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

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

It is also interesting that none of the British apologists are willing to confront the likely reasons for British and French duplicity.

It's also more than interesting that you haven't offered a shred of evidence to support what you call 'likely reasons'- just empty theorizing and bluster.

And I don't recall being a British apologist. What have I exonerated the British for, and when ?

They simply refuse to see that Poland was but a pretext for Britain and France to declare war on Germany,

Saying it again. Still no evidence offered. Hogwash is still hogwash, no matter how many times you repeat it.

a war, as you correctly point out, that Hitler did not want.

Rubbish. He didn't want a two-front war. He was quite prepared to go to war with Poland and had been preparing to do so since April 1939.

What on earth do you think the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement was for ?

I don't know whether it's deliberate ignorance or naivete on your part, but your unwillingness to face up to facts- or worse, even produce any to support your ****-eyed theorizing- is sad and disturbing.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


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

So let's see- after fighting against Hitler since 1939 (which you think is their fault, and presumably a 'bad thing'), the British should then have taken on Stalin's Russia in 1945-1946, when the Red Army was already in Poland.

Staggering.

LoTM, I believe the concept that peoples have a right to self determination is an American concept, not a British concept.

Yes, we bring you the Spanish-American War of 1898 which didn't quite bring about Filipino independence or self-determination until a wee bit later.

Risible.

Ask the Brits about Ireland, Scotland, Wales and, at the time, India.

I've already seen your 'notions' about English foreign policy since the days of Elizabeth I. What kind of questions did you have in mind ?

Poland was useful to the Brits in that it weakened Germany.

Ah yes, this theory again. Remind us when the all-powerful Machiavellian Neville Chamberlain (!) induced Hitler to invade Poland. Or was it F.D.R. who was controlling him ?

Or did you have Daladier or Stalin in mind as Hitler's controllers ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

Hitler was bad primarily because of what he did during the war.

I forget what paradises on earth Nazi Germany, Austria and the Sudetenland and the occupied Czech Republics were.

Everyone lived in harmony, nobody was forced into exile, nobody was assassinated and everybody had the right to vote for anyone they liked, and espouse whatever religion they liked, listen to whatever music they liked, worship anywhere they wanted to and read whatever they chose to read.


No one of course knew what the Nuremberg Laws were, and no one had even heard of Kristallnacht.

Today I will be a prophet once again. If the Jewish financiers in Europe and around the world should succeed once again in plunging the nations into a world war, then the result will not be the victory of Jewry, but rather the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!

Hitler's speech at the Reichstag, January 30th 1939

See, Ned, it wasn't just Masterminds Chamberlain and Daladier, it was the Jewish financiers of Europe too!

Unfortunately the Elders of Zion have prevented me from accessing any information on this secret meeting between the Jewish bankers of Europe and Chamberlain and Daladier. So we'll just have to take Hitler's word and your opinion on who really started World War II and why.


Some people just couldn't adjust to the lovely regime of Nazi Germany and left, the slackers :

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


THE WAR?

Hitler did not declare war on Britain or France.

Oh good grief.


No, but then he didn't declare war on Poland either.

You need to get this daft notion out of your head, that a war only begins with a formal declaration of war.

Care to tell us how many other nations Hitler's Germany didn't declare war on, but somehow managed to use its military in anyway ?

Clue: more than two.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


So let's see- after fighting against Hitler since 1939 (which you think is their fault, and presumably a 'bad thing'), the British should then have taken on Stalin's Russia in 1945-1946, when the Red Army was already in Poland.

Staggering.






Yes, we bring you the Spanish-American War of 1898 which didn't quite bring about Filipino independence or self-determination until a wee bit later.

Risible.

See, this is what I mean. On the one hand Mollys post is a misreading of Ned, who was clearly thinking of Woodrow Wilson, who I think was still at Princeton (or was he already Gov of NJ?) in 1898. And whose party generally objected to the annexation of the Phillipines. OTOH to argue that might give the impression of agreeing with Ned, which would neglect the extent to which self-determination was accepted as principal by Lloyd George, and to which it was a concept floating around the European left at the time, IIUC, and was not invented by Wilson out of whole cloth, as Ned implies.

And now Im going to get Ned AND Molly going after me, Ned with some odd assertions, and quotes from nasty websites, and Molly with some long chain of quotes from quite good sources, which dont happen to be actually relevant to my point, and which would include some further snipes at "US imperialism" Which, if I take issue with them, will turn out to have been "sarcastic" and my reaction will be proof I lack a sense of humor.

Wouldnt it be wonderful if we could have a real discussion of the evolution of the concept of self-determination, the roles played by Europeans, by Wilson, by L George, etc, unencumbered by US vs UK sniping and bitterness?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

first, where did i mention self determination? The legal issue in 1939, was not self-determination but sovereignty, and an unjustified DOW.

Second, Britains interest in Poland was in maintaining a balance on the continent. Saying "it weakened Germany" is to make it sound like Poland was deliberated harming Germany. Britains interest was in not having any one power dominate the European continent. If Germany had not sought such domination in 1939, there would have been no conflict with Poland. Given that a europe dominated by Germany, under the conditions of 1939, would eventually have endangered Britain, it was not unreasonable for Britain to oppose it. And they were on sound legal grounds in doing so, because Germany DID violate Polands sov without provocation.

As for turning their back on Poland later, Im not sure what choice UK had.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


first, where did i mention self determination? The legal issue in 1939, was not self-determination but sovereignty, and an unjustified DOW.

Second, Britains interest in Poland was in maintaining a balance on the continent. Saying "it weakened Germany" is to make it sound like Poland was deliberated harming Germany. Britains interest was in not having any one power dominate the European continent. If Germany had not sought such domination in 1939, there would have been no conflict with Poland. Given that a europe dominated by Germany, under the conditions of 1939, would eventually have endangered Britain, it was not unreasonable for Britain to oppose it. And they were on sound legal grounds in doing so, because Germany DID violate Polands sov without provocation.

As for turning their back on Poland later, Im not sure what choice UK had.

I am not sure why you purport to disagree with me when your post fundamentally agrees with what I have been saying. You say "balance of power." I say that England allies with other against the major power on the continent. What is the difference but language?

England's alliance with Poland was in British interests.

As to Germany's violation of Poland's sovereignity, no one has said any differently.

But you still have to fact the fact that my major point here is not that Britain could have or should have assisted her ally when that war was still being waged, but the fact that England and France continued the fight for the destruction of Germany after Poland had fallen, and after Germany sued for peace and called for a European peace conference where the status of Poland and Czechoslovakia clearly would have been on the table.

Again my Iraq analogy.

Saddam invades Kuwait. Bush says stop, get out. Saddam completes conquest. Bush, six months later attacks Saddam in Kuwait and ejects him. But, what if Bush had continued to Baghdad and destroyed the Iraqi regime?

German demands at the time were for a restoration of the corridor and the German city Danzig, and a RR to the East. If she got these, I am sure she would have agreed to withdraw from the rest of Poland. To listen to Molly, it would appear that German demands at the time were to conquer everything to the East, destroy all Jewry in Europe and snuff out every socialist in the world. Even though that eventually happened, it happened because the war continued, not because it did not continue. At the time, the only thing that could have justified England and France continuing the war was Hitler's past action after Munich.

But let me observe how Bush II has treated a similar betrayal by the esteemed leader of North Korea. He has engaged him in regional negotiations rather than bilateral talks. If a leader cannot be trusted, this seems like the next step rather than a declaration of war to expunge his regime.

[Ned]

Molly, trying to discuss things with you is very frustrating because you seem to deliberately misunderstand me, mistate my positions and when it gets to a hard point you cannot deal with, you simply do not answer the question, but ask one yourself or ask me to cite sources even after I have cited sources.

In September 1939, Germany had indeed made life miserable for his political opponents and had conducted assassinations. But these pale by comparison to what Stalin had done at that point. You conflate things that happened during the war and as a consequence of the war to justify Britain's reasons for continuing the war in '39 and for FDR's selective hostilty towards Hitler and not Stalin. In '39, there is nothing that Hitler had done in kind that Stalin had not done in the same kind, but worse. But more, there is nothing of THIS kind that Hitler had done by September of '39 that justified a DOW by anyone.

Now if Hilter were committing genocide at the time, I would have a different view. I think our involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo was justified by Serbian attrocities.

So, what was the reason for FDR's hostilty towards Hitler that justified his support of England to the point that the US was all but sending bombers to downtown Berlin? He even signed an alliance with England that called for the final destruction of Germany before Germany had declared war. What had Germany done to America to justify this?

And, what was the reason England carried on the war against one party after Poland was conquered by two parties, at a time where there was an offer of a European peace conference on the table? The fate of Poland could have been decided peacefully at such a conference.

But that was not England's objective, was it? They stated in response to Germany's peace offer that their objective was to destroy Germany. Should't we should assume that in October of 1939 that England meant what she said and that she had no real interest in saving Poland (at a peace conference) because that would not have solved the problem of growing German power?

Back to America - the Neutrality Acts I was referencing were the Acts passed after WWI that were intended to prevent another president from getting us involved in a European. By 1920, America knew that howerver noble Wilson might have been, the Europeans were still all about empire, balance of power and revenge -- exactly the kind of things Washington knew would embroil the US in wars if we got involved.

But, even so, FDR took up the Wilsonian banner and again got us involved in a European war "to save" democracy (in Poland?). But, given our ally, Stalin, and what happened eventually to Poland, we know this was a big LIE; and, given subsequent events, such as the Korean War, Vietnam War and the Cuban Missile Crisis, the LIE cost us dearly and nearly resulted in the destruction of America.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned

and after Germany sued for peace and called for a European peace conference where the status of Poland and Czechoslovakia clearly would have been on the table.

and as weve all said, all that was on the table was the form of effective German control over Poland, not actual restoration of genuine Polish soveriegnty, and that Germany was no longer trust worthy at this point. Or rather, it was even LESS trustworthy than it had been in early summer of 1939.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Saddam invades Kuwait. Bush says stop, get out. Saddam completes conquest. Bush, six months later attacks Saddam in Kuwait and ejects him. But, what if Bush had continued to Baghdad and destroyed the Iraqi regime?

well of course in my personal opinion it would have been completely justified.


But in any case, Hitler was NOT offering to withdraw to the lines of August 1939. Per your assertion he was asking for a revision to the boundary that would have drastically weakened Polish security. Polish security being a very important concern to Poland, after Hitler had just invaded Poland. And again we dont read the offer that way - rather it insists on continued German political dominance of Poland.

Suppose Saddam had offered to a conference to withdraw from Kuwait, but hed keep the disputed oil fields, and a section of Kuwaits coastline. Plus the discussions would cover how to insure sufficient Iraqi control of Kuwait to make sure Kuwait didnt attack Iraq again. GHW Bush would have laughed at it, and he would have been right to do so.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ned
And, what was the reason England carried on the war against one party after Poland was conquered by two parties


LOTM - cause Germany had initiated the aggression against Poland, and the USSR was along for the ride. Germany was the imminent threat.



, at a time where there was an offer of a European peace conference on the table? The fate of Poland could have been decided peacefully at such a conference.

LOTM The offer was entirely unserious.

LOTM But that was not England's objective, was it? They stated in response to Germany's peace offer that their objective was to destroy Germany. Should't we should assume that in October of 1939 that England meant what she said and that she had no real interest in saving Poland (at a peace conference) because that would not have solved the problem of growing German power?

LOTM Certainly a peace conference that ratified German domination over Poland would not have solved that problem. UKs position was the only possible one.



Back to America - the Neutrality Acts I was referencing were the Acts passed after WWI that were intended to prevent another president from getting us involved in a European. By 1920, America knew that howerver noble Wilson might have been, the Europeans were still all about empire, balance of power and revenge -- exactly the kind of things Washington knew would embroil the US in wars if we got involved.


LOTM Washingtons direct successor, John Adams, (see my avatar) built the US Navy up to protect the US. At such point as a power came to dominate Europe, a power with global ambitions, capable of building a navy (once it had consolidated its position) that could threaten the US Navy, the US had no choice but to act. Washington was a good enough strategist he would have approved.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


and as weve all said, all that was on the table was the form of effective German control over Poland, not actual restoration of genuine Polish soveriegnty, and that Germany was no longer trust worthy at this point. Or rather, it was even LESS trustworthy than it had been in early summer of 1939.

I agree with the untrustworthy part. That is the reason Britain did not join the peace conference, and Hitler, if he truly wanted to avoid war in the West, should have acted differently after Munich.

But, as I said, even Bush was willing to negotiate with the leader of North Korea on a multi-lateral basis after that leader proved his word was worthless on a bilateral basis.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


well of course in my personal opinion it would have been completely justified.


But in any case, Hitler was NOT offering to withdraw to the lines of August 1939. Per your assertion he was asking for a revision to the boundary that would have drastically weakened Polish security. Polish security being a very important concern to Poland, after Hitler had just invaded Poland. And again we dont read the offer that way - rather it insists on continued German political dominance of Poland.

Suppose Saddam had offered to a conference to withdraw from Kuwait, but hed keep the disputed oil fields, and a section of Kuwaits coastline. Plus the discussions would cover how to insure sufficient Iraqi control of Kuwait to make sure Kuwait didnt attack Iraq again. GHW Bush would have laughed at it, and he would have been right to do so.

That is why the private offer of getting out of Poland and Czechoslovakia was so important to this discussion. I have actually read the text of that offer, but I can't find it on the internet now. But that the offer was made is somewhat confirmed by the fact that British archives on its discussions of the German peace offer remained sealed to this day. The Brits have something to hide.

[Ned]

LoTM, America's involvement in WWI got us nothing but a lot of Americans killed and the emnity of Germany. WWII lead to the killing of tens of millions of innocent people including six million Jews. Eastern Europe was enslaved. Soviet-lead Communism advanced across the planet involving America in several other wars and a threat of her own annihation by the USSR.

What did we accomplish except mass killings and the destruction of an independent Germany?

In retrospect, I have to hand it to Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon who chose to "contain" the USSR through "detente" and US military preparedness. They chose the path of peace and negotiation, and, in the end, it turned out well.

[Ned]

BTW, I think Bush I's involvement with Kuwait was wrong as well. We were poking our head into "Arab" business for no good reason at all. While we got Saddam out of Kuwait, we also got a hostile Arab world, al Qa'ida, and the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that seem to have no end in sight.

Was this predictable at the time?

I think so.