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

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


No, when Hitler offered to free Poland in October,

Please state the nature of this offer for a free Poland. Preferably, quoting Hitler.

Do you think Great Britain and France would have been right to trust someone who had broken the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, the Munich Agreement and the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact ?

Both Governments announce their intention to settle directly all questions of whatever sort which concern their mutual relations.

Should any disputes arise between them and agreement thereon not be reached by direct negotiation, they will in each particular case, on the basis of mutual agreement, seek a solution by other peaceful means, without prejudice to the possibility of applying, if necessary, those methods of procedure in which provision is made for such cases in other agreements in force between them. In no circumstances, however, will they proceed to the application of force for the purpose of reaching a decision in such disputes.

The guarantee of peace created by these principles will facilitate the great task of both Governments of finding a solution for problems of political, economic and social kinds, based on a just and fair adjustment of the interests of both parties.

That's from the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact of January 26th 1934. Lasted a long time, didn't it ?

Britain chose to continue the war, a war that Hitler was fighting by going after civilians.

Didn't Hitler 'go after' German civilians ? Was Great Britain responsible for the Nazi's domestic policies ?

In any case this still doesn't make Great Britain responsible for Nazi Germany's actions against civilians and non-military targets.

Britain must have known that continuing the war would result in massive loss of innocent human life.

So when Hitler had Poland invaded, he didn't think there'd be massive loss of 'innocent human life' ?

'Innocent human lives' like that of the prisoner Francizsek Honiok, who was shot at Gleiwitz and used to provide part of the fake casus belli for the invasion of Poland.

I note that so far you've avoided directly quoting any of the chief German perpetrators of World War II.

Why is that ?

The answer to the question is that Britain declared war on Germany.

Before or after Nazi Germany invaded Poland ?

It is interesting how a German blank check makes them the aggressors in WWI, but that a British blank check is completely innocent in WWII?

Please compare the wordings of these 'blank cheques'. If indeed, you know them.

No doubt both had a great deal with the outbreak of war in both cases.

So Hitler was waiting for Great Britain to sign a defence pact with Poland before he invaded Poland ?

That must be why he instructed von Fritsch to 'create an army of the greatest possible strength'* in February 1933.

* quoted in 'The German Army, 1933-45', A. Seaton

It must be why conscription came backin 1935, with the German army to increase to 36 divisions.

That must be why there was the Anschluss in 1938, when Germany also acquired the Austrian army.

And why they absorbed the Rhineland military police into the German army.

Created armoured divisions and reorganised the Landwehr.

To such an extent that before 1939, the Germany army numbered 42 active divisions, 8 reserve divisions, and 21 Landwehr.

Then by Summer of 1939 it had increased to 103 divisions- 32 more within the space of a year.

Not bad going for a country determined to avoid the loss of innocent human lives. Presumably through not aerially bombarding Warsaw or Rotterdam with any elements of the Luftwaffe, which had seen a growth from 26 squadrons in July of 1933 to 302 squadrons in 1939, and seen service in the Spanish Civil War.

Figures can be checked in 'The Wehrmacht and German Rearmament' by W. Deist, just in case you think I'm making them up.

Sounds like something that Germany voluntarialy signed.

Please demonstrate with quotes that it was otherwise.

You know you Brits are outrageous in your thinking. You betray Germany at the end of WWI,

You give me rather more credit than I deserve. I wasn't yet born. Could you explain how Imperial Germany was 'betrayed' by Great Britain in 1919 ?

They brought us WWII. Millions died, and not just soldiers.

I thought it had a little to do with this chap:

I aimed from the first at something a thousand times higher than a Minister. I wanted to become the destroyer of Marxism. I am going to achieve this task...

Hitler's closing speech, Trial at Munich Infantry School, February 1924

from: 'Der Hitler-Prozess'

If necessary, by one enemy many can be meant.

Hitler's speech on re-founding the Nazi Party, 27th February 1925

In his closing speech to the Nuremberg Rally of 13th September 1937, Hitler identified Communism with the Jewish World Conspriacy directed from Moscow and that this was

a fact proved by irrefutable evidence

He further said that the Jews had established a brutal dictatorship over the Russian people, and now sought to extend it to the rest of Europe and the rest of the world.

Speaking to Count Ciano in November of 1940 he said:

Bolshevism is the doctrine of people who are lowest in the scale of civilization

In 'Mein Kampf' the 1925 edition, he says:

(the biologically grounded fight for land was) 'the most sacred right on this earth'.

This sacred right could only be realised

'by and large only at the expense of Russia'

By the 1927 edition of 'Mein Kampf', this had been expanded upon:

'the inexorable world-Jew had taken power in Russia... acquire world supremacy through Bolshevik Revolution.

Germany's historic mission was to

save the non-Bolshevik world by making war against Jewish Bolshevism

and thereby

acquire Lebensraum

Could almost be Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King, the sentiments are so pacifically inclined.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


The demand that was refused was the only way Austria could determine who in the Serbian government was behind the plot to kill the Archduke.

I have read the ultimatum to Serbia. Shall we all see it ?

To suppress any publication which incites to hatred and contempt of the Monarchy . . .

To dissolve immediately the society styled Narodna Odbrana . . and to proceed in the same manner against the other societies . . which engage in propaganda against [Austria]

To eliminate without delay from public instruction in Serbia, both as regards the teaching body and the methods of instruction, all that serves or might serve to foment the propaganda against Austria-Hungary

To remove from the military service and the administration in general all officers guilty of propaganda against [Austria--names to be given over by the Austrian govt.]

To accept the collaboration in Serbia of organs of [A-H govt.] in the suppression of the subversive movement directed against the territorial integrity of the Monarchy

To take judicial proceedings against the accessories to the plot of 28 June who are on Serbian territory; Organs delegated by [A-H] will take part in the investigations relating thereto

To proceed without delay to the arrest of [two named persons implicated according to the preliminary investigation undertaken by Austria]

To prevent by effective measures the cooperation of [Serbia] in the illicit traffic in arms and explosives across the frontier . . . .

To furnish [Austria] with explanations regarding the unjustifiable utterances of high Serbian officials both in Serbia and abroad, who . . .have not hesitated since the outrage of 28 June to express themselves . .in terms of hostility towards [Austria]

To notify [Austria] without delay of the execution of the[se] measures . .

and let's see Serbia's reply:

[Serbia will] introduce . . a provision into the press law providing for the most severe punishment of incitement to hatred and contempt of the [A-H] Monarchy . . .

[The Serbian govt.] possesses no proof . . that the Narodna Odbrana and other similar societies have committed up to the present any criminal act of this nature . . Nevertheless, [Serbia] will . . dissolve the Narodna Obrana and every other society which . . .

[Serbia will] eliminate without delay from public instruction . . everything that serves or might serve to foment the propaganda against [A-H], whenever [Austria] furnish them with facts and proofs . .

[Serbia] also agree to remove from the military service all such persons as the judicial inquiry may have proved to be guilty of acts directed against the integrity of the territory of [A-H], and they expect [Austria] to communicate . .the names and acts of these officers for the purpose of the proceedings which are to be taken against them

[The Serbian govt. does] not clearly grasp the meaning or the scope of the demand . . that Serbia shall undertake to accept the collaboration of the representatives of [A-H], but they declare that they will admit such collaboration as agrees with the principle of international law, with criminal procedure, and with good neighborly relations

. . . As regards the participation in this inquiry [which Serbia intends to hold] of Austro-Hungarian agents.......... [Serbia] cannot accept such an arrangement, as it would be a violation of the Constitution . . .

[states it has not yet been possible to arrest one of the persons named; request proofs of guilt from Austria]

[ agrees to reinforce measures against illegal trafficking of arms and explosives across the frontier with Bosnia-Herzegovine]

[offers explanations of anti-Austrian comments by Serb officials if Austria sends examples of their actually having been made]

[Serbia will duly notify the measures taken, but if Austria is not satisfied with the reply] the Serbian government . . are ready . . to accept a pacific understanding, either by referring this question to the decision of the International Tribunal of the Hague [i.e., the World Court], or to the Great Powers . . .

So Serbia also says that if Austria-Hungary doesn't like the nature of Serbia's compliance with its demands, then it will happily submit to international mediation.

Sounds fair to me. Sounded fair to Kaiser Wilhelm II, in his own words:

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

Kaiser's Memorandum to German Foreign Secretary, 10 a.m. July 28th

If I were the Emperor, I would have fired the first shot.

And that's just what did happen in real life too! Amazing how little human nature can change...

The Serb government had willfully killed the heir to the throne of their neighbor state.

It did ? And what exactly is your proof for this assertion ?

aggressor nations against Austria.

Sorry, but which country as you put it:

fired the first shot.

?

I could have sworn we had just determined it was Austria-Hungary....

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
In fact, Britain (and France) intentionally mislead Poland for the very purpose of instigating the war.

I had thought faking a Polish attack on German territory was the pretext for instigating the war.

And it was Nazi Germany which did that, not France or Great Britain.


I must say, France was incredibly far-sighted when it signed the Locarno Treaty with Poland in October 1925, before Hitler had even refounded the Nazi Party, let alone become Chancellor of Germany....

Hitler has to personally share a lot of the blame with his more than arrogant style, abusive behavior and constant lying.

Yes, that and the invasion of Poland, the Anschluss and gobbling up Czechoslovakia. Or were you thinking of some other, only slightly blameworthy, parallel universe Hitler who had a power-sharing agreement with the Hitler in our time-space continuum ?

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
If you want to take a walk down lunacy lane, how about this for size.

The Yanks caused it all. Their support for the British enabled Britain to fight on alone. No evil FDR, war over in 1940.

However, I will maintain that FDR and the US goivernment manipulated the British with just enough benefits to keep them alive and paying. Their object was all of the wealth of the British Empire being transferred to New York.

However, that wasn't enough for them. So they pushed Japan around. The result of pushing a people such as the Japanese around is pretty obvious, but since it would be the Japanese attacking the US, they would be the bad guys.

It's all due to FDR and the US that tens of millions died due to a prolonged war. It should have been over with an occupied Poland and France, and a defeated Britain. The worst of WW2 is all on FDR. What an evil bastard.

Hah. The other day my wife (a Brazilian) was very angry at the United States after seeing the Eastwood Iwo Jima movie. She was even mad at FDR for forcing a fight with Japan by interfering in the Sino-Japanese war. To her mind, we were picking on a little guy and unfairly kicking him around a bit.

There is some truth in this, in retrospect.

[Ned]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by notyoueither


OK. I'm going to make a big mistake, and treat your question as genuine.

How did Britain cause the invasion of the USSR? [QUOTE]

By sending diplomats to Russia to try to make and alliance with Stalin. Hitler was convinced that Britain has made the alliance when Britain did not call of the war in August, 1940.

How did Britain force the Japanese invasion of China, their behavior there, or the subsequent attack on the US, the Empire, and other European outposts?

The war in the Pacific was independent to a major degree from the war in Europe. Japan did not attack the US because she was an ally of Germany. The converse is true, though.

How did Britain force the Italians to get in?

AFAIK, Britain didn't do a thing except not agree to peace in 1940.

What is Britain responsible for? Being part of a coalition that decided to stand up to Hitler and his regime. That's it. Fini.

Stand up? Nice euphemism for "destroy." Britain made it clear that her intention was to fight until Germany surrendered.

Now, what had Germany done to Britain before she declared war on Germany? Nada. Not a thing. Zip. Zero. Nothing.

But, the converse is not true, is it?

FDR is actually much more responsible for the scope of suffering by your logic. He kept the Brits going when the war would have ended right then and there in 1940. His administration adopted the policies that provoked a Japanese attack. US support of the USSR enabled them to continue fighting and prolonged the misery of tens of millions.

Britain was a puppet show. The US was Hannibal Lector.

There is some truth in this. FDR made it clear that he want to go to war with Germany. He just had a minor problem: Congress and the US public opinion that was heavily against. Hitler solved that problem by declaring war on the US, the dumbkopff.

As to Japan, whether FDR knew or did not know that Japan was going to attack after FDR engineered the oil embargo is a matter of debate. Certainly, though, the embargo was an act of war under the circumstances and Japan's reaction should have been forseen.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Then show this, and give reasons why, with quotes from these perfidious British politicians.

Do you not think that perhaps, like Hitler, the British thought that the mere threat of a Franco-British-Polish set of defensive treaties might stave off the kind of German adventurism that had already seen Czechoslovakia dismembered and Austria swallowed up, and Memel occupied ?

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

As to what Britain thought or did not think about Hitler's reaction is irrelevant. She did told the Poles one thing and secretly agreed with the French to do another. The question is why lie to the Poles?

Clearly Britain's lies were intended to affect Polish actions. Poland detrimentally relied on Britian's fraud and was destroyed because of it. Since this was the likely outcome of a war with Germany given no support from Britain (or France), Britain must have intended this very result.

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

Propaganda?

A pretext to declare war on Germany?

Yes to both.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Do you think Great Britain and France would have been right to trust someone who had broken the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, the Munich Agreement and the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact ?

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

The Versailles Treaty might have been binding among Britain, France and Italy. But it certainly was not on Germany.

Now as to Munich, I am not sure just what Hitler agreed to or not, but what he did, in taking Czechoslovakia, was the real cause of WWII, no doubt. He made a lot of promises about this being his last territorial demand, etc., that proved to be lies. In this, Hitler clearly is at fault.

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

[Ned]

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

As to whether the Serb reply was satisfactory, you continue to quote Germans and not Austrians. It was the Hapsburg heir that was killed. They were sure that people high in the Serb government were behind it and demanded that they be party to the investigation.

Now you say this is an unreasonably demand.

In truth, it was quite reasonable and was the only way to identify who it was in Serb government was responsible. But, when Serbia denied the request, it was tantamount to an admission of quilt. This is patently clear to most.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I had thought faking a Polish attack on German territory was the pretext for instigating the war.

"the war."

Let me understand this.

Germany and the USSR both invade Poland. Britain has an agreement with Poland to defend her from external attack. But, Britain declares war only on Germany and makes no objection whatsoever about the USSR's invasion?

When Poland is completely overrun by both external parties, "the war" is over -- or at least it should be. It would make no sense to continue "the war" only against one of the occuppiers, as that would not solve the problem for Poland even if Britain were to drive Germany back across the border as we drove Saddam back across the Kuwait border in 1991.

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. So will the Polish government.

But, what does Britain do?

She continues the war against Germany and still does nothing about the USSR being 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, "the war" that you say Germany started, but a different war, a war of aggression against Germany. 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.

Had Bush I continued the war in '91 to completely conquer Iraq after Kuwait had been freed, that would have been a war of aggression on Iraq. I think you would agree with this much. But Britains war on Germany was the same thing as Bush's hypothetical 1991 war on Iraq. It was aggression.

[TheStinger]

Reality check,

Yes britain went to war because of Poland, however Britain has generally acted rationaly, getting into a war with the SU and Germany would have been suicidal.

When the SU invaded Finland there wereplans to assist the Fins but these were cancelled following the peace deal with between Finland and the SU.

When SU invaded Poland it was condemed by the British, but as their treaty with the Poles was in part designed to stop German agression it is not surprising they did not Declare on the SU.

IIRC the UK did not decalre ob Finland when they invaded the SU with the germans in 1941

[Dauphin]

Are people still trying to discuss this topic with Ned?

[Ned]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Reality check,

Yes britain went to war because of Poland, however Britain has generally acted rationaly, getting into a war with the SU and Germany would have been suicidal.

When the SU invaded Finland there wereplans to assist the Fins but these were cancelled following the peace deal with between Finland and the SU.

When SU invaded Poland it was condemed by the British, but as their treaty with the Poles was in part designed to stop German agression it is not surprising they did not Declare on the SU.

IIRC the UK did not decalre ob Finland when they invaded the SU with the germans in 1941

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

The war Britain declared on German was a war of aggression against Germany. But, since Britain ended up on the winning side of both wars, it got the luxury of writing the history books. In British history books, the Germans are the aggressors even though in both wars it was Britain who declared war on Germany.

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. Who appointed Britain King of Europe? What God gave her the right of dictation? 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.

Why of course Germany was preparing for war with Britain, not because she intended to declare war on her down the road, but because she knew that at some point Britain would, as she did actually in Sept. 1939, declare war on her. British aggression was more than predictable.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Are people still trying to discuss this topic with 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.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
Stand up? Nice euphemism for "destroy." Britain made it clear that her intention was to fight until Germany surrendered.

Now, what had Germany done to Britain before she declared war on Germany? Nada. Not a thing. Zip. Zero. Nothing.

But, the converse is not true, is it?

Yeah. That's what you do when you decide it is time for war. You seek to destroy the enemy.

The question you consistenly ignore is why the British (and French) decided it was time.

As for what was done... violated a peace treaty... blackmailed an ally, and when given what they asked for then broke even that deal by marching in in part 2... attacked a second ally...

How much do you think the British (and French) should have put up with? You've never come close to addressing this question.

However, it is nice that you are admitting in other posts that the US was even more responsible for the death toll than the Brits. There's progress, but still a little short of laying resonsibility where it rightfully lay... at the feet of the agressors.

[notyoueither]

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.

pfft.

And we're not discussing the shape of your head. We're discussing your extreme irrationality when it comes to Great Britain.