having promised that after the Sudetendland Germany was a satisfied power with no further claims
4. Having then violated that promise by taking the rest of Czecho, and then further violating it by invading Poland and taking 2/3 of the country (the other third being fopped off to his partner in crime, Stalin)
5. Now that the allies FINALLY stood up to him, and DOWed him as they should have earlier, hes willing to talk peace, a peace which would confirm him in his conquests, and would give him time to absorb the conquered territories, so that he could then proceed with another arms buildup to further extend his power.
6. But to do that, he wants a bribe in the form of colonies.

Anyone who would have accepted that formula, not for a peace, but for a respite while Germany prepared for another war, would have been foolish.

And citing FDRs support for a conference to PREVENT the invasion of Poland, not ratify it, is misleading in the extreme.


BTW, you omitted the parts of the speech where he makes clear that subjects for the conference would be settling the political status of Poland so that it would never threaten germany again (!!) and settling the "Jewish problem".

Ned, you are quoting Hitler and taking him at face value. You are linking to pro-Nazi sites (check the home page and links page of the site you quoted from)

This is getting out of hand Ned.

[Fake Boris]

I thought Ned was against appeasement.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I thought Ned was against appeasement.

quick way to tell a neocon from a fascist. Neocons worship Churchill.

[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.

But, unless you think that war was inevitable because Hitler was out to conquer the world (Brit and American propaganda), peace would have been better than what happened, especially to the millions upon millions of innocent people who died, including 6 million Jews.

I think Churchill was largely behind the decision for war and not peace. Others think that as well. I think history is eventually going to settle on Churchill as a major reason for both WWI and WWII.

[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?

That is what Churchill wanted and he thought the war was worth it. Churchill did not want war to end war, to further democracy and liberty or anything else worth fighting for. He wanted war with Germany, twice, to advance the British Empire.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


He certainly wanted to strengthen the relationship with the US, and the Atlantic Charter was part of that. There was still no treaty of alliance binding the US in any fashion.

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

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

Ned (or was it someone else who brought it up) seems to think the US violated a treaty obligation in 1956, by not supporting UK in Suez. The fact remains, the only US treaty of Alliance with the UK (unless there was one during WW1) was the Atlantic Alliance/NATO, signed in 1949, and binding only wrt an attack on a signatory in Europe or North America. Ergo not binding in Suez, even if you see Nasser as aggressor.

Now did the US fail to come voluntarily to the aid of an allied country, when it could have chosen to do so to strengthen the alliance? Yes, just as France and Germany did wrt Iraq, as UK and France did wrt Viet Nam, etc. In all case the benefits of strengthening the alliance by going beyond the letter of the treaty obligations had to be weighed against broader foreign policy objectives, including regional impacts. all are debateble as far as prudence - none, I think, deserve to go down as historys greatest betrayals.

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.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


You will note that before Hitler made a mockery of Munich, no one in England knew that Hitler's word was no good.

The issue for England then was not whether there was any justice in Germany's demands. It was Hitler himself. You couldn't trust him.

Originally posted by Ned
As I said, until Hitler made a mockery of Munich, no one knew you could not negotiate with Hitler. But even before Munich, Churchill was pressing for a harder line, as you said.

The real point here is whether the Brits should have agreed to a European conference in October '39 to settle all issues. (Roosevelt had offered to participate.) I see from the above that you agree with the view that war, with all the human suffering it brought, was preferrable to peace at that juncture.

You're assuming that Spain and things like Guernica, or open re-armament did not have an effect on people like Churchill. Hitler, and the nature of his regime was an issue for perspicacious individuals long before Munich.

And yes, when you have a regime killing its own citizens who are inconveniently Jewish, or gay, or disabled, or not of the right politics... and that regime is led by a man who has laid out a blueprint for conquest and bloodshed... and started to do it... it is damn well time to fight.

[notyoueither]

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?

Funny that Churchill signed that away on a ship off Newfoundland. In'it?

That is what Churchill wanted and he thought the war was worth it. Churchill did not want war to end war, to further democracy and liberty or anything else worth fighting for. He wanted war with Germany, twice, to advance the British Empire.

Your first world war reference is simply deepening the pile of stuff pulled from dark regions that you are building for yourself. Not satisfied with claiming horns and a tail for one war, now it's a 2-fer. You are the burger-meister of baseless assertion.

And no **** he did not want to end the war once it got started. He had a pretty good idea what was going to happen if the Nazis were left to do everything in their own time. Remember, it was Hitler who was not prepared for the reaction over Poland.

Why should Churchill, or any other sane person, have wanted peace when he knew the bloodbath was inevitable?

Perhaps you'll explain why Churchill, or anyone else, should have been interested in peace with Hilter in late '39. Maybe a source on the French begging Winny to join them at the peace table would help. Good luck finding it.

Oops! Winny wouldn't have been at the peace table in late '39. Doh! Don't you hate it when that happens?

[TheStinger]

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?

That is what Churchill wanted and he thought the war was worth it. Churchill did not want war to end war, to further democracy and liberty or anything else worth fighting for. He wanted war with Germany, twice, to advance the British Empire.

Right so You can't prove any of that, other than with quoting Hitlers views on the subject, most sane people and a fair proportion of insane ones, would say that Churchill's intentions were more hounarable than Hitlers.

And these mythical papers regarding Churchills reaction to a peace conference can you even prove they exist.

Everyone in teh British cabinet knew that war with Germany would be potentialy ruinous for the British Empire, in 1938 Chamberlin was worried that equpping 40 divisions fro deployment in europe by 1942 could bankrupt the country.

Despite this we went to war, why because at some point a stand had to be taken.

History and by that I mean every sensible contributir to the debat has judged Britains stance to be correct-if a little late.