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

[Myrddin]

Originally posted by Ned
I have just contended that Versailles lead to the rise of the Nazi's and to WWII. Had there been a better treaty to end WWI, there would have been no Nazi party and no WWII and no Holocaust.

Go and read some inter-war history. There was not a straight line between the Versailles treaty and World War 2. The first 10 years actually looked fairly hopeful.

[Ned]

The more I think of the more I think that maybe Che was right about the "real" reason for America entering World War I. Since the beginning of the Federal Reserve circa 1913, the United States had been financing the allies war efforts through enormous loans. We're also selling them arms in large quantities, obviously making huge profits as was pointed out by Molly and others. When the Germans began unrestricted submarine warfare, they put Wilson in a quandary. If he continued to sell arms to the allies, he would increasingly have United States shipping sunk by the Germans with a loss of American lives. If the allies were to lose the war -- and the unrestricted submarine warfare made that more likely than not -- then our loans to the allies would be put in jeopardy. For both reasons, Wilson needed to enter the war at the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in order to protect the American investments in the allies and to continue to make profits selling arms to them.

[Myrddin]

Surely sinking United States shipping would be an act of war against the United States?

Why if the US was selling large quantities of arms to the Allies, did American armies in France end up using European weapons?

[Ned]

Myrddin, financing the enemy, selling them arms, transporting those arms with armed vessels, are all acts of a "neutral" party?

[Myrddin]

What stopped the Germans from asking for loans and arms shipments as well?

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned


I think it irrelevant whether the Jews caused the socialists to do what they did or not. The mere fact that jews were prominent in the socialist ranks left them open to right-wing German propaganda that was trying to shift the blame for the lost war to both the socialists and the jews.

The Nazi's targeted both during WWII, not just the Jews.

Yes, but that does not mean they were persecuted for the same reasons.

As to everyone else on your list, that was the euthanasia program go wild. It started with the terminally ill. It ended with anyone who was deemed undesirable in any fashion, including the old, the mentally ill, the homosexuals, etc.

... and the Genocide was racism gone wild. You're trying to establish a causal chain from (alleged) Jewish actions around 1918 to the Genocide were there simply is no connection, just paranoia, racism and fanaticism.

Another example: the Roma. They were systematically murdered, too. What was the reason for their persecution, Ned? They didn't participate in the WW1 strikes, and they weren't politically active.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned
molly, for anti-Semitism to turn into death camps, one needs a totalitarian regime and perhaps a war. I have never denied the Europeans as a whole and particularly the Germans were not anti-Semitic. I have just contended that Versailles lead to the rise of the Nazi's and to WWII. Had there been a better treaty to end WWI, there would have been no Nazi party and no WWII and no Holocaust.

Versailles is one of the reasons that led to Hitler's rise to power, true. But there are many more reasons, and it wasn't the most important one. I would also agree with you that Versailles wasn't a particularly "good" treaty, although IMO it was much more reasonable and just than you think. It could have been better, though. However, you're trying to blame everything that happened after 1919 in Germany on Versailles, and that's a blatant simplification of European/German history.

For instance, you're saying that Versailles was the reason - the only reason - for the rise of a right-wing government in Germany. You conveniently ignore, though, that several right-wing governments came to power in countries that had "won" WW1. Italy, for instance: on the winning side in 1918, but Mussolini came to power in 1922. In Poland, definitely a country that profited from WW1, General Pilsudski established an military dictatorship in 1926. Hungary under Regent Horthy was an authoritarian regime.

My point is: you cannot explain what happened in these countries by simply pointing to the Treaty of Versailles. Neither can you explain Germany's history after WW1 only with Versailles. You continue to do so, however, because it allows you to blame the Entente for everything bad that happened after WW1.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I think it irrelevant whether the Jews caused the socialists to do what they did or not.

And so far you seem to have found it equally 'irrelevant' to yield up any details of these 'Socialist-led' strikes that were deliberately against the German war effort.

We still don't know where these strikes were in Germany, when they occurred, who the strikers were, and despite you repeating that it was 'The Socialists' who led them, we've had no documentation from you on this.

I wonder why... ?

The mere fact that jews were prominent in the socialist ranks left them open to right-wing German propaganda that was trying to shift the blame for the lost war to both the socialists and the jews.

So does that also account for the murder of Matthias Erzberger, Catholic Centrist, by Rightists ?

Not a Jew, nor a Socialist, but still blamed by Rightists, militarists and Freikorps' members for the Armistice and Imperial Germany's defeat.

Remember, according to your way of thinking, antisemitic propaganda and actions have a justification in what happened beforehand.

Does the same apply to the murder of a Catholic social conservative ?

The Nazi's targeted both during WWII, not just the Jews.

I think you'll find the 'targetting' of Jews, Socialists and Communists by Nazis began well before 1939.

It started with the terminally ill.

Not quite. To be euthanised you had to be 'racially unfit'.

The process has its roots in the 1933 'Act For The Prevention Of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring', which following Nazi race theory and Volk ideology, was necessary to ensure the purity of the Aryan nation.

From there to the 'mercy-killing' of nearly 100,000 'racially unfit' Germans (!) is but a series of degrees, with the incurably ill (not terminally ill) and mentally ill being obvious targets, especially after Nazi Germany had invaded Poland.

They were, after all, not contributing to the war effort.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
molly, for anti-Semitism to turn into death camps, one needs a totalitarian regime and perhaps a war.

You certainly need a totalitarian regime, but you don't need an external war to exterminate your own citizens on a large scale.

If you're going to exterminate European Jewry on a large scale then unless you can convince other governments to help you kill their Jewish citizens en masse, then I suspect some type of war is indeed necessary- at least to let you get access to those Jews.

I have never denied the Europeans as a whole and particularly the Germans were not anti-Semitic.

You just don't seem to appreciate that antisemitism was rooted in Nineteenth Century culture across Europe, and that antisemitism (in Weimar Germany, Civil War Russia, Rumania, Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland) didn't need to be justified by what did or didn't occur at Versailles.

In fact, you seem to believe that for antisemitism to exist in Weimar Germany there must be some logic behind it, and that this can be traced to the actions of the Allied powers at Versailles, St. Germain et cetera...

This is not the case- if antisemitism existed in Austria-Hungary before 1914 and in the German Empire and France before 1914, then why does it need a new rationale or origin after 1918 ?

It doesn't, of course.

I have just contended that Versailles lead to the rise of the Nazi's and to WWII.

Thus conveniently ignoring any economic recovery in Weimar Germany, the propagation of the Dolchstoss lie by self-interested failed militarists and Rightists (such as Hindenburg and Ludendorff) and entrenched anti-democratic forces such as the Freikorps.

You also ignore the electoral vicissitudes of dedicated anti-semitic parties, including the N.S.DA.P. and how badly they fared until after the Wall Street Crash- preferring instead to harp on, again and again, about Versailles, and 'TEH JOOZE' and so forth, ad nauseam and infinitum.

Had there been a better treaty to end WWI, there would have been no Nazi party and no WWII and no Holocaust.

Yay! And had the German Empire not been run for the benefit of a mentally-unfit Kaiser Wilhelm II and a circle of conservative militarist antisemite Junker aristocrats imposing Prussian autocracy and culture on the rest of Germany, perhaps World War I wouldn't have occurred.

But as we all know, it was 'TEH BRITZ' wot dun it. They made the Kaiser succeed to the throne by getting a British doctor to botch the operation on Kaiser Wilhelm II's pro-British father (who also had a British wife) thus ensuring his early death, because they knew how important Iraqi oil would be in 50 years time....

FDR, it seems, actually planned for the USSR and the US to occupy Europe post WWII to put a permanent end to European imperialism which he blamed for both wars.

And you know this from talking to him, or reading his memoirs, or ... what ?

It seems he was right.

Imagine- an American Democrat getting something right. Will wonders never cease...

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre


Yes, but that does not mean they were persecuted for the same reasons.



... and the Genocide was racism gone wild. You're trying to establish a causal chain from (alleged) Jewish actions around 1918 to the Genocide were there simply is no connection, just paranoia, racism and fanaticism.

Another example: the Roma. They were systematically murdered, too. What was the reason for their persecution, Ned? They didn't participate in the WW1 strikes, and they weren't politically active.

ElTigre, I do not disagree that one of the reasons for the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews from Europe was racism. But that does not mean that the Nazi's did not consider them enemies of the Reich or that the Jews did not consider the Nazi's enemies of the Jews. All statements are true and are not mutually exclusive.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre


Versailles is one of the reasons that led to Hitler's rise to power, true. But there are many more reasons, and it wasn't the most important one. I would also agree with you that Versailles wasn't a particularly "good" treaty, although IMO it was much more reasonable and just than you think. It could have been better, though. However, you're trying to blame everything that happened after 1919 in Germany on Versailles, and that's a blatant simplification of European/German history.

For instance, you're saying that Versailles was the reason - the only reason - for the rise of a right-wing government in Germany. You conveniently ignore, though, that several right-wing governments came to power in countries that had "won" WW1. Italy, for instance: on the winning side in 1918, but Mussolini came to power in 1922. In Poland, definitely a country that profited from WW1, General Pilsudski established an military dictatorship in 1926. Hungary under Regent Horthy was an authoritarian regime.

My point is: you cannot explain what happened in these countries by simply pointing to the Treaty of Versailles. Neither can you explain Germany's history after WW1 only with Versailles. You continue to do so, however, because it allows you to blame the Entente for everything bad that happened after WW1.

But I say more: not just "right wing," but fanatic nationalists bent on undoing Versailles.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


And you know this from talking to him, or reading his memoirs, or ... what ?




Imagine- an American Democrat getting something right. Will wonders never cease...

molly, this bit was on "Warlords" yesterday. The topic was Churchill and FDR. Churchill wanted the US to get into the war to protect the British empire. FDR viewed European (including British) imperialism as the cause of both wars and looked forward to the US and the USSR dominating Europe post war. Churchill was more than outraged at FDR's demands that Britain decolonize, that it liberalize its trade relationships within its empire, that it allow Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, annexation of the Baltic States, half of Poland and some of Romania; but he kept his peace because he needed FDR. The only concession he ever got out of FDR was for free elections in Poland. But even here, when push came to shove, FDR allowed Stalin to establish a puppet government.

[Ned]

And, btw, I think Ike was fully on board with FDR's plan as was demonstrated by his presidency. He stopped the confrontational approach of the Truman era in favor of detente and cooperation. We got the Eisenhower era of peace that was only broken by the U2 incident, for which Ike was to blame.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


ElTigre, I do not disagree that one of the reasons for the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews from Europe was racism.

You think there was some logical, sensible reason for disrupting the German economy and sending some of your best scientists into exile ?

You might want to rethink that line of thought- it proved disastrous for the Spanish after the Reconquista and the expulsion of the Moriscos and Marranos, and even more disastrous for Louis XIV and the expuslsion of the Huguenots after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

The people he expelled proved quite adept at enriching the economy and trades of the British Empire- the first governor of the Bank of England was of Huguenot descent, by the way.

But that does not mean that the Nazi's did not consider them enemies of the Reich

Yes, because of their supposed 'race' for f*ck's sake. Not because of crimes they'd committed against the state. Good grief.

or that the Jews did not consider the Nazi's enemies of the Jews.

How else should 'TEH JOOZE' consider the Nazi regime ?

Enlightened despots ? Slightly misguided ? Friends of Israel ?

You should do stand up. In Tel Aviv....

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


molly, this bit was on "Warlords" yesterday.

Oh fabulous, darling.

Another Nedlish paraphrase of a television programme.

Imagine my excitement.

He stopped the confrontational approach of the Truman era in favor of detente and cooperation. We got the Eisenhower era of peace that was only broken by the U2 incident, for which Ike was to blame.

Uh huh. When did the United States (or rather a cabal in the U.S. government) sponsor a coup in Guatemala ?

Claiming 'Communist' infiltration ?

PBSUCCESS, authorized by President Eisenhower in August 1953, carried a $2.7 million budget for "pychological warfare and political action" and "subversion," among the other components of a small paramilitary war. But, according to the CIA's own internal study of the agency's so-called "K program," up until the day Arbenz resigned on June 27, 1954, "the option of assassination was still being considered."

Although Arbenz and his top aides were able to flee the country, after the CIA installed Castillo Armas in power, hundreds of Guatemalans were rounded up and killed. Between 1954 and 1990, human rights groups estimate, the repressive operatives of sucessive military regimes murdered more than 100,000 civilians.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/index.html

' the Eisenhower era of peace'- that would be the peace of the grave in Guatemala, I take it.