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

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
The Stinger, I agree that it was one thing to put Germans back in Germany,

Not ALL the Austrians wanted to be back in Germany.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iteRKXIJqW8&mode=related&search=

[Dr Strangelove]

The Von Trapp family immigrated to the US in 1936 , 2 years before Anshluss took place. Virtually everything in the movie was a fabrication.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
The Stinger, I agree that it was one thing to put Germans back in Germany, but it was another to occupy Czechoslovakia. To the extent that Hitler wanted to restore German borders through diplomacy to reflect reality, this was completely unnecessary and wrong.

Except that Sudeteneland and Czechoslovakia were not previously German territory, were they ?

Instead, history points out that British and French weakness only emboldened him. He really believed they would do nothing serious over Poland and was shocked when they refused his peace offer of October.

You keep mentioning this 'peace offer'. I keep pointing out that it was illusory.

You fail again and againl to show how real or serious an offer this was.

You don't even provide the text of it, for goodness' sake.

Treaties that punish the loser of a war;

How many losers are rewarded for having lost ?

Imperial Germany didn't begin in the Hall of Versailles after a long sequence of German states dishing out favours to the losers of the war over Schleswig-Holstein, the Austro-Prussian War, or the Franco-Prussian War.

Using this logic, France would have been quite justified in making a pre-emptive strike on Imperial Germany in 1914 over the 'justifiable' grievance of having lost Alsace-Lorraine.

Appeasement followed by a hard line in dealing with international disputes

Instead you propose continual appeasement of a tyrannical government, which having been threatened with force if it continued in its present course, resolved for war.

I've already demonstrated the lengthy military build up of Nazi Germany's forces; its sponsorship of terrorism and a coup in neighbouring territory; the apparatus of state terror in the domestic sphere. Its willingness to use its forces in the Spanish Civil war.

And you think it should have been rewarded, and that France and Great Britain are to blame for supposedly taking a 'hard line'.

Ludicrous.

Which gets us back to the treaty as the source of the whole problem.

No it doesn't. The source of the problem was economic collapse, not occasioned by Versailles. Rigtwingers such as Hindenburg and Ludendorff exploited and propagated the myth of the Dolchstoss and the alleged betrayal of the supposedly undefeated German Army to salvage their own reputations.

Hindenburg was instrumental in Hitler's rise to power. Hitler, a man who cheerfully used whatever advantage came his way to get what he wanted- absolute power first in Germany, then over neighbouring states.

He cannily used the prevalent anti-semitism to blame the politicians who inherited a defeated Germany at the end of 1918- it did if course help that Rathenau had been Jewish. Even more helpful was his assassination at the hands of rightists.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

in fairness even many of the satellites and allies thought it was loony. The Italian military certainly did,

But unfortunately Italian Fascist politicians were running the country, and introduced avowedly anti-semitic policies.

As did Vichy France, which actually seems to have been just as keen, if not keener, on disposing of its Jewish population than Nazi Germany.

Catholic Slovakia and Croatia- both anti-semitic, both allies of Nazi Germany. In Romania the Iron Guard had been antisemitic in policies, ideology and action, as had the National Christian Union.

In Ukraine after the Nazi 'liberation' the antisemitism of the Tsarist era and the period of the Civil War reared its head again, with some of the local populace proving quite keen on pogroms- as was the case in Nazi 'liberated' Baltic states.

Even Dollfuss's Austria had been going its own antisemitic Fascist way before his assassination and its assimilation by Nazi Germany.

Funny how Ned keeps glossing over the effect of Nazi policies and occupation on the inhabitants of neighbouring and allied countries, in favour of harping on about how suppsoedly unfair Versailles was to Germany, and how really the Allies were all to blame for not being nicer to Herr Hitler and giving what him what he wanted, whether he asked 'nicely' or just took it by Blitzkrieg.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The Von Trapp family immigrated to the US in 1936 , 2 years before Anshluss took place. Virtually everything in the movie was a fabrication.

This is wrong then?

http://www.trappfamily.com/familystory/history.php?tid=136

apparently wiki has it wrong as well.

Perhaps you are confused as the music festival shown in the film was in 1936, and they didnt flee till two years later, after the Anschluss. And they fled to Italy
by train, not to Switzerland "climbing every mountain" Id say the dramatic end of the musical (which by the way, predated the film) was worth some historical inaccuracy in this case - it was a much more dramatic ending.

But the basic point, they didnt want to live under the Nazis, and fled for that reason, holds nonetheless.


"When the economy crashed in 1932 (the European side of the Great Depression), the Trapps lost most of their wealth. They began singing to raise money, and received high honours at the Salzburg Music Festival of 1936. Their fame brought them invitations to sing all over Europe. Hitler asked the family to sing at his birthday party, but the Trapps declined. The Nazis made other offers to the famous naval hero, but even command of a submarine base did not tempt Trapp.

Unlike many Austrian aristocrats, the Trapps were horrified by the Anschluss of 1938. Georg made no secret of his feelings; allegedly, the Gestapo ordered the von Trapps to display the swastika flag for Hitler's visit to Salzburg, but Georg replied, "I can do a better job with one of my Persian carpets." Shortly afterwards the family fled to Italy by train (not to Switzerland on foot as in the film) and then to the United States"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


But unfortunately Italian Fascist politicians were running the country, and introduced avowedly anti-semitic policies.

As did Vichy France, which actually seems to have been just as keen, if not keener, on disposing of its Jewish population than Nazi Germany.

Catholic Slovakia and Croatia- both anti-semitic, both allies of Nazi Germany. In Romania the Iron Guard had been antisemitic in policies, ideology and action, as had the National Christian Union.

In Ukraine after the Nazi 'liberation' the antisemitism of the Tsarist era and the period of the Civil War reared its head again, with some of the local populace proving quite keen on pogroms- as was the case in Nazi 'liberated' Baltic states.

Even Dollfuss's Austria had been going its own antisemitic Fascist way before his assassination and its assimilation by Nazi Germany.

Funny how Ned keeps glossing over the effect of Nazi policies and occupation on the inhabitants of neighbouring and allied countries, in favour of harping on about how suppsoedly unfair Versailles was to Germany, and how really the Allies were all to blame for not being nicer to Herr Hitler and giving what him what he wanted, whether he asked 'nicely' or just took it by Blitzkrieg.

theres a difference between antisemitism, on the one hand, which was widespread in eastern europe, and not unknown in France and Austria, and genocide.

The Italian Fascist party still had Jewish members before the war - I suspect you hate movies as references, but did you see "The Garden of the Finzi-Continis"?

Similarly, Im not aware of any major antisemitic policies in Austria pre-Anschluss.

Vichy was quick to deport foreign Jews - they didnt deport many French Jewish citizens till '44, when the Germans were pretty much running things. Thats why large numbers of French Jews survived. Similarly, many Hungarian Jews survived, because deportations didnt begin till mid-44, when the Arrow Cross, under German sponsorship, overthrew the old Hungarian govt. Contrast this with Poland, under direct German rule from 1939 on, which despite a much larger pre-war Jewish community, is the source of relatively few survivors.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Funny how Ned keeps glossing over the effect of Nazi policies and occupation on the inhabitants of neighbouring and allied countries, in favour of harping on about how suppsoedly unfair Versailles was to Germany, and how really the Allies were all to blame for not being nicer to Herr Hitler and giving what him what he wanted, whether he asked 'nicely' or just took it by Blitzkrieg.

I gloss over it because I don't think Hitler's attitude towards the Jews had anything to do with British, French, Polish and American reasons for the way they acted or did not act, therefor, it had nothing to do with the causes of WWII.

I also think that if the war did not happen, there would never have been a genocide. I can't prove this of course, but I simply submit that Hitler kept what he was doing secret even in the midst of war. He knew the world reaction would be negative.

You also keep dismissing my anger at all the killing of innocent peope, including civilians, that resulted only because the war continued and became a world war. I think you be believe that all that death and killing was justified because, in the end, Hitler and Nazism was utterly destroyed.

I simply do not agree with this view. I think it would have been better had the war not occurred and all those millions of people, including Jews, lived.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


I gloss over it because I don't think Hitler's attitude towards the Jews had anything to do with British, French, Polish and American reasons for the way they acted or did not act, therefor, it had nothing to do with the causes of WWII.

I also think that if the war did not happen, there would never have been a genocide. I can't prove this of course, but I simply submit that Hitler kept what he was doing secret even in the midst of war. He knew the world reaction would be negative.

You also keep dismissing my anger at all the killing of innocent peope, including civilians, that resulted only because the war continued and became a world war. I think you be believe that all that death and killing was justified because, in the end, Hitler and Nazism was utterly destroyed.

I simply do not agree with this view. I think it would have been better had the war not occurred and all those millions of people, including Jews, lived.

The regime managed to keep the German people in the dark about the killings. Peace was no protection, doofus.

And you're assuming that Hitler would not have continued to the East had France and Britain stood down, despite his own words to the contrary.

Are you running for assclown of the century?

[Kontiki]

I'm sorry, did you just imply that the holocaust was the fault of Britain and France, and Hitler was simply forced into it?

[Ned]

Kontiki, no, not precisely. Despite the histrionics of nye and others in this thread who seem to know exactly what would happened had there been peace and not war in 1939, I think that Hitler would not have resorted to genocide had there be no war. Others in this thread have agreed and point to scholarly opinion that asserts that the Final Solution was a direct result of the war, particularly German reverses in the East.

But there were plenty of innocent civilians killed as a result of the war, including Poles, Russians, Brits and Germans. And, if you want to include the Pacific War, Japanese and Chinese as well.

I think WWII (as WWI) were both preventable and should have been prevented. But in both cases, there were those in power who sought war and not peace, and the rest is history.

[notyoueither]

... and you assume the war stops there in '39 with Poland.

This line of argument is idiotic, Ned. Not only is it a flight of fancy, and not really worth discussing... 'what if'... but it contradicts what we know of the intentions of the major figure(s).

But by all means, continue spewing all sorts of ****. You're in it so deep, why stop now?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


theres a difference between antisemitism, on the one hand, which was widespread in eastern europe, and not unknown in France and Austria, and genocide.

Err, I'm aware of that.

The latent antisemitism in Catholic Countries certainly aided in the indifference of a large part of the population towards the fate of first their neighbours' civil rights, and then their neighbours themselves- and the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933 certainly didn't set a good example for future resistance.

The Italian Fascist party still had Jewish members before the war - I suspect you hate movies as references, but did you see "The Garden of the Finzi-Continis"?

Read the book, seen the film.

However, from 1938 the Italian Fascists and Mussolini introduced new anti-Semitic legislation restricting what Italian Jews could own, which jobs they could do, which businesses they could run, what patients or clients they could see, who they could marry and debarred them from the military and the Fascist Party.

Similarly, Im not aware of any major antisemitic policies in Austria pre-Anschluss.

I should have made the distinction clearer there. My apologies. Dollfuss and his administration, although corporate/Fascist and dictatorial were not in themselves anti-Semitic, but Austria was becoming more so, especially because of the civil disturbances between Christian Rightists and Austrian Socialists, among whom Austrian Jews were prominent.

The Austrian Nazi Party were of course decidedly anti-Semitic and in the 1920s and early 1930s there had been anti-jewish riots.

Vichy was quick to deport foreign Jews - they didnt deport many French Jewish citizens till '44,

Vichy was likewise quick to institute anti-Jewish measures and laws- from 1940 onwards in fact, defining who was a Jew, and restricting Jews from government employment, army service, and a whole host of other jobs.

In October of 1940 a Vichy decree allowed for the imprisonment of foreign-born Jews, with 25 000 Jews being held at a concentration camp at Gurs. They were then made to serve in forced labour brigades, with large numbers dying from disease, malnourishment, exposure and overwork.

It is still of interest to contrast the fate and treatment of Jews in certain Nazi allied states (Bulgaria, Hungary) with those of others which were allied through occupation or ideology as it were, such as Austria, Slovakia and the Baltic States.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I gloss over it because I don't think Hitler's attitude towards the Jews had anything to do with British, French, Polish and American reasons for the way they acted or did not act, therefor, it had nothing to do with the causes of WWII.

I also think that if the war did not happen, there would never have been a genocide.

So Hitler's anti-Semitic speeches, writings and policies were all for show ?

Don't be a tool.

You gloss over Hitler's anti-semitism because it suits you to do so- the sources you use (David Irving, that revisionist anti-semitic website) don't have anti-British feeling in common, they have Holocaust denial and anti-semitism in common.

I can't prove this of course, but I simply submit that Hitler kept what he was doing secret even in the midst of war.

It's difficult to keep a secret when the underground and Resistance forces in the occupied countries make it clear what's happening. Aerial photography revealed the existence of death camps, railways were kept busy with the passage of trucks full of deported innocents and exiles abroad made plain what was occurring, in Germany as well as the invaded lands.

Even ordinary Germans knew what was taking place.

ou also keep dismissing my anger at all the killing of innocent peope, including civilians, that resulted only because the war continued and became a world war.

Civilians were killed before the Nazis invaded Poland- they even killed a civilian prisoner to fake the supposed Polish attack on the radio mast at Gleiwitz.

You kept referring to the dead innocent tens of millions, but never bothered to be exact about who they were or where they came from- the death toll of the Soviet Union or the death toll of Poles following the Nazi invasion.

You did keep harping on about Stalin though...

I simply do not agree with this view. I think it would have been better had the war not occurred and all those millions of people, including Jews, lived.

Me too. Pity that wasn't Nazi policy or future aims, though, eh ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

Despite the histrionics of nye and others in this thread who seem to know exactly what would happened had there been peace and not war in 1939,

Erm, you're the one who, by not referring to either what Hitler said or wrote, continually leaves out his intentions, as clearly set down in the speeches to the Reichstag or at the Nuremberg rallies or in 'Mein Kampf'.

Slavs were subhumans- Untermenschen. They would serve as slaves for Germans, in a New, Greater German Reich.

This new Reich would be built on lands expropriated from the countries to Germany's east, specifically Poland and Russia.

Jews, in the New Reich and elsewhere in Europe, would be eradicated, because they were spreaders of Judaism and Bolshevism.

Nothing Hitler said or did indicates that these were not clearly foreseeable consequences of future Nazi expansionism.

I think that Hitler would not have resorted to genocide had there be no war.

You can think that, but as I've pointed out with quotes from the man himself, this is contradicted by what he said and his government's policies. It's also contradicted by instructions to the Einsatzgruppen in Poland and by their activities there- the deliberate large scale extermination of non-combatant Jewish civilians in Poland.

Others in this thread have agreed .

Who ? And what precisely did they say ?

and point to scholarly opinion that asserts that the Final Solution was a direct result of the war, particularly German reverses in the East

Which 'scholarly opinion' ?

The Wannsee Conference was in January 1942. Which great reverses in the East were you thinking of ?

Bearing in mind of course that possession of most of Eastern Europe meant that the Nazis had somewhere to deport the Jews of Western Europe and control of a large resident Jewish population- 3 200 000 in Poland alone, which had been occupied since 1939.

But in both cases, there were those in power who sought war

Yes, and you keep ignoring what I post about Hitler's preparations for war, against the Czechs and against the Poles, and against France and Great Britain and Russia and the neutrals- in favour of blaming the supposed 'hard line' policy of Daladier and Chamberlain.

You're a Nazi apologist- in my opinion.

[Dr Strangelove]

Don't forget about "Krystalnacht" (sp), the mass terrorizing of Jews in Germany well before the start of the war. Hitler began rounding up the Jews in Germany long before the war. Do you really think he was going to keep them alive at state expense for very long. There were efforts to get Jews out of Germany before the war too, but people were thrown into prison for assisting them. When you make it illegal for a people to live in a place but also illegal to leave you've narrowed the options for their future down to one thing - death. Please do take into consideration that there never was any evidence of a mass plot by the Jews to undermine Germany, that they did not own the majority of the banks or businesses, that they were not especially overly represented in the Communist Party, that they had contributed more than their fair share to Germany's culture and economy and had even willingly fought for Germany in the Great War.