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

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


yes american ships were in convoy duty before dec 1941, yes we recognized a common foe, and shared asprations. What they did not do was sign a formal treaty of alliance.

If you believe they did, what were the terms of that alliance? Under what specific conditions was each obligated to come to the military aid of each other? The Atlantic Alliance of 1949 had such clauses, as does any formal alliance.

The terms were spelled out in broad terms in the charter I've quoted from. It was much more than a military alliance. FDR didn't need a simple military alliance, and Churchill needed what FDR controlled.

The wording is vague, and the assurances given to Churchill to sign it even more so. The realities of the situation in the American Congress and public opinion required that.

However, some few weeks after it's signing, the US government sent forces of the US military into combat with naval forces of Germany. That's not what a neutral power does, now is it?

It was an alliance, but one that FDR needed to sneak under the radar. The rest followed naturally from the Americans moving out from feigned neutrality to open hostility.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Oh yes, Ned. The Brits wanted war with Germany so bad that they delayed their offensive when the Rhineland was remilitarised. Later they were just about ready to attack again and then Germany began openly rearming. It wouldn't be safe to attack while factories were building weapons and the army was training recruits, would it?

Still later, the IGS was about to give the order, but that Anschluss thing threw plans into disarray. That forced a lot of rethinking. So much so that the British government convinced the French to help force the Czechs into capitulation when half of Europe would have gone to war and the Nazis would have had their butts kicked, if the regime weren't overthrown by the army first.

After all that, what were guarantees to Poland? Going to war over Poland? It is surely obvious that the British wanted war all along! It is obvious from their (in)actions.

What was the date of the British defensive alliance with Poland? August 25, 1939. She signed this alliance the day before the German assault was to begin. Now it seems to me that Britain was directly interfering in negotiations between Poland and Britain and was seeking war now than negotiations had failed, largely due to British interference.

There are some who say that Britain wanted negotiations to succeed. But the 20 thousand foot view says the opposite, that Britain wanted war with Germany and was using Poland as a pretext.

Poland had been promised British military support in order to get her to not negotiate with Hitler. At the time the Brit promise was made, Britain had no intention of honoring it. They made the promise for one reason only, to stop Poland from agreeing with Germany and to force it to stand pat, go to war and provide Britain with an opportunity to declare war on Germany.

Pretext and lies. All.

And who paid for British lies?

Millions of upon millions of Poles and Polish Jews.

[notyoueither]

*sigh*

Britian issued a guarantee to Poland in March '39. An attack on Poland would be responded to by Britain. France was involved by prior agreement. This was after a long line of retreat and appeasement. Quite a thing for a country bent on war to do, don't you agree? Do nothing and restrain your ally while your target reaarms and then occupies a couple of neighbours?

Hitler knew all about Britain's position, btw. However I might grant that it was unfair to expect him to know there would be consequences after his earlier 'training'.

As for the millions of Poles, what would have happened to them had Britain done nothing? You have some delusion that the fate of slavs and jews would have been different? On what basis?

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned


What was the date of the British defensive alliance with Poland? August 25, 1939. She signed this alliance the day before the German assault was to begin. Now it seems to me that Britain was directly interfering in negotiations between Poland and Britain and was seeking war now than negotiations had failed, largely due to British interference.

There are some who say that Britain wanted negotiations to succeed. But the 20 thousand foot view says the opposite, that Britain wanted war with Germany and was using Poland as a pretext.

Poland had been promised British military support in order to get her to not negotiate with Hitler. At the time the Brit promise was made, Britain had no intention of honoring it. They made the promise for one reason only, to stop Poland from agreeing with Germany and to force it to stand pat, go to war and provide Britain with an opportunity to declare war on Germany.

Pretext and lies. All.

And who paid for British lies?

Millions of upon millions of Poles and Polish Jews.

Yeah Churchill marched them right into teh gas chambers

Prat

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, try reading the below link. It is an hour-by-hour summary of the diplomatic moves just before WWI started.

I would have thought it already clear that I'm more than familiar with the diplomatic moves prior to the outbreak of World War One.

Here's one of the incredibly reasonable German diplomatic moves:

a German ultimatum to the French government asked them to reply within eighteen hours whether France would stay neutral in a Russo-German war, and added that if France did, Germany would:

...demand as guarantee of neutrality the handing over to us of the fortresses of Toul and Verdun which we shall occupy and restore after the war is over.

Baron von Schoen, as German ambassador to Paris, could not quite manage the brazen cheek required to deliver this bit of 'diplomacy' at a time when French neutrality would have been most valuable, and left out the 'request' for the French fortresses. It was, in the event, irrelevant, since the French were already apprised of the contents of his instructions.

As to your assertion about all the "reasonable" Austrian demands on Serbia, the one demand that was turned down was the only one that would have uncovered who in the Serbian government was behind the plot. Turning it down, under the circumstances, almost invited war.

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

Even Kaiser Wilhelm II said of the rejected Serbian reply:

... it dissipates every reason for war

on July 26th 1914.

Alas, he had earlier personally assured Austria of Germany's 'blank cheque' for any action it might take with regard to Serbia, which set the whole business in motion.

As to Belgium, the German high command was agast that Molke had no other plan. They were against going into Belgium because they did not was war with Britain.

Oh what rubbish.

This was the the same High Command that revised the Schlieffen Plan every year from 1905 onwards.

The same High Command that 'did not want war' with the British Empire, but went ahead and constructed an ocean going dreadnought fleet and widened the Kiel Canal to allow said fleet access from the Baltic to the North Sea.

So much of what you say about Germany of that day is pure propaganda and utter BS.

Try to be specific. I have been, with regards dates, and who said what.

just as there were people in Britain who wanted war with Germany.

And who were they ? Were they the King, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, all of the Cabinet, anyone who could actually have made Great Britain declare war on Germany ?

But the behavior of the government, particularly the Kaiser, belies the assertion that they went out of their way to seek war with Britain or anyone else, for that matter. They worked hard to the very last moment to avert war.

I'm sorry, but you're frankly deluded now.

I hate the Slavs. I know it is a sin to do so. But I can't help hating them.

Kaiser Wilhelm II

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

As to Belgium, the German high command was agast that Molke had no other plan. They were against going into Belgium because they did not was war with Britain.

I'm again utterly astonished at your capacity for self-deception.

The Tirpitz Memorandum of June 1897:

2. For Germany the most dangerous naval enemy at the present time is England. It is also the enemy against which we most urgently require a certain measure of naval force as a political power factor.

4. Our fleet must be so constructed that it can unfold its greatest military potential between Heligoland and the Thames.

6. The military situation against England demands battleships in as great a number as possible... we cannot create in the near future, that is up to 1905, more than two full squadrons of eight battleships each.

J Steinberg: 'Yesterday's Deterrent: Tirpitz and the Birth of the German Battlefleet '

...all policy which is hostile to England must be left alone until we have a fleet as strong as the English.

Tirpitz to Hohenlohe, 1898


The German ambassador in London was quite aware of what Germany's fleet programme was doing:

If we ourselves were responsible for the safeguarding of an empire like that of Great Britain, we should without doubt strive to maintain our seapower with the same solicitude as that now shown by the British Ministers.

Count Lichnowsky, 20th December 1912

In Ivo N. Lambi's 'The Navy and German Power Politics, 1862-1914', a German naval official is quoted as arguing in 1898 that:

...the possession of Antwerp and the mouth of the Schelde would be enormously valuable for the German naval operations, whether in a war against England or against France or against both.

So not only the Junker dominated land forces but also Germany's navy recognised the strategic potential of invading and occupying Belgium.

But the behavior of the government, particularly the Kaiser, belies the assertion that they went out of their way to seek war with Britain or anyone else, for that matter.

Yeah, right...

The Serbs are Orientals, therefore liars, tricksters, and masters of evasion. A douce violence must be exercised.

Sent at 10 a.m. on July 28th, this is part of Kaiser Wilhelm II's response to the Serbian reply to Austria's ultimatum.

He also says:

After reading over the Serbian reply, which I received this morning, I am convinced that on the whole the wishes of the Danubian Monarchy have been acceded to.

[...] Naturally, as result, EVERY CAUSE FOR WAR HAS VANISHED. But a GUARANTY that the promises WILL BE CARRIED OUT is unquestionably necessary.

Upper case letters as in the original text.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


FDR tried to get the war in China to stop because of Japanese attrocities.

Did Britain do the same wrt Germany?

Hardly.

When they had a chance to stop the war, the chose to continue it.

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 ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Who attacked whom?

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

This was after having broken the terms of the Treaty of Versailles more than once, and having 'absorbed' Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia and having threatened aerial bombardment of Prague.

Now it seems to me that Britain was directly interfering in negotiations between Poland and Britain and was seeking war now than negotiations had failed, largely due to British interference.

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.

A treaty already existed between France and Poland. Why shouldn't one exist between Great Britain and Poland ?

But the 20 thousand foot view says the opposite, that Britain wanted war with Germany and was using Poland as a pretext.

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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The terms were spelled out in broad terms in the charter I've quoted from. It was much more than a military alliance. FDR didn't need a simple military alliance, and Churchill needed what FDR controlled.

The wording is vague, and the assurances given to Churchill to sign it even more so. The realities of the situation in the American Congress and public opinion required that.

However, some few weeks after it's signing, the US government sent forces of the US military into combat with naval forces of Germany. That's not what a neutral power does, now is it?

It was an alliance, but one that FDR needed to sneak under the radar. The rest followed naturally from the Americans moving out from feigned neutrality to open hostility.

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. 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. 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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Sure thing.



President of the French National Assembly, Jules Grevy

Since the ending of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, German policy had been to neutralize French military and economic effectiveness.

The annexation of Alsace-Lorraine (advised against by Bismarck) was intended to place France permanently on the defensive geographically and the financial indemnity imposed was designed to hamper France's recovery for decades to come.

Sedan was unfinished business as far as the Germans were concerned- this is hardly a state secret, as either a glance at Franz Fischer's work or Martin Gilbert's 'Atlas of World War One' indicate.

A war against France or Russia or both would be in terms of propaganda and diverting domestic unrest quite beneficial to the ruling Prussian classes- as one inhabitant of Alsace-Lorraine quipped before the beginning of World War One- 'We are all obligatory Prussians'.



The Schlieffen Plan was an aggressive plan, not a defensive one. It involved the invasion of a neutral non-combatant and recognized that the British Empire would become involved.



The Kaiser and the military were where power rested- and as Bismarck had noted when Wilhelm II came to the throne, he wanted a war with Russia, and the sooner the better.



Firstly because the Germans wanted to present themselves as the party sinned against, rather than sinning- this is quite clear in the ultimatums delivered to the Belgians. They were even prepared to invent fictitious French aerial bombardments of German territory to make themselves appear as the injured party. What worked for the more diplomatically agile Bismarck would not work for the politically inept Kaiser Wilhelm.

Secondly, France and the British Empire had signed an agreement in April 1904, resolving outstanding global differences of opinion. The regular French army was also larger than the German army at the time.

Thirdly, France and Russia had a defensive alliance and the German navy was not in a state to challenge the British and French Navies in 1905- no wider Kiel Canal and a distinct absence of ships capable of challenging the new British dreadnoughts- October 1905 saw the keel of the first, H.M.S. Dreadnought, laid down. It made all other fleets of the time obsolete.

Also in 1905, the British had transferred ships from their Mediterranean fleet to the North Sea.



Von Moltke to Conrad, 1912:



Von Moltke's revision of the Schlieffen plan meant a German attack on France was inevitable, no matter what France's political position was.

At the 'War Conference' of December 1912, von Moltke said:



The Kaiser instructed Tirpitz to use his contacts in the press to work up popular support for an anti-Slav conflict.

lets see we've got one quote from a French pol saying he accepts the loss of Alsace. Very good hunting Molly, as the desire for revanche was a key theme in French politics of the period, and the pols who wanted an overseas empire were attacked for taking their eyes off Alsace-Lorraine.

Yes, there was fear of the slavs in Germany, and voices suggesting war with Russia was inevitable. One could find many similar quotes from "forward strategy" british pols for the entire period from 1825 to 1905.

No, Germany didnt have a storng fleet in 1905. Since the tensions between UK and Germany of later years did not exist, since Russia had just fought a war against a UK ally (Japan) that was hardly necessary. In 1905 Germany would have faced war with only France and Russia, and would have done so at a moment of Russian weakness. It was certainly the optimal time for war from the German POV.

wrt the Schlieffen plan, I again ask what other plan in the event of war with Russia and France would have worked for Germany?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


lets see we've got one quote from a French pol saying he accepts the loss of Alsace. Very good hunting Molly, as the desire for revanche was a key theme in French politics of the period, and the pols who wanted an overseas empire were attacked for taking their eyes off Alsace-Lorraine.

Not really. He was president, not a town councillor in Gascony.

The French Socialists also supported the idea of autonomy for Alsace within the German Empire.

Yes, there was fear of the slavs in Germany, and voices suggesting war with Russia was inevitable. One could find many similar quotes from "forward strategy" british pols for the entire period from 1825 to 1905.

Off you go then. How many of those 'pols' were in a position to take Britain to war, like the Kaiser ?

wrt the Schlieffen plan, I again ask what other plan in the event of war with Russia and France would have worked for Germany?

And I don't understand the relevance of the question. The Schlieffen Plan, as German strategists acknowledged, was a guarantee of British involvement in a conflict.

It called for an attack on France through a non-combatant in breach of an international treaty, in order for Germany to 'defend' itself against Russia !

Great logic for defusing international situations.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

Not really. He was president, not a town councillor in Gascony.

So? he was one president out of many who held that office between 1817 and 1914.

The French Socialists also supported the idea of autonomy for Alsace within the German Empire.

They were rather more politically marginal then the German Socialists.

Off you go then. How many of those 'pols' were in a position to take Britain to war, like the Kaiser ?

Its not clear that the Kaiser could take Germany to war on his say so. When Germany actually went to war, in 1914, it was with the consent of Bethman Hollweg. Anyway, many of your quotes are not from the Kaiser himself.


And course at least one Brit PM DID take Britain to war against Russia in 1854, and they came damned close under Disraeli, when Bismarck averted war. Oh, and Britain went into Afghanistan twice in the 19th century out of fear of Russian influence.

Given that Russia was actually next door to the central powers, that in the 1890s and beyond the Tsar was supporting the Black Hundreds, and that Russian power was growing (despite the temporary setback in 1905) fear of Russian power was quite logical in central europe.

And I don't understand the relevance of the question. The Schlieffen Plan, as German strategists acknowledged, was a guarantee of British involvement in a conflict.

That it was. Im denying that it showed that the war was willed by Germany. There was certainly always the possibility of a war by Russia and France against Germany. Germany had to have a plan for that possibility. What other plan would have been clearly superior?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

So? he was one president out of many who held that office between 1817 and 1914.

You could narrow down the time frame somewhat. Was Alasace Lorraine a burning issue in Franco-German relations in 1817 ?

Not to my knowledge.

They were rather more politically marginal then the German Socialists.

They were ?

Not in this reality. In this reality, a French Socialist was in the French coalition cabinet.

Perhaps you could tell us who made the decisions for the French government, and who made the decisions for the German government...

Anyway, many of your quotes are not from the Kaiser himself.

Surely not ! Pardon my scholarship.

How about:

Now you can do what you like.

Kaiser Wilhelm II, on going to bed, to von Moltke, August 3rd, 23.00 hrs.

And course at least one Brit PM DID take Britain to war against Russia in 1854, and they came damned close under Disraeli, when Bismarck averted war. Oh, and Britain went into Afghanistan twice in the 19th century out of fear of Russian influence.

I'm familiar with British 19th Century history.

fear of Russian power was quite logical in central europe.

And thus necessitated attacking Belgium and Luxembourg. Err.....

What other plan would have been clearly superior?

Then what is the point of your original question ? The Germans wedded themselves to a plan that they knew beforehand would almost certainly guarantee war with Britain.

And for what ? To save Austria's face ?

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
*sigh*

Britian issued a guarantee to Poland in March '39. An attack on Poland would be responded to by Britain. France was involved by prior agreement. This was after a long line of retreat and appeasement. Quite a thing for a country bent on war to do, don't you agree? Do nothing and restrain your ally while your target reaarms and then occupies a couple of neighbours?

Hitler knew all about Britain's position, btw. However I might grant that it was unfair to expect him to know there would be consequences after his earlier 'training'.

As for the millions of Poles, what would have happened to them had Britain done nothing? You have some delusion that the fate of slavs and jews would have been different? On what basis?

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.

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.

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.

[Ned]

Originally posted by TheStinger


Yeah Churchill marched them right into teh gas chambers

Prat

Yeah, Poles. Fight Germany. Do not give them back the corridor. Do not give them a RR to the East. Nothing is going to happen to you. We promise!!