Posts made by Octospire

@CWO:

@Octospire:

I truly wonder how the Nazi regime would of been if they had the British as equal partners somewhat holding the leash and making sure they didnt make the catastrophic political mistakes they made in reality. For a start the Holocaust and persecution of Slavic peoples within the Soviet Union. It may very well of brought about a better world where by Germany was much the way modern day Germany is, tolerant, fair and industrious.

I have trouble buying the concept that late-1930s Germany would have evolved into a tolerant and fair society if the Nazis had been left in charge of the country, considering that it was the Nazis who turned Germany into a right-wing totalitarian dictatorship which engaged in state-sanctioned persecution of religious minorities and other groups which were regarded as undesirable.

Had Hitler and the Nazi’s got the alliance with the British he so badly wanted it could very well of evolved into a tolerant fair society not out of want but out of neccesity in maintaining their alliance with the British. Over time the Nazi’s would of softened whether from domestic or international pressures. We forget that the extermination of the Jews did not begin until the Nazi’s felt they had no other option after their loss in the battle of Britain, had they of had the resources they would of implemented the mass deportation of Jews to Madagascar. Now I know this is hardly a fair thing to do but it is far better than the extermination of 6 million Jews. This in itself may of not occured if their was an Anglo-German alliance in the early 1930’s.

@KurtGodel7:

@Octospire:

Its an interesting situation to consider. If Britain was really threatened with the destruction of its empire it would of likely switched sides and fought the Soviets instead. If they didnt switch sides the British empire would of been dismantled, however I think the United States would of taken posession of Australia and New Zealand as part of its territories in order to have a large presence in the south Pacific.

Ever since I began reading about world history as a child I always had this image of British and German tank formations advancing on Moscow. Had Hitler been less agressive and slowly forced the British and French apart, they may very well of been allies and carved up the world just like Hitler envisioned. Had that alliance materialised they could of crushed the Soviet Union with their superior man power and industrial capacity.

Many of us including myself at times forget how strong pro-Nazi sentiment was in the pre 1939 world, even in places like the United States. I truly wonder how the Nazi regime would of been if they had the British as equal partners somewhat holding the leash and making sure they didnt make the catastrophic political mistakes they made in reality. For a start the Holocaust and persecution of Slavic peoples within the Soviet Union. It may very well of brought about a better world where by Germany was much the way modern day Germany is, tolerant, fair and industrious. I dont think the Germans really had plans for world domination, they were more a necessity after they ended up starting wars with most of the major powers in the world.

Good post! :)

Hitler would have liked nothing more than an Anglo-German alliance directed against the Soviet Union.

However, there was a problem. As you correctly pointed out, there was considerable pro-Nazi sympathy prior to 1939. But among the world’s elites, the bias was decidedly pro-Soviet and anti-German. Such was the case with Daladier, FDR, the U.S. media, etc.

Neville Chamberlain may have been an exception to that general trend. If so, then in 1938 a golden opportunity to come to some sort of understanding with Britain had been squandered through tone deaf diplomacy. (As an aside, the Kaiser’s tone deaf diplomacy was a contributing factor to WWI; or at least to Britain’s decision to take France’s side in that war.)

On one level, the decision to annex Czechoslovakia made sense. In 1935, the Czech government had signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union. By annexing that nation in its entirety, Germany sent a clear message to any other Eastern European government which might otherwise have found itself tempted to side with the Soviets. But in doing things the way he did, Hitler undermined Britain’s prestige, and caused Chamberlain to look weak. Undoing those things was evidently more important to Chamberlain than was stopping the spread of communism; which is why his post-Munich foreign policy was far more anti-Nazi than it was anti-Soviet.

If Hitler had limited himself to the Sudetenland, might he have been able to secure some kind of understanding with Britain? Would the British government have been willing to provide Germany with tacit support in a war against the Soviet Union? One complicating factor is that France had signed a defensive alliance with the Soviets back in 1935. Had Germany invaded the USSR, France and Czechoslovakia would have been obligated to go to war against Germany. With Britain’s friends taking the side of the Soviets, it would have been politically difficult for the British government to have taken the side of the Germans.

There is also the chance that Britain’s elites would, sooner or later, have succeeded in replacing Chamberlain with some other prime minister more interested in opposing the Nazis than the Soviets. If or when that happened, any arrangement Hitler had made with the British government would presumably be subjected to alteration.

The nightmare scenario for German strategic planners was for Germany to remain confined within a small space over the short-term, and to be invaded by the Soviet Union over the long run. The major Western democracies would have remained neutral or sided with the Soviets. Hitler tried to avoid this through a three step process. 1) Clear the board of Soviet allies, such as France and Czechoslovakia. 2) Obtain friendly relations with other Eastern European governments (such as Romania’s). Or, failing that, conquer the nations outright (Poland, Yugoslavia). 3) Invade the Soviet Union before the Red Army was ready for war.

The above strategy precluded an alliance with Britain, because a number of the Soviets’ friends were also allies of Britain; and British prestige would be damaged if it did nothing while Germany absorbed those nations. But the alternative scenario–of remaining confined to a small space, and hoping for Western democratic help if or when a Soviet invasion arrived–would have doomed Germany to near-certain defeat and Soviet occupation. (Assuming that the Soviets chose to invade.)

You make some ineteresting points, the strategic alliances between the French and Soviets basically doomed Germany to either fighting WW2 or being a sitting duck when the Soviets came a knockin’. Chamberlain could of been bigger than Churchill in the current popular imagination if he had of engineered a successful alliance with the Germans and then defeated the Soviet Union. You are very much correct that forging an alliance would of been very difficult considering the Pro-Soviet sentiments amongst the worlds elites, however I think with the right propoganda they could of turned the tide. In reality it wouldnt even have to be propoganda just the truth about the Soviet Union under Stalin, the labour camps and purges that were reality long before exterminating the Jews was even a thought on the Nazi parties planning table.

Germany and Britain had ties going back centuries that could of been rekindled in spite of French protests, the Soviets werent going to sit within their borders forever especially with their massive advantages in manpower and industrial capacity.

What is facinating about this whole era is how accomodating Hitler tried to be with the British at least at first, he wanted an Anglo-German alliance so badly just like the alliance between the Prussians and the British during the Napoloeonic era. Had the British been receptive to these offers or at the very least not signing their way into world war 2 by alligning themselves yet again with the French things could of been very different.

As I previously said I think the key would be proganda making the Nazi’s seem like the lesser of two evils and demonising the Soviets to the point where it would be essential for the British to side with Germany. It really shouldnt of been that hard as the atttitudes of the late 1940’s and 1950’s Western world illustrated. There was already communist uprising in China undermining the Nationalist government, how hard would of it been to demonise the communist way of life and show the world what life in the Soviet Union was really like.

@KurtGodel7:

@Pvt.Ryan:

Okay so we’ve all talked about how what the war would have turned out to be like if the Soviets did join or if Germany didn’t attack Russia. But here’s a shocker. What if they joined the AXIS!!! Read this article (I haven’t but it gave me the inspiration to post this).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks

What would have happened? I think that the Allies would have been SMASHED! China would have collapsed and Sovet troops attacking Persia then India and moving through the Middle East! Soviets invading Britain! CRAZY!!!  :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o

That was a good read! :)

The crux of the article was the following:

---

Instead of two secret protocols, Stalin proposed five:

• that German troops depart Finland in exchange for a Soviet guarantee of continued nickel and wood shipments and peace with Finland;

• a mutual assistance pact be signed with Bulgaria in the next few months permitting Soviet bases

• The center of Soviet territorial domination would be south of Baku and Batumi (ports in modern Azerbaijan and Georgia, south of which are Iraq and Iran)

• Japanese renunciation of rights to northern Sakhalin oil and coal concessions in exchange for appropriate compensation

• Affirms that the Soviet-Bulgaria mutual assistance treaty was a political necessity.[79]

The offer came concurrently with massive German-favorable economic offers.[78] The Soviets promised, by May 11, 1941 the delivery of 2.5 million tons of grain—1 million tons above its current obligations.[79]

---

Suppose Hitler had responded to the above-described proposals with the following:

• Germany retains no more than five divisions in Finland at any given time, with Soviet inspections allowed to ensure compliance.
• Pressure on Turkey to allow Germany and the Soviet Union to each have a fort + coastal batteries overlooking the passage from the Mediterranean to the Black Seas.
• Rejection of the Soviets’ demand for bases in Bulgaria. A Soviet coastal battery along the strait to the Black Sea would partially address Soviet concerns about access to the Black Sea, as would the agreement that German, Italian, and Japanese naval ships would not be allowed passage into the Black Sea.
• Instead of describing the Soviet offer of mutual assistance to Bulgaria as a “political necessity,” the Soviets’ offer would be praised as a concrete step towards European peace. The Bulgarian government would also receive praise. The objective here would have been to avoid painting the pro-German Bulgarian government in a negative light.
• Acceptance of the Soviets’ other proposals, except that Germany would try to bargain for an increase in the proposed grain shipments.

What actually happened was that Hitler did not respond to the Soviets’ proposal described above. Instead, he invaded the Soviet Union, in part because he and the German military had vastly underestimated the Red Army’s ability to quickly recruit truly massive numbers of men. Suppose that instead, Hitler had made the above-described counter-offer, and Stalin had accepted it. What then?

My sense is that Stalin had no interest in invading the British Isles outright, or in becoming a participant in the air and sea war between Britain and Germany. However, he may have been interested in adding places such as Persia and India to the Soviet Union. The question is whether he would have acted immediately, or would have waited until England was taken. FDR was no fan of British imperialism, and had once proposed a Soviet-style revolution for India. It is difficult to imagine that he personally would have major objections to Soviet southward expansion, though political pressure might force him to engage in anti-Soviet rhetoric or symbolic measures. The question is whether Stalin would have realized how little non-British resistance there would be.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that the Soviet Union took South Asia, Germany, Italy, and Vichy France took the rest of Africa, and Japan took southeast Asia, Indonesia, New Guinea, and possibly Australia. The British Commonwealth would be reduced to little more than the British Isles and Canada. Presumably, the loss of all that territory would crimp its own ability to produce aircraft, and (importantly) its ability to pay for U.S.-built aircraft. While FDR personally would have had no objection to lending them more and more money, at some point someone might point out that Britain was near bankruptcy. That might have put limits on the number of aircraft the U.S. could send each year. Meanwhile, Germany could focus on increasing its industrial capacity. While it probably wouldn’t have been able to produce as many military aircraft as could the combined Anglo-American production effort, it might have been able to remain within shouting distance. The plan here would be to remain in the war indefinitely, until the lack of military success, increasing financial duress, and other problems forced a change in Britain’s political leadership; thereby making a peace treaty possible. Germany could offer to restore some of Britain’s colonies to sweeten the deal.

All this assumes that Stalin would have sat passively by and watched this happen. There is a chance he would have done exactly that: he realized the Soviet Union was not ready for war, and he wanted several years to prepare. On the other hand, he did not want a peace treaty between Britain and Germany: he regarded both nations as enemies, and wanted them to bleed each other white. It’s possible he would have seen a Soviet invasion of Germany as the best way of keeping Britain in the war, especially if it looked as though Churchill’s support was beginning to falter. On the other hand, waiting would give him the chance to consolidate his gains in South Asia, add millions of Indian and Pakistani men to the Red Army, and prepare for the invasion of Germany in the late '40s or early '50s. By then, the U.S. government might have been significantly less pro-Soviet than it had been during and immediately after WWII. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union would, very likely, have been strong enough to succeed with its invasion, even if the Western democracies remained neutral.

Its an interesting situation to consider. If Britain was really threatened with the destruction of its empire it would of likely switched sides and fought the Soviets instead. If they didnt switch sides the British empire would of been dismantled, however I think the United States would of taken posession of Australia and New Zealand as part of its territories in order to have a large presence in the south Pacific.

Ever since I began reading about world history as a child I always had this image of British and German tank formations advancing on Moscow. Had Hitler been less agressive and slowly forced the British and French apart, they may very well of been allies and carved up the world just like Hitler envisioned. Had that alliance materialised they could of crushed the Soviet Union with their superior man power and industrial capacity.

Many of us including myself at times forget how strong pro-Nazi sentiment was in the pre 1939 world, even in places like the United States. I truly wonder how the Nazi regime would of been if they had the British as equal partners somewhat holding the leash and making sure they didnt make the catastrophic political mistakes they made in reality. For a start the Holocaust and persecution of Slavic peoples within the Soviet Union. It may very well of brought about a better world where by Germany was much the way modern day Germany is, tolerant, fair and industrious. I dont think the Germans really had plans for world domination, they were more a necessity after they ended up starting wars with most of the major powers in the world.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

As a Canadian, it never felt like we were the big guy the poor little USA was hitting the back of the head with a chair.  Of course as a product of the Canadian education system I feel this way.  It was never emphasised it was a US attack on Britain as Canada didn’t exist for another 55 years.  Yeah, we all knew 1867 was our Day 1 as a country but that was merely a technicality.  Of course in the 70s Canada was a great deal more lefty and somewhat….I wouldn’t say anti-American, but perhaps a bit defensive at perceived slights by the US.  Which was weird for me as I grew up 30 KM from the US and most TV on the rabbit ears was from Buffalo NY.

Note to USA.  I can remember not too long ago being pissed about a Canadian dollar only being worth 65 cents in the US.   Now its worth 1.05 or so.  You guys are like cousins who have bad spending habits.  I like you guys but you’all need to take note that you are slipping behind the others relatively speaking.  Having them catch up is natural, starting to watch them pull up then ahead shouldn’t be so natural.

I was more referring to the British Empire as a whole as its resources were tied up elsewhere in the world. What is facinating about the war of 1812 is how quickly the 13 colonies went from being British themselves in 1776 to more or less siding with Napoleon against the British less than 40 years later. Another interesting thought it that had the French actually won the Napoleonic wars I have little doubt that the fledgling United States would of eventually come under the dominion of the French Empire.

@Ruanek:

For the War of 1812: the USA lost that war in several ways.  The only reason it didn’t lose anything was Britain was too focused on Napoleon.  It certainly contributed to great power status, though (being able to go toe to toe with the British Empire and come out ok).

Personally I see the war of 1812 as a little guy coming up behind a big guy who’s already in a fight and then smashing him over the back with a chair. Had it been politically popular to invade and crush the United States in the early part of 19th century after the Napoleionic wars the British empire would have had no trouble in doing so. During the American revolution it was opposition to the war politically back in England that prevented the British ultimately emerging victorious and leaving the 13 colonies to their own devices because they were seen as kin and not enemies.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Actually…Communism in Cuba is pretty much how Karl Marx envisioned it was the point I was trying to make…Idiot and moron labels aside.  The average Cuban while certainly not rich by any stretch of the imagination is probably healthier than the average American.  The industrial/military complex has profited well from how we portrayed ‘communism’.

While attempting to not get too political for the sake of the forum rules Cuba is actually a surprising success in terms of quality of life and equality amongst its citizens even compared with some capitalist western nations let alone countries that experimented with communism.

For instance for Cuba’s oil needs, Cuba sends 20,000 doctors to Venezuela per year to Cuba on a rotation and in exchange they get all the oil they need. This excess in educated professionals shows that Cuba is not the Communist dump it is made out to be, it is a thriving country both socially and economically. Tourism is growing year on year in Cuba despite the restrictions on people from the United States travelling there.

Its decades of Anti-communist propaganda from mostly the United States that paints Cuba as a third world nation with people starving in the streets, while in actual fact it is the reverse that is true, Cubans have good healthcare and education while America has a homeless problem worse than any other nation in the civilized world.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Even if Canada remained technically neutral, our industrial capacity would have been tapped for the war effort.  Even if we didn’t fight, we know how to make money and there is money to be made in war.

This is true, however you can only make money in war if the nation you support ends up on the winning side. If the British had of lost all the money lent to Britain by Canada, U.S etc would of been lost.

I dont think Britain would of surrendered at the beginning of the war without having Canadian support but in the dark days of late 1940 and early 1941 fighting alone would of looked a lot more bleak than it otherwise would have without the English speaking dominions on side. Also had Canada or one of the other dominions not supported Britains declaration of war it may of had far reaching consequences for other British dominions. India, Malaya and Egypt for example (I realise Egypt isnt technically a dominion) may of seen Canada’s example of staying out of the war as a precedent for them also staying out of the war, perhaps even to the point of outright revolution against British rule when Britain looked its weakest during the war.

Edit: Semi off topic thought. Without Australia the United States would of found it incredibly difficult to win the Pacific war due to the vast majority of the early Island hopping invasions beginning in Australia. Most likely they would of had to fight the large naval engagement in defence of the Phillipines the Japanese envisioned in their plans for the war. Regardless it would of been interesting the full might of the IJN and U.S navy duking it out for control of the Pacific in one large all encompassing battle.

@Pvt.Ryan:

I agree with you except for one statment. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think there were any Canadians involved in the North Africa campaign.

No troops I believe but in the early days of the North Africa campaign the Canadians helped supply much of the equipment used by allied forces after the destruction or capture of much of the British army’s equipment at Dunkirk.

Canada’s support in the dark days of 1940 would of been one of the deciding factors as to whether the U.K would remain at war with the Nazi’s. We talk about it today like the U.S joining the war is a given, the British government in 1940 while desperately wanting American assitance knew that it was far from a certainty. Without the collosally misguided Japanese attack on the United States Britain would of been forced to fight on alone and without the resources of the dominions like Canada, Britain would of been up shit creek without a paddle. Canada proving 7-8% of manpower and industrial capacity doesnt seem like much but in 1940 there was no U.S involvement in the war or the Soviet Union so Canada’s share of manpower and resources would of been far greater than 7 or 8%. Without the support of Canadian and Australian forces its possible British would of been defeated in North Africa.

Also its not like the United States were willing to escort the Atlantic convoys during the early days of the war, without the mass produced Canadian corvettes and the other ships of the Royal Canadian navy Britain quite arguably could of starved in the early days of the Nazi U-boat campaign.

I truly admire the Canadians for getting involved in the war, unlike Australia and South Africa its geographical location gave it a choice as to whether or not it wanted to fight the war. Had Australia or South Africa gone it alone they would of likely been conquered by another foreign power, while Canada could of just as easily come under the protection of the United States thanks to its proximity to the U.S.

You really have to ask yourself could Britain of truly gone it alone without its English speaking dominions? I suppose you could think about like AAA, if Britain lost Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in the first turn they would be pretty much finished. I personally believe without the help of the English speaking dominions Britain would of sued for peace sometime after Dunkirk.

@Pvt.Ryan:

Well I suppose I’ve gone toe to toe against another history fan. Please tell me you don’t have a Masters Degree  :oops:. Anyway my point is that I think it would have been worse for the Poles to live under Germany but I may be wrong once I take a second look at the Soviets. Anyway no Britain and France were in no condition to fight Germany once they declared war. Doe’s anyone know the starting army sizes once the war started?

No masters degree yet but I am history student as well as being a WW2 history buff since age 7  :-)

How life would of been under the Nazi’s for the Poles is definetly an interesting question, they werent seen as being as racially inferior as the likes of the Russians and Roma. So the Nazi’s plan was for Germanic peoples to settle the best parts of Poland/Ukraine and parts of Russia and then the Poles were to be relocated to live on the lesser agricultural land in Russia. They were seen as useful tools for use in the new empire of the 3rd reich who would provide the food and raw materials. After all theres no point wasting an “Aryan” in a coal minefor instance when they can be doing so much more for the world or so the Nazi’s believed. The Nazi’s needed labour in the long and the Poles were one of the only groups the Nazi’s could of used to further the “Aryan” race, especially after wiping out many of the Slavic and Russian people had Barbarossa been sucessful.

So I dont think the day to day life of a Pole would of been that bad under the Nazi’s after they had the initial purge of anyone who opposed the Nazi’s, it probably would of been similar to the way the Soviets ran Poland at least at first. With the compliance of the Polish people in their new role they may very well of ended up better off under the Nazi’s than the Soviets. Although that would depend on a number of factors and after all this is just a theory.

From what i’ve read it was a generally well accepted that France could go toe to toe with Germany by it self in the event of war in 1939. They had roughly the same amount of tanks and combat aircraft but those assets werent committed in any meaningful way. Much of the French airpower was destroyed on the ground quite quickly I believe, so air cover was very hard to come, so that was another factor that put the war in Germany’s favour. Germany committed roughly 140 divisions to the invasion of France and the French/BEF had roughly 144. However the French had an additional 5 million reservists/veterans to call on if the war wasnt over so quickly.

The lack of French armoured divisions were a factor that cost the French the battle, because the policy at the time was an equal allocation of armoured resources to each infantry division. So when the Germans attacked with full Panzer divisions the small amount of French armour that would be facing them was obliterated quite quickly.

Had the British and French taken the German threat seriously and not relied so heavily on the Maginot line/low countries fortifications so heavily and actually prepared for a possible German attack the war could of gone very diffferent. I have heard both first hand from my Grandfather and also from books that the BEF was in no shape to fight a war, they had the vehicles and weapons but they lacked even the basics like adaquate stores of ammunition. Some troops had little to no ammunition so they covered their retreat to Dunkirk with whatever they had which was often large numbers of smoke grenades.

With a serious offensive throwing everything they had at the Germans while a large portion of their army was still comitted in Poland they could of easily got past the mostly still unbuilt Sigfried line. On September 1st, 1939 the Sigfried line was still mostly unfinished, unfourtunetly the Allies werent aware of that, they saw the German propganda footage of the finished parts of the line and thought the whole line was like that especially after small French probing attacks were rebuffed quite easily by the German defenders. Much like the fall of France had the Sigfried line been breached the fall of Germany could of come very quickly if the Germans were not allowed to regroup after sustained attacks which could of been possible with nearly a million men comitted and nearly 3,000 tanks committed against Polish forces.

@Pvt.Ryan:

Lol yes 100% Razor. Hey I got a joke I told a French guy on CoD a month ago. You guys wanna hear it?

Shoot

@Pvt.Ryan:

I think that France and UK entered the war because they saw the horrors of WWI firsthand and another thing like that all across Europe should’nt happen again. They didn’t hit the Soviets cause they didn’t start it. They were scavengers getting the leftovers from the big kill. Actually Russia did Poland a favor. They prevented it all from being taken from Germany and allowed Poles to join specific army units made just for them. Granted the Poles lost thousands in the Soviet invasion but think of how many Jews were saved for Hitlers reign of terror?

If the British and French had of taken the threat of Nazi Germany seriously they would of gone on the offensive from the beginning instead of sitting behind the maginot line and letting the naval blockade of Germany does it work for the second time. In reality both the British and French knew that it would be a very bloody affair fighting all the way to Berlin, so they wrongly assumed that the Nazi regime would either fall apart either from internal problems or the long term implications of a naval blockade.

What they didnt realise is that in late 1939 Germany wasnt actually anywhere near as strong as it looked to most observers and its quick victories were not acheived by mass of numbers or technological prowess but mostly by superior tactics and leadership. Had there been that sort of leadership, tactical skill and the political will to use it within the ranks of the British and French the war could of been fought to at worst a stalemate by which time the German people would not be keen to repeat the starvation of large numbers of populace like during WW1. The only thing that kept Hitler in power aside from his uncanny luck was the fact that the early military victorys over Poland, France and the Low Countries were so easily achieved which made him seem like an almost godly figure to the German people who suffered so much at the hands of the French.

As far as Russia doing Poland a favor it did no such thing in my opinion, during the Warsaw uprising for instance the Soviets did nothing to assist the Polish resistance fighters so they knew they would have less strong opposition to the Soviet regime post war. The Soviets acted in their own self interest, liberating Poland was just part of the plan because it was on the way to Berlin. Also Poland ended up with a totalatarian regime similar to what the Nazi’s would of instituted post war anyway. So the Russians didnt do the Poles any favors but by the same token either did the Allies, we let them help us fight the Nazi’s and they fought with great courage and made many sacrifices only to be told they now have to live under the Soviet regime.

The jews you mentioned as being saved by the Soviets at least an equal number of Poles who opposed the Soviets were executed/imprisoned when the Soviets took power (mostly due to the fact nearly 90% of Polish Jews were already dead), when you add to that the number of Poles who died in the Warsaw uprising because the Soviets chose not to intervene its all suddenly not so rosy.

@Pvt.Ryan:

No Im sorry but you guys are complicating things. The act of invading and aggressing is caused by power and politics. But war is caused by the reaction of people standing up for what they believe in whether it’s the fact that they want power or that they don’t want oppression.

Its a bit of a case of the chicken and the egg. On the one hand you could say if the political situation didnt deteriorate to the point of war there wouldnt of been a war in the first place, but then by the same token you could use your argument that if people just ignored acts of agression against their nation there wouldnt be a war. It also begs the question how does one start a war? is not the invasion itself an act of war and is it not a given that at least a minority will oppose it?

There would of been a war whether Hitler got the Danzig corridor or not, he was in a precarious situation when it came to Germanys position in Europe politically and militarily and with 2 of the great powers in the USSR and France breathing down his neck and with the British empire ready to maintain the status quo in the event of a war it was bound to happen sooner or later. There we also have another cause of a war, tangled webs of alliances forcing countries and leaders into actions they may not of otherwise taken (much like the whole beginning of WW1)

@Pvt.Ryan:

Ha carful dude on that one. And yes there are many factors at play here. To many to count in fact. I don’t think our mere minds really grasp the whole thing. It is one of the things in history though that really makes you think.

I completely agree, its incredibly complex but that only makes it more interesting because every single historical event has so many different causes some of which are impossible to quantify unlike the obvious ones like economic, political and social reasons.

@Pvt.Ryan:

@CWO:

In his book “War”, Gwynne Dyer discusses how the wartime alliance of the US and the USSR quickly feel apart once Germany and Japan had been defeated.  He argues that any experienced 18th century diplomat would have had no problem understanding why the US and the USSR ended up at each other’s throats after WWII, even though the concepts of democracy and communism would have been completely alien to him.  The reason why alliances in major wars tend to fall apart after victory is that the winners are the biggest pieces left on the chessboard after the losers have been eliminated, and thus are the biggest potential threats to each other.

An excellent point. It was all about competion not about communism or democracy. Those were just propaganda used by the countries to make them hate each other. It wasn’t necsarilly (i cant spell) the countries fighting eachother. It was the leaders disliking eachother.

I disagree I think its a lot more complicated than that, there were fundemental differences in the ways they governed their countries and their people’s lives. In the U.S it was largely a policy of non interference and letting people prosper through free market capitalism while in the USSR it was a policy of controlling every single aspect of their people’s daily lives in order to maintain order and obedience from their people.

@KurtGodel7:

The American Communist Party took its orders from Moscow. The Soviets realized that the United States was too strong to conquer from the outside, and so sought to promote revolution from the inside. But they also knew the United States was internally much stronger than czarist Russia had been. For the hoped-for revolution to take place, the existing social order first had to be destroyed or severely weakened. That meant the following:

• Destroying the American family by promoting divorce, radical feminism, and the end of traditional marriage.
• Destroying traditional morality
• Destroying religion
• Destroying race and the existence of race through immigration and through changing attitudes about miscegenation
• Destroying patriotism

The American Communist movement was particularly powerful in the '60s. Some of the ideas they attempted (with various success) to insert into the public consciousness included the following:

• Radical feminism and female hate of men
• The idea that criminals are heroes and social revolutionaries for opposing the existing (evil) social order
• The idea that the white race is bad; and that whites should hate their own race

To varying degrees these ideas influenced mainstream American culture and American law. For example, many in the mainstream adopted a watered-down version of the communists’ view of criminals. Criminals were now portrayed as victims (of poverty, racism, and social injustice) rather than victimizers and a source of social injustice. Anti-crime laws were weakened, the culture became far more tolerant of crime, and (expectedly) the crime rate became much higher in the '60s than it had been in the '50s. Those who were raped and murdered as a result of this crime spree were a distant echo of the hate, rape, and mass murder the Red Army had perpetrated as it moved westward into Germany.

There is only one appropriate response to the evil of Soviet communism. One must oppose it completely, totally, ruthlessly, and wholeheartedly. There is no moral distinction between the leaders of the communist movement and a man who has broken into your house for the sole purpose of raping and murdering your family. None. The attitudes you have toward that man must also be applied to the communist movement. Any other mindset is far too mild.

This is one of the most insightful things I have ever had the good fortune to read and it opens up a whole nother school of thought into the downfall/decline of Western civilization, I will be bothering my girlfriend about discussing the implications of these ideas for many weeks and months to come  :-D

The most apt and succint reason I have ever heard to this question is.
“War is the continuation of politics.”

@KurtGodel7:

@Funcioneta:

USA entered at war just because Japan attacked them, pure and simple. And Japan attacked USA because Japan needed the Dutch East Indies resources (for their war against China and because Japan only had oild reserves to some months), and they couldn’t take that for safe with yankees in the rear (Philippines). Then, Hitler was enough stupid to DOW USA, but he didn’t need do so (the treaty with Tokyo was if any Axis power was attacked, but this time the attacker was in fact an Axis power)

I always wondered what if Philippines and the former Spanish colonies in the Pacific were independent or Spanish by that time (Cuban war 1898 not happened or Spain won it - probably due alien tech support or something  :mrgreen: ). Probably USA would not enter to WWII, because Japan would ignore any Spanish / independent Philippines fleet or simply stomp them without much effort and USA would not care a bit about Franco’s Pacific holdings … Japan could even try Spain join the Axis and use Philippines as allied base to attack India, DEI and Australia

Any case, USA not entering in the war would probably mean or Axis victory or soviet armies in Paris, Madrid and Beijing … a more difficult Cold War

You seem knowledgeable about WWII; and I’d like to add to your post.

In 1940, Germany produced 10,000 military aircraft, and Britain produced 15,000. The U.S. sent large numbers of aircraft and aircraft engines to Britain. Together, British and American military planners had agreed that in several years’ time, the U.S. would produce over 70,000 military aircraft per year; with half that production being sent to Britain for use against Germany. In addition to all those U.S.-produced military aircraft, Germany also had to worry about the large quantities of other Lend-Lease aid the U.S. provided Britain and, later, the Soviet Union.

As you correctly pointed out, Germany was under no treaty obligation to declare war on the United States. But Hitler reasoned that the most threatening aspect of the U.S.–its industrial might–was being turned against Germany anyway. A declaration of war would allow him to wage a full-scale submarine war against American shipping at a time when the U.S. Navy was occupied in the Pacific. Germany would sink the ships carrying tanks and artillery before they reached the Soviet Union.

Hitler’s long-range plan for the war was to achieve a large-scale victory over the Soviet Union in 1942. Access to Soviet manpower, industrial capacity, and raw materials would allow Germany to keep pace with Britain and the U.S. in the air war. Victory over the Soviet Union would also go a long way towards securing Germany from land invasion, by eliminating its eastern front. While the German Army won a number of victories in the summer of 1942, and gained access to important food supplies and raw materials, the full-scale victory for which Hitler had hoped did not occur. The problem was the sheer size of the Red Army (which outnumbered its German counterpart nearly 4:1 in the fall of '41), and the fact that the Soviets outproduced Germany by 3:1 or more in most major land categories during 1942. Germany had largely solved the latter problem by 1944, but by then it was too late.

Shortly after Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the U.S. imposed an oil embargo on Japan. Allegedly this was in response to Japan’s aggression in China. However, that latest round of aggression had begun in 1937; so the American response seemed a bit slow in the coming. That oil embargo, in combination with the U.S.'s plans to double the strength of its Pacific fleet and move that fleet’s center of operations from California to Hawaii, served to turn Japan’s focus away from potential conflicts with the Soviet Union. While Japan lacked the logistical capacity to be an immediate threat to conquer a large percentage of the Soviet Union’s population or industrial capacity; it could have taken Vladivostock; and generally denied the Soviets access to the Pacific. The desire to take pressure off the Soviets was one of several factors which led FDR to seek a war with Japan.

Prior to the war, the U.S. had cracked the code Japanese diplomatic code. As such, the U.S. government knew more about the goings-on in Tokyo than did the Japanese ambassador to the U.S.! Specifically, FDR’s administration knew, in November of 1941, that if the U.S. asked for moderate concessions to have the oil embargo lifted, Japan would accept them. But if the U.S. asked for something far-reaching, Japan would go to war within a matter of weeks. Knowing this, FDR’s administration asked for very, very significant concessions from Japan indeed.

Shortly after Pearl Harbor, Stalin shipped 100 divisions west–away from his eastern front and toward the German front. He knew that Japan would be too occupied with its war against the U.S. to launch a very powerful attack from Manchuria; so those 100 divisions were no longer needed in the east. Those 100 divisions arrived in the dead of winter, and had a devastating effect on Germany’s war effort. Germany had initially used only 100 divisions to invade the Soviet Union; so for the Soviets to have 100 extra divisions at such a key time proved critical.

You make some excellent points. The U.S profitted enormously from the lend lease and arms sales to the Soviets and British, the U.S government definetly did what was best economically for the United States setting it up in the position of unchallenged economic super power even until the present day. The U.S wanted war with Japan in 1941 because it knew it could win had the Japanese had their oil and continued tearing through China eventually it would have the resources, man power and industrial capacity to challenge even the United States. The United States involvement in both the causes of the war (i.e Oil embargo on Japan) and its actual part in the war were both really preemptive strikes on empires that could no longer be controlled so that they could not one day challenge the economic and military might of the United States. Really the first shot of WW2 was the oil embargo on Japan, you take that out of the equation the hardline Japanese Generals never would of gained the support of the public and the majority of the leaders of the armed forces to go to war with the U.S in the first place. So really like you say Kurt they were just setting them up so the U.S armed forces could knock them down.

@Gargantua:

If your grandfather stole my grandfather’s wallet, it’s not your responsibility to pay me, or my father, or my grandfather, or my children.  Or all of us, for the rest of time.

Truer words were never spoken.

Most certainly yes. It didnt have the military might of the European powers yet but as it showed during WW2 it industry was an unstoppable force once mobilised.
What many people dont know is that American surpassed the British empire (not just Britain but the whole empire) in the 1880’s but thanks to isolation in the Americas it didnt require such a large military force to defend itself. Much like the U.S of the later half of the 20th century the U.S could of easily had a military large enough to fight any war had they been so inclined.

Its all about industrial capacity, man power and money. Of which the U.S had plenty perhaps not as much manpower as Britain or the Soviets but it had a lot more money and industrial capacity.

@FieldMarshalGames:

@ABWorsham:

The Allies went to war to defend Poland, only to give Poland away to 50 years of slavery to the Soviet Union.

The sad thing is there was nothing they could do…  Churchill tried VERY hard, but the Soviets were keeping what they conquered.  There was no way the Western Allies and Commonwealth were going to fight ANOTHER World War just over the issue.

Its terrible ironic isnt it. We went to war in the first place to defend Poland only to abandon after it seemed another war would occur again if the allies tried to take it back.

Personally I think the Americans have never really been happy with the responsibilities that come with being the most powerful nation on earth. Post WW1 had the Americans flexed their diplomatic and economic muscle the world could of been a much more peaceful place throughout the 20th century and we could of had a “Pax Americana” aka a long peroid of relative peace. Britain managed it for nearly a century from a small island in Western Europe with a relatively small population, had the Americans put their heart and soul into making the world a more peaceful place they would of suceeded who would of been able to stop them? The British, French and Soviets already wanted to maintain the status quo so mantaining the peace would of been relatively simple if the Americans with the co-operation Britain and France could of stopped Germany and Japan long before war occured and turned them into the economic superpowers they became post WW2.

I respect the sacrifice of the American people in WW2, but by the same token thats what comes with being top dog you have to protect those not strong enough to protect themselves and help mediate disputes so they dont turn into wars in the first place.

The Americans were conned into nothing, if anything it was reckless and irresponsible not to get involved earlier and make sure a war didnt occur in the first place. Even if the war was inevitability the U.S with the help of the British and French could of crushed the Germans in September 1939. I think it speaks volumes about American politicians that it was the British who stood up and fought against Germany even though it had by far the most to lose and in the end sacrificed its empire at the altar of freedom because the Americans were “busy” from September 1939 to December 1941.
The problem with America is it wants desperately to not be like the British empire unfourtunetly thats more or less the way they should be bar the colonial oppression. They have to realise that you can take the positives of the British empire and leave the negatives and shape the world you want it to, or at least they could of before they made everyone hate them.

@GrizzlyMan:

Midway. It completely reversed the balance of power in the Pacific. The Japanese fleet outnumbered the Americans heavily, and most importantly had superior aircraft and aircraft carriers. In only one battle the United States reversed completely and destroyed 4 Japanese CVs to the loss of only 1, and, after that point, the United States was on the offensive.

One may argue that the United States outproduced Japan and could have rebuilt their fleet had they lost the Battle of Midway (or if it hadn’t even taken place). However, the essential fact is that up to that point the US had been almost exclusively defending either its possessions or British/Australian ones. Had the US lost her fleet at Midway, they would have had no battle-ready fleet to attack the Japanese fleets that were still spread out throughout the Pacific. Even when the United States did rebuild a fleet, it would be out of position to do any damage and would take much time to get into the necessary positions. During that time, India or Australia may have capitulated, which would have delt a horrendous psychological defeat to the Americans (remember that in the Pacific psychological warfare was very present: hence the Doolittle raid). Had one of the British powers folded, the US populance may have supported an early peace with Japan, which would be a major victory for the axis. Had Midway been a defeat for the Americans, or had it not taken place, the war would have ended very differently.

I dont think under those circumstances the American people would of considered peace with Japan. The American people wanted revenge and the industrial power of the U.S gave them the ability to inflict that revenge upon the Japanese. Even if the U.S had of sued for peace it would of only been a matter of time before Japan took over all of Asia including British India and then really challenged the United States to an arms race the U.S may not of been able to win.

Psychological warfare in the Pacific is in my mind over rated yes it brought the war home to Japan and helped morale at home because we were finally getting some of our own back, but it only increased Japanese resolve and made the case for continued military control of the government to protect the Japanese people from the “American Threat”.

Midway was a turning point for the fortunes of the Japanese that much is certain and to those who dont understand disparity in industrial capacity and manpower between the U.S and Japan. For the fortunes of the U.S it was merely the logical conclusion considering to the build up of American forces.

As for British and Australian posessions being taken under Japanese control, that wasnt going to happen with the entire British pacific fleet comitted to the defence of Australia as well as the remains of the Dutch navy and also numerous US navy warships based in Australia that would eventually become the 7th Fleet.

Even if the fleet at Midway had of been completely destroyed there was plenty more where that came from, maybe not fleet carriers but plenty of escort carriers, battleships, destroyers and crusiers to fill the gaps in the fleet until such time as new fleet carriers could be brought into service.

Also this doesnt take into account the massive British ship building effort (plus the lend lease plan) that coupled with the Japanese navy tied up protecting their new posessions in the Pacific could of run rampant raiding Japanese supply lines and slowly grinding down Japanese forces. When the British pacific fleet was formed in late 1944 it consisted of:
17 aircraft carriers
four battleships
10 cruisers
40 destroyers
18 sloops
13 frigates

So if that force just one fleet continually travelling together it would of been tough for the Japanese to match that in battle let alone defeat it.