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

[Fake Boris]

2. Was the US particularly blamed by those who disliked Versailles? My impression is that France was blamed rather more. Again, Id like a cite for US hatred, rather than diffuse resentment of Versailles and the allies.

I don't read German, and I don't have my lecture notes handy. My educated guess would be that it would be a stretch to imagine that there wasn't some resentment against the US - the nationalist right had a reason to hate them, the communists certainly too, and even though the moderates probably saw America's relative soft-handedness in the application of sanctions as a relief, a sanction is still a sanction. No one appreciates his country having to pay a sum larger than its GDP to a foreign power.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I believe that the war created the conditions for an action as drastic as the Final Solution. If Hitler had really wanted to exterminate the Jews, he could have done it long before '42. He did previously ponder other "solutions", such a creating a Jewish State.
Historically, you see that most of the times a minority is abused, is when things start getting ugly for the power in place. The Ottoman empire became increasingly suspicious of non-Muslims when it met its downfall. The Romans turned on its German citizens in the 4th and 5th century, etc. If America strikes Iran, I suspect the Jews there will face difficult times...

1. Prior to 1939, he had only German Jews. A. These werent that large in number, and so there was more flexibility in dealing with them B. Being Germans, one had to go more slowly in desensitizing gentile Germans to their destruction. Note how long it took from 1933 to the effective outlawery of the German Jews in Kristalknacht. Look at how fast that process went in Poland. Hilberg has extensive material on this.

2. There was talk of sending the Jews to Madagascar. A. This would not have been a Jewish state. B. It wasnt serious

3. Nazi Germany was in this respect not like the Ottoman empire, or like Iran (thus far) Antisemitism was central to its ideology and founding, not one policy among many.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

2. Was the US particularly blamed by those who disliked Versailles? My impression is that France was blamed rather more. Again, Id like a cite for US hatred, rather than diffuse resentment of Versailles and the allies.

I don't read German, and I don't have my lecture notes handy. My educated guess would be that it would be a stretch to imagine that there wasn't some resentment against the US - the nationalist right had a reason to hate them, the communists certainly too, and even though the moderates probably saw America's relative soft-handedness in the application of sanctions as a relief, a sanction is still a sanction. No one appreciates his country having to pay a sum larger than its GDP to a foreign power.

Ned posited hatred of the US, not simply resentment at the sanctions. I repeat, what evidence is there of specific hatred of the US, other than from the political extremes?

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1926/stresemann-lecture.html

Note here Stresemann particularly singles out the US for its opposition to the Ruhr occupation.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Essentially what you want is for Great Britain and France to have given in to open Nazi aggression when Germany gained Polish territory by military force. Why, exactly ?

Because you think Hitler was trustworthy ?

They were faced then with three alternatives:

1) Continue the war to destroy Germany;

2) Stop the war with no peace talks or treaties; or

3) Stop the war for peace talks with a man, Hitler, who's word was worthless.

Number 3 is what should have been chosen if the Brits and French could have gotten the USSR and the US to the table as well to be guarantors of whatever came out of the talks. I know FDR was willing, at least before the conflict started, to attend such a conference or even host it.

But they chose 1.

Except for events, they would have lost that war, which alone makes the choice unreasonable. But given what happened to so many millions of innocents, the choice was clearly wrong.

I know hindsight is 20-20 here, but this is why I think we should always choose negotiations first and not last. War is too unpredictable.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


You appear not to understand the difference between a defensive alliance and an alliance based on aggression.

Clearly, the Altlantic Charter was a defensive alliance to, in the words of the Charter, "[destroy] NAZI Germany."

This is typical of British defensive alliances, I take it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


They were faced then with three alternatives:

1) Continue the war to destroy Germany;

2) Stop the war with no peace talks or treaties; or

3) Stop the war for peace talks with a man, Hitler, who's word was worthless.

Number 3 is what should have been chosen if the Brits and French could have gotten the USSR and the US to the table as well to be guarantors of whatever came out of the talks. .

Seeing as the USSR had joined in the partition of Poland, Im not sure how USSR participation would have been reassuring to UK or France or Poland.

I also think that the US extending a guarantee to Poland is highly unrealistic.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Clearly, the Altlantic Charter was a defensive alliance to, in the words of the Charter, "[destroy] NAZI Germany."

This is typical of British defensive alliances, I take it.

first it wasnt an alliance at all. It commited the US to nothing. It was a statement of principles.

Second, The reference to destroying "Nazi tyranny" is only used to indicate the timing for establishing a post war order. It is not a commitment.


Third, it was signed in August 1941, after Germany had gone on to invade and occupy Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and France, and to invade the Soviet Union. And to begin the Shoah. Referring to the destruction of Nazi Tyranny would hardly seem immoderate at that point.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


A discussion on the Fuhrer's train at Ilnau, on 12th September 1939 indicates that Hitler was undecided about the exact disposition of the German occupied Polish territories: whether there should be a complete partition of Polish lands with Russia (which had been caught napping by the rapid advance of German forces) or a rump, quasi-independent Polish state on the Napoleonic model of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, which should exist as a German vassal.

The second choice was Hitler's preference, with a combination of a separate Ukrainian State carved out of Poland's south-eastern land.

As to Hitler's sincerity in offering peace terms and a conference (I note you quote none of the terms offered by Hitler- why is that ?)

The Brit records are sealed, that's why we don't know precisely what terms were discussed.

However, it is not all that clear Hitler would have gotten all that he wanted if there in fact was a peace conference.

Ditto the USSR who had just taken half of Poland and executed 10,000 Polish officers it captured. They may have given back some of the land to Poland. But, as we know, they kept it all even 'til this day. Continuing the war did nothing to solve this half of Poland's problem. A peace conference might have.

[Ned]

I don't have the time and patience to answer your entire post point by point. But you asked for the document that FDR signed that called for the destruction of Germany. Here it is

July, 1941

"The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, ...make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries....

...

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace...."

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/53.htm

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Or was his a typo I missed?

No, this discussion is about both wars and began with my suggestion that Britain should have stayed out of WWI and should have done more to see to it that that war did not start.

[In fact, Britain almost succeeded in stopping the war when one of their messages was read by the Kaiser to be that Britain could guarantee Belgian and French neutrality. The Kaiser called off the attack West that had already begun.

When the British message was clarified, the Kaiser reversed himself once more.

But this shows that peace was still possible even as the armies mobilized and moved towards the front.]

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I know theres one historian who claims that the actual mass murders began in response to set backs on the Eastern Front. IIUC thats highly disputed, not only his larger theory, but the specifics of when the murders began relative to specific incidents on the eastern front.

In any case, the situation of the Jews in Poland was deteriorating from 1939 to 1941, and I dont see how it was tenable. I think the Nazis were going to have to face a resolution, and given who they were, I dont think any other would have been chosen.

This all assumes of course that there would have been no war in the USSR in the absence of UK continuing to fight Germany, which I think is highly questionable.

While the fate of the Jews was not a high priority to the West at that time, I am sure the world would have reacted very negatively to any mass executions by Hitler, assuming the war was stopped at that point. Even while the war raged, Hitler was very secretive about what he was actually doing to the Jews.

BTW, weren't the Jewish areas of Poland occuppied by the USSR in October 1939?

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Ned is still wrong. Was there particular enmity toward the US in Weimar Germany? Aside from the anti-republican right? And the Communist Left?

LoTM, my sister lived in Germany in the '60s and reported a general hostilty to Americans, particularly among the WWII generation. I assume this had something to do with the war.

So, why would it have been any different post WWI?

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Seeing as the USSR had joined in the partition of Poland, Im not sure how USSR participation would have been reassuring to UK or France or Poland.

I also think that the US extending a guarantee to Poland is highly unrealistic.

Not Poland, but to whatever came out of the peace talks. It was to involve a more general restructuring of Versailles. It would have included all German border disputes and its colonies.

After such a conference, Hitler could no longer justify breaches of a treaty that resulted as being the forced on Germany against its will.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned

BTW, weren't the Jewish areas of Poland occuppied by the USSR in October 1939?

The area occupied by Germany in 1939 included very large Jewish populations, including Warsaw, which had the largest Jewish community in Poland, Lodz, and Cracow.

Did you ever see Schindlers List, Ned? The beginning involves Schindlers acquisition of a Jewish owned factory, in the wake of the germany conquest, in Cracow.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Third, it was signed in August 1941, after Germany had gone on to invade and occupy Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and France, and to invade the Soviet Union. And to begin the Shoah. Referring to the destruction of Nazi Tyranny would hardly seem immoderate at that point.

LoTM, Europe was choosing sides early in the war. Some were Brit and French allies. Some were German allies. Some were neutral. Germany did not invade or occupy the neutrals, its friends or its allies.

The attack on the USSR was a different matter. Germany had a pact with Stalin. But he thought, after the fall of France and England's refusal of his peace offer, that England and Stalin had reached a deal that called for a Soviet attack on him. Somewhat confirming this was a general USSR mobilization and movement of large numbers of troops to the German front.

When Germany attacked, it encounter millions of Soviet troops on its border whose officers stated that they had planned their own attack on Hitler later that summer. But, of course, this must be German propaganda as it doesn't fit the template that Germany was the aggressor, planning to conquer the whole world, and that Stalin, at time at least, was a saint.