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

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
Here is another view, with supporting documents, that lays the blame for WWII solidly on the doorstep of FDR.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html

One of the more interesting bits is the last minute appeal from Chamberalian to FDR to ask him to intervene with Poland in order to avoid war. Chamberalain realized, it is said, that they could not save Poland, but that any war with Germany would be a bloodbath for Europe and he wanted to avoid it.

FDR, who had long been urging Chamberlain to stand up to Hitler, declined.

"On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities, Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that we could." Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of all Europe."[31]

31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253; A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback], 1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.

A. I dont trust your neonazi site, so id needt ot actually read Koskoff to verify.
B. I wouldnt trust Joe Kennedy on Chamberlain, anyway.

[lord of the mark]

One of the problems with a thread like this, is that Ned is SO off the wall, that when Molly posts something that includes something, shall we say a bit controversial, iits impossible to take issue with it, for fear of appearing to justify Ned.

Theres a kind of Greshams law at work, bad disputes driving out good. I daresay its not possible to discuss Germany from 1870 to 1945 sanely on this history forum, and barely possible to discuss anything that relates to Britain, esp US - UK relations.

Which, is a shame, considering how little activity weve got, we need those bread and butter subjects, this isnt the kind of forum that can last on medieval Burgundy or inner Asia.

Im pessimistic about the poly history forum.

[Ned]

LoTM, the site does reveal a lot of interesting stuff, outside of the anti-Jewish rants. For one, the US was supportive of the USSR in that timeframe, despite all its denuciation of totalitarianism, because the USSR was hostile to Japan. The US needed Soviet support in the far East to support China against Japan.

Similarly, the Brits did not overly denounce Stalin's hostile takeovers in 1939 because they (well at least Churchill) were hoping for Soviet support in the event of war against Germany.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
One of the problems with a thread like this, is that Ned is SO off the wall, that when Molly posts something that includes something, shall we say a bit controversial, iits impossible to take issue with it, for fear of appearing to justify Ned.

Theres a kind of Greshams law at work, bad disputes driving out good. I daresay its not possible to discuss Germany from 1870 to 1945 sanely on this history forum, and barely possible to discuss anything that relates to Britain, esp US - UK relations.

Which, is a shame, considering how little activity weve got, we need those bread and butter subjects, this isnt the kind of forum that can last on medieval Burgundy or inner Asia.

Im pessimistic about the poly history forum.

LoTM, off the wall?

Just poke around the internet for a while and you will see a lot of material that supports the views I take here. Churchill was a leading advocate of taking a hard line with Hitler. So was FDR. The only question that is arguable is whether war could have been avoided or if it could, at what price?

No one here seriously debates that Hitler wanted to undo Versailles. That much had to be obvious to all, even at the time. So the only question is at what point would Britain and France draw a line if they were to draw a line at all?

Churchill was very contemptuous of Chamberlain's policy because he was always in favor of not conceding an inch. Eventually, his views prevailed and Britain did draw a line at the Polish border and war resulted. Was this totally unforseen at the time.

Hardly.

Which seems to suggest that Britain and France knew their hardline policy would lead to war.

But that bit in the neo-Nazi site about Chamberlain's last minute appeal to FDR seems to suggest that Chamberlain regretted Britain's stance and wanted to avoid war. But, as you say, the site is questionable in its reliability.

What I find amazing about this whole argument here is that no one here seems to think that avoiding a European war that ended up killing tens of millions should have been a higher priority in Britain, France and the US than it was.

Ditto, WWI.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Here is another view, with supporting documents, that lays the blame for WWII solidly on the doorstep of FDR.

I don 't quite see how F.D.R. is supposed to have induced Hitler to become an anti-Semitic, anti-Bolshevist, anti-Slav agitator in post-WWI Vienna.

Have you read any of 'Mein Kampf', Ned ? It's not like Hitler is trying to keep his feelings or ideas a secret.

FDR, who had long been urging Chamberlain to stand up to Hitler, declined.

So let me understand: if F.D.R. intervenes in a European war (in which the U.S.A. as yet has no stake), the Isolationists at home will really love him, right ?


And if he doesn't, the historical revisionists will condemn him anyway, correct ?


I still fail to see why you have this blind spot with regards to militaristic Austrians or Germans. Modern German historians (for obvious reasons) have had rather less trouble facing up to the costs of supporting political adventurism.

Chamberlain realized, perhaps too late, that Poland's refusal to negotiate had a great deal to do with Germany's decision on war.

Oh good grief.

The Nazi Party Programme, dating back as far as 1920, had a demand (along with the union of all Germans an dthe abolition of the treaties of Versailles and St. Germain) for Lebensraum:

We demand land and territory for the nourishment of our people and for settling our surplus population.

Bismarck had proposed the policy of Kleindeustchland, but Hitler was determined to replace this failed Wilhelmine policy with one of Grossdeutschland- which he accomplished with the absorption of Czech Sudetenland and Austria.

Hitler explicitly rejects the Wilhelmine colonial expansion model as a way of resettling excess German population. Like Bismarck, his map of Africa was going to be found in Europe.

From 'Mein Kampf', page 553:

We put an end to the perpetual Germanic march towards the south and west of Europe and turn our eyes towards the lands of the east. We finally put a stop to the colonial and commercial policy of pre-war times and pass over to the territorial policy of the future.

But when we speak of new territory in Europe today, we must principally think of Russia and the border states subject to her. Destiny itself seems to wish to point the way for us here...

This colossal empire in the east is ripe for dissolution.

An eerie presentiment of his attitude towards Russia on the eve of Operation Barbarossa.

In 1932 at a meeting of Nazi Party creme de la creme in the Brown House Hitler had this to say:

Our great experimental field is in the East. There the new European social order will arise, and this is the great significance of our Eastern policy. Certainly we shall admit to our new ruling class members of other nations who have been worthy in our cause...

from Rauschning's 'Hitler Speaks'.

Now, it could be argued that Poland's intransigence was entirely of its own making

Well, I wonder why Poland was reluctant to make deals with some as clearly untrustworthy as Hitler, a man who spent his political life castigating Jews, Bolsheviks and Slavs and Communists, yet had signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin's Russia ?

And had broken the terms of the Treaties of Versailles, Locarno and the Munich Agreement, and repudiated the 'ten year' Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact ?

No Ned, clearly the Poles could trust him implicitly.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
One of the problems with a thread like this, is that Ned is SO off the wall, that when Molly posts something that includes something, shall we say a bit controversial,

Which is what, exactly ?

I daresay its not possible to discuss Germany from 1870 to 1945 sanely on this history forum, and barely possible to discuss anything that relates to Britain, esp US - UK relations.

Well, not if you rely on the writings of David Irving and web-based neo-fascists.

Just poke around the internet for a while and you will see a lot of material that supports the views I take here.

You can also see it at Aryan Nation rallies, on Holocaust deniers' sites and on lavatory walls around the world.

It doesn't make it historically correct, unbiased or well-researched.

Which seems to suggest that Britain and France knew their hardline policy would lead to war.

If you make statements like this, you need to back them up. I've quoted German politicians, German documents, memoranda from Hitler to army chiefs- do you think for one minute that similar material doesn't exist or is inaccessible in Allied archives ?


This 'hardline policy' as you describe it- when exactly is it meant to date from ?

And try to back this up with actual quotations from the politicians or documents involved, for once.

What I find amazing about this whole argument here is that no one here seems to think that avoiding a European war that ended up killing tens of millions should have been a higher priority in Britain, France and the US than it was.

How many lives would be an acceptable tariff to satisfy you ?

How many Poles, Czechs, German dissidents, Jews, Romany, homosexuals, Austrian Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Communists ?


Your willingness to turn a blind eye to the excesses and depravities of the Nazi regime appals me.

[TheStinger]

Ok lets see where Neds arguments take him

What would have happened if the UK do not back Poland in 1939 or they agree to peace in October of that year.

My thoughts

1. France falls in 1940 although this time with no Dunkirk because the british have stayed out of it, the government is now the weakest its ever been.
2.Germany invades Russia in 1941 and pummels it and takes Moscow
3.Germany develops nuclear weapon circa 1944-45.

At some point either Germany walks into Brtain or the UK govt goes facist.

[Sandman]

David Low:

[Sandman]

More Low:

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Which is what, exactly ?

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.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I don 't quite see how F.D.R. is supposed to have induced Hitler to become an anti-Semitic, anti-Bolshevist, anti-Slav agitator in post-WWI Vienna.

Have you read any of 'Mein Kampf', Ned ? It's not like Hitler is trying to keep his feelings or ideas a secret.

Of course I've read Mein Kampf. Hitler was all of these things. So what? Is that a cause for war per se?

If you think anti-Semitism is a cause for war per se, then I suggest Britannia immediately DOW on Iran for starters.

So let me understand: if F.D.R. intervenes in a European war (in which the U.S.A. as yet has no stake), the Isolationists at home will really love him, right ?


And if he doesn't, the historical revisionists will condemn him anyway, correct ?

Washington warned us about staying out of European politics and wars. Wilson got us into WWI purportedly to "save democracy." But the Versailles treaty so disproved this theory as create an enormous backlash in the US against further US involvement in Europe. We did not ratify Versailles or join the League of Nations. Instead, we passed numbers of Neutrality Acts so that no president in the future could drag us into war by siding with one belligerent as had Wilson.

Well, it is clear that FDR did back Britain against Germany in violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Neutrality Acts. He did this at a time when 70% of Americans were in favor of staying out of what we viewed as another European war.

Now, if you want to talk about bad people who did bad things to his own people, why don't we talk about Stalin? If there was a true object of the world's attention and hatred, it was the USSR. Stalin ran a terror state and was hated even by his own people.

But no, FDR was concerned about Germany for some reason at a time when Hitler was very popular in Germany, at a time when US trade unions were openly singing the praises of Hitler, at a time when his own Ambassador to England, Joseph Kennedy, thought Hitler was on the right track.

What was FDR's beef? The US officially had no stake in the Versailles treaty, but clearly FDR was concerned. He was concerned about Austria, about Munich and about Poland. He was even more hardline on Versailles than most Brits were, it seems.

We got involved; but it remains that Washington's warning was correct. Getting involved in European politics gains the US nothing but war.

I still fail to see why you have this blind spot with regards to militaristic Austrians or Germans. Modern German historians (for obvious reasons) have had rather less trouble facing up to the costs of supporting political adventurism.

By militaristic, you mean, warlike? Seems inate in all Europeans, not just the Germans.

[quote]

Oh good grief.

The Nazi Party Programme, dating back as far as 1920, had a demand (along with the union of all Germans an dthe abolition of the treaties of Versailles and St. Germain) for Lebensraum:

[\quote]

No doubt part and parcel with Hitler's extreme anti-communism views. He wanted to destroy the USSR and use it to settle Germans.

But that does not mean he invaded the USSR in '41 for this purpose. He did this because he thought the USSR and Britain had already formed an alliance.

Well, I wonder why Poland was reluctant to make deals with some as clearly untrustworthy as Hitler, a man who spent his political life castigating Jews, Bolsheviks and Slavs and Communists, yet had signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin's Russia ?

And had broken the terms of the Treaties of Versailles, Locarno and the Munich Agreement, and repudiated the 'ten year' Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact ?

No Ned, clearly the Poles could trust him implicitly.

Undoubtedly, Munich was a major reason the Poles did not want to negotiate with Hitler. I grant this much.

But would you, in turn, acknowledge that the British and French guarantee might also have had an effect?

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom



How many lives would be an acceptable tariff to satisfy you ?

How many Poles, Czechs, German dissidents, Jews, Romany, homosexuals, Austrian Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Communists ?


Your willingness to turn a blind eye to the excesses and depravities of the Nazi regime appals me.

Get off it molly. The USSR was far worse at the very same time than was Hitler.

Even the US was massively racist. We had institutionalized discrimination and the KKK running wild lynching the uppity ones.

I am not insensitive to totalitarianism. But that is not why WWII started, or why we got involved. If people say it was, then they have to explain why we were hypocrits to ignore the USSR, a far worse example of the disease.

[Ned]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Ok lets see where Neds arguments take him

What would have happened if the UK do not back Poland in 1939 or they agree to peace in October of that year.

My thoughts

1. France falls in 1940 although this time with no Dunkirk because the british have stayed out of it, the government is now the weakest its ever been.
2.Germany invades Russia in 1941 and pummels it and takes Moscow
3.Germany develops nuclear weapon circa 1944-45.

At some point either Germany walks into Brtain or the UK govt goes facist.

Why, of course.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along. The UK and France were looking out for themselves and were looking for an opportunity to make war on Germany while they still could.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned


Why, of course.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along. The UK and France were looking out for themselves and were looking for an opportunity to make war on Germany while they still could.

So by your logic we should have stayed out of the war and thenlet ourselves be overun by the germans a few years latter.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Dauphin

Originally posted by Ned
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.

Yes, if you are losing the peace.