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

[Patroklos]

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.

When exactly did Britain back Poland? Was it when they offered zero assistance to Poland in 1939 by not opening anything resembling a front in the West on either the air, land or sea or when they let half its territory be gobbled up and the rest fall behind the Iron Curtain in 1946?

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.

There is no chance of France declaring war on Germany without Britain. Germany would not delare war on the Western Allies, period. The miltary would not support it, the people would not support it. Even Hitler couldn't have survived this, and it is plain in any source of the events leading to the invasion of Poland that the hope was the West would stay out of it so Germany would not have to fight them.

2.Germany invades Russia in 1941 and pummels it and takes Moscow

If Germany and Russia went at it, they would have to do so with a fully intact English and French military at their backs. No chance. The invasion of Russia was undertaken because Hitler saw the opportunity after the West was broken, and after he was emboldened by the manner and how quickly it was broken.[/quote]

3.Germany develops nuclear weapon circa 1944-45.

Perhaps.

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

Even in 1941 with the entire war machine of Germany focused soley on England they couldn't pull off an invasion. There is no realistic scenario where England is invaded.

[Ned]

Originally posted by TheStinger


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

I'm not saying that. I am saying England was going after Germany for its own self interest and that Poland was just a pretext.

I also think that negotiations should have been given one more shot, but with FDR at the table.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Patroklos


If Germany and Russia went at it, they would have to do so with a fully intact English and French military at their backs. No chance. The invasion of Russia was undertaken because Hitler saw the opportunity after the West was broken, and after he was emboldened by the manner and how quickly it was broken.

Undoubtedly, this thinking played a role. But the Military Channel ran a whole piece on this recently showing that Hitler believed that England had made a breakthrough with Stalin and that is why they refused to negotiate peace after the fall of France. In other words, in his view, the second front was already open and it would be better for Germany to strike first.

However, in fact, England had not negotiated a pact with Stalin and was continuing the fight because of Winston Churchill and FDR.

[Ned]

Pat, it is actually welcome to see someone else here note Britain's and France's failure to support Poland after having repeatedly assuring her they would and having signed a treaty only days before guaranteeing prompt support.

It is also interesting that none of the British apologists are willing to confront the likely reasons for British and French duplicity. They simply refuse to see that Poland was but a pretext for Britain and France to declare war on Germany, a war, as you correctly point out, that Hitler did not want.

[Patroklos]

But the Military Channel ran a whole piece on this recently showing that Hitler believed that England had made a breakthrough with Stalin and that is why they refused to negotiate peace after the fall of France. In other words, in his view, the second front was already open and it would be better for Germany to strike first.

I don't know about this, and the Miltary Channel oversimplifies alot of things. England was not going to settle so it really doesn't matter what the intentions of Hitler were in regards to a peace settlement.

I don't believe Hitler attacked Russia because of some Anglo/Russian alliance conspiracy, I think even in reality Russia was an independant decision. England, without America, was pretty much hemmed in at the time of Barbarossa, and would have remained so if the US had not entered the war.

It is also interesting that none of the British apologists are willing to confront the likely reasons for British and French duplicity. They simply refuse to see that Poland was but a pretext for Britain and France to declare war on Germany, a war, as you correctly point out, that Hitler did not want.

In all honesty there was nothing the British or French could do to stop Poland from being overrun, geography just would not support it. BUT there is no excuse for not promplty attaking on the Western front at the earliest oportunity while the Wehrmacht was occupied in the East. Thats what a loyal Polish ally should have done, with the goal of defeating Germany and restoring Poland as soon as possible. Manstein makes it clear in his memior that had the Fench attacked immediately, even with only the forces initially available, there would be no stopping them from making large initial gains at the expense of German, industrially important, territory before the Germans could redeploy to stabilize that front.

Not saying the war would have ended right away, but the character sure as hell would have been a little different.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


I'm not saying that. I am saying England was going after Germany for its own self interest and that Poland was just a pretext.
.

have you considered that England considered Polish independence to be an English interest, so that England pursuing its own interest does not imply that Poland was "just a pretext".

[TheStinger]

How would Britain have helped Poland in 1939 practicaly, they had no troops in France, by spring 1940 they only had about 10 divisions IIRC.

Yes if France had invaded germnay immediatley it migght have been different, but thats a different argument.

The argument seems to be that the Britain caused WW2 by standing up to one of the worst ment o have ever lived

[Fake Boris]

So Hitler didn't start the war, because, unlike the UK, he was acting out of selflessness?

As for not supporting Poland, France and UK thought that Poland would be able to hold against Germany for roughly one year, and planned to mount their invasion of the western border around that time. The rest is history.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


have you considered that England considered Polish independence to be an English interest, so that England pursuing its own interest does not imply that Poland was "just a pretext".

Why of course. That explains why they turned their backs on them later.

LoTM, I believe the concept that peoples have a right to self determination is an American concept, not a British concept. Ask the Brits about Ireland, Scotland, Wales and, at the time, India.

Poland was useful to the Brits in that it weakened Germany. But the Brits had no real interest in Poland, per se.

[Ned]

Originally posted by TheStinger
How would Britain have helped Poland in 1939 practicaly, they had no troops in France, by spring 1940 they only had about 10 divisions IIRC.

Yes if France had invaded germnay immediatley it migght have been different, but thats a different argument.

The argument seems to be that the Britain caused WW2 by standing up to one of the worst ment o have ever lived

Where have I heard this before?

Hitler was bad primarily because of what he did during the war. Stalin was already bad primarily because of what he did before the war. So, if one were to ask in 1939, who was worst, Stalin or Hitler, I would suggest the answer was clear.

But England did not go to war against Stalin, the really bad man at that juncture, did it?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
So Hitler didn't start the war, because, unlike the UK, he was acting out of selflessness?

As for not supporting Poland, France and UK thought that Poland would be able to hold against Germany for roughly one year, and planned to mount their invasion of the western border around that time. The rest is history.

THE WAR?

Hitler did not declare war on Britain or France.

He did invade Poland. But, Hitler really thought at the time that Britain and France would do nothing, as they in fact did nothing, to aid Poland.

So, the war that Hitler started was over in October. (An analogy: Saddam invades Kuwait with the understanding and belief that the US would do nothing. Bush instead demands he withdraw. Saddam defeats Kuwait. Six months later, Bush attacks Saddam's forces in Kuwait. Same scenario as 1939 Europe. But no one would ever think that Saddam started a war with America and its allies simply by invading Kuwait. And, if Bush had gone on to take Baghdad and remove Saddam, one would clearly say that THAT war was a war of aggression by the US on Iraq.)


As for your thinking that Poland would hold out for a year, where did you see that? This is the first I have ever heard of this and it flatly contradicts the treaty obligations that Britain and France had to come to the immediate aid of Poland.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

I can't see anywhere in my post where I've said that Hitler's anti-semitism was 'a cause for war'.

Still, nice way to muddy the waters.

How do you imagine Hitler proposed to solve Europe's 'Jewish Problem' as he saw it, without a military solution of some sort or other ?

Simply convince the governments of neighbouring sovereign countries that their Jewish citizens were a bad idea, perhaps.

Washington warned us about staying out of European politics and wars. Wilson got us into WWI purportedly to "save democracy."

Ho hum. Theodore Roosevelt also intervened (at the Algeciras Conference). So what ?

But the Versailles treaty so disproved this theory as create an enormous backlash in the US against further US involvement in Europe.

Disproved what theory ? And how ?

We did not ratify Versailles or join the League of Nations.

Telling us what we already know.

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.

Which one belligerent is Wilson meant to have sided with ?

I count Belgium, the British Empire, France, Serbia, Portugal, Italy, Rumania, China, Portugal, the Russian Empire et cetera, opposing the Triple Alliance.

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.

So you believe that F.D.R. should have stayed out?

How many 'innocent millions' would you calculate might have been exterminated by the various unpleasant Nazi-dominated regimes in Europe then ?

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.

Yes, let's move away from talking about someone who ran a terror state and induced others to run terror states, and who tried to expunge a whole culture and people from Europe.

You remember Adolf Hitler, Ned ?

But no, FDR was concerned about Germany for some reason at a time when Hitler was very popular in Germany,

Ain't it grand ? You come out with apologia like this and presumably don't even feel a sense of shame in saying it.

How easy is it to be popular when you either send your political opponents into exile, have them jailed indefinitely, alter the legal code to suit your own party's interests, have your opponents executed or assassinated and take control of state media ?

Quite easy, I'd say.

Joseph Kennedy, thought Hitler was on the right track.

So ? Didn't he also say:

"Democracy is finished in England. It may be here (the United States)."

Right there too, was he ?

He was even more hardline on Versailles than most Brits were, it seems.

Show evidence for this opinion.

Getting involved in European politics gains the US nothing but war.

Oh rubbish. How about the sale of goods and services, and an increase in global political influence, for a start ?

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

A cheap jibe coming from an inhabitant of a country that seemed to have been at war with one group of Native Americans or another for most of the Nineteenth Century.

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

Yes, we know this.

It's what he also wanted to do with Poland, but bizarrely, you keep transferring the blame for Hitler's invasion of Poland onto the Poles or British.

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.

Oh really ? Show why you believe this to be true, or why we should believe it to be true.

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

Well that, and inciting the Nazi Party in Danzig and a flood of anti-Polish propaganda in the Nazi-controlled German press, and his behaviour over the remainder of Czech territory, his stance on Slovakia and the acquisition of Memelland. That and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Wonder why the Poles would have been so reluctant to trust Hitler, even without the peremptory demands he made of them right before the invasion ?

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

I just wonder if there's any chance you'll ever show any sign of having read any of the diplomatic correspondence between the British, French, Poles and Germans before you make another remark like this.

I like to daydream.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

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

So the U.S.S.R. deported the Jews from what had been Czechoslovakia, Austria, Germany and Poland ?

I hadn't realised.

When was this ?

Even the US was massively racist.

And yet I can't recall an industrialized extermination solution to the United States's 'Negro Problem', in the Deep South or anywhere else.

Yes, there may have been institutionalized racism and policies in some states akin to apartheid, but where was Dachau or Buchenwald in the United States ?

I'm even told they allowed some people who weren't quite 100% white to join the armed services.

We had institutionalized discrimination and the KKK running wild lynching the uppity ones.

And how many millions would you say the K.K.K. managed to kill ? 1 ? 2 ? 4 ?

I am not insensitive to totalitarianism.

It seems to me you make excuses for it when it's German but aren't so keen on it when it's Russian. Are Germans worth more than Slavs ?

But that is not why WWII started

Oh, so Hitler just wanted a Common Market of Europe with no race discrimination, no dispersal of populations, no mass executions and certainly freedom of the press, religion and conscience and the ability to vote for whomsoever one pleased.

I'll have whatever you're on Ned, it's clearly a potent hallucinogen.

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.

One picks one enemies when one can.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, Ned. That's why Saddam's Iraq and the Mujahideen were given financial and military assistance by Western powers when fighting Iran and the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I am saying England was going after Germany for its own self interest and that Poland was just a pretext.

Yes you keep saying this, and don't appear to offer anything to back up such an absurd statement.

No mention of British troop numbers, military preparedness, no mention of what Halifax offered Hitler to end the offensive against Poland, no mention of the desperate pleas from British politicians to Poles to agree to meet with Hitler and make sweeping accessions.


Like the perch Ned, you're living in denial.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


. But the Military Channel ran a whole piece on this recently showing that Hitler believed that England had made a breakthrough with Stalin and that is why they refused to negotiate peace after the fall of France.

Great. Your historical sources are a television programme, an anti-semitic website and a discredited Holocaust denying historian.

Are you trying to make us feel contempt for you, Ned ?