WW2 in Europe question

[Airhead]

Hello all, First, some background- I'm a Yank from California, nearly 60 years old, came here with the other "Raiders" but don't visit often-

However, I have a WW2 question- (no, I'm not trolling or doing a "gotcha" moment, it's a legitimate question concerning the onset of WW2)-

Roosevelt was "officially" isolationist because America was isolationist. The attitude here during the 1930s was we were far removed from Europe both politically and geographically. Of course Roosevelt realized the threat of Nazi Germany, and bent the laws of the time that forbid military aid to any Nation at war whenever possible by classifying war ships as "yachts" for instance.

My question is two fold- Did Europe wait too long to react to Hitler's rise to power, and was GB also isolationist during this period of the mid 1930s? For that matter, could Europe even have prevented Hitler, even earlier in the game?

Thanks for answering, like I said it's a question basically about the general attitude of Europe in general and GB in particular in the face of Germany's rapid militarization. during the 30s.

 

[Turamber]

Interesting question. As I understand it there was no desire for war in Europe. Many people had strong memories of the first World War and the economy was not long in recovery after the Great Depression.

Your question appears to pre-suppose, however, that Europe had some kind of political union. That is not the case. The UK and France had common interests but many other countries did not see eye to eye. There was a power vacuum and a lack of leadership on an international scale that allowed the Nazi's to become the aggressive force that they ultimately proved to be.

 

[rynnor]

As to opposing Hitler's rise - that was one for the german people really. As they realised the scale of Germany's re-armament obviously other countries grew concerned and began their own re-armament (at a much slower pace) but they still thought they had time.

My understanding is that no-one thought the German's were a serious threat to greater europe. Too much faith was put in the Maginot line - it was always thought that this would delay a German push into france long enough for Britain to reinforce them ending up as another stalemate like WWI.

I dont think GB was isolationist but it was widely held that the treaty of Versai had been too harsh on the Germans thus they chose not to really enforce it as the years ran on. It took a lot of manpower and rescources and people soon forget as political realities change.

 

[Airhead]

We (the USA) were overwhelmingly isolationist, and had Wendell Wilke been elected President in 1940 and Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor the general consensus at the time was avoid going to war.

Roosevelt, for all his "official" statements to the contrary, was looking for any excuse to enter WW2 and from 1940 through 1941 he instructed our Navy to "aggressively" defend against u boats, and in fact we were provocative on several occasions. Had Wilke been elected in 1940the philosophy would have been different, and the policies that compelled Japan to attack Pearl Harbor may have been changed, and we may not have entered WW2.

In hindsight the best thing that happened for the Allied war effort was the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Without that we were prohibited by law to do too terribly much in your support.

<edit: Not saying the American people didn't want to help, but there was also a large German population in America at the time. Luckily we had a common language. >

 

[throdgrain]

I think there are two things Americans, particularly now, forget about that situation.

First, World War I took a hell of a lot out of our country, and also out of Europe as a whole. No-one in Great Britain or France wanted another war, with Germany or anyone else. We really did believe it was the "war to end all wars". Hence we waited as long as possible, arguably too long.

Great Britain was also at a turning point in it's history. The Empire was breaking down. As always happens, a country or power becomes ever more successful, then eventually decides it can afford to know the difference between right and wrong, mostly with disasterous consequences

Secondly, the spread of communism that began at the end of WWI was still popular in Europe. The appalling state of the French armies can be ascribed in part to this, some people wanted change, didnt want to be told what to do by the same old people. The result of course was that they got either killed or told what to do by a worse lot of people alltogether Even here in Great Britain unions were becoming very powerful. I do think though that the blitz kind of put away any revolutionary behaviour in this country. Having said that though, soon after VE day we had an election, and a, to my mind, amazingly ungratefull population voted in a lefty goverment.

edit

I also think that the American government of the time cynically saw in WW2 a chance to remove Great Britain as the dominant world power and replace it with themselves, something they suceeded in of course.

 

[Tilda]

You could literally write books on both of your questions.

UK was pro-appeasement as in, if they could get away with making hitler happy by rejigging bits of europe and avoid a war they would. Thus there was the whole pre-war period where hitler could pretty much do what he wanted in europe.
However, there was a line, and there was some doubt whether hitler thought UK would stand by its promise to protect poland.

 

[DaGaffer]

"Isolationist" is the wrong word, but there was a culture of appeasment, and while people are quick to criticise Neville Chamberlain, his stance was very popular with the public at the time (less than 20 years after the Great War, there was barely a family in the UK who hadn't lost or had maimed a brother, father or son). Of course, common sense tells us that even then it was a stupid idea in the long run, but the British and French underestimated the speed of Nazi re-armament, and completely missed their adoption of new tactical doctrines to avoid the stalemates of WWI (which was ironic since the whole German gameplan was invented by an Englishman, Basil Liddell-Hart, but ignored by his own countrymen). The Spanish Civil War was the first real eye-opener for most of Germany's potential enemies.

As for whether they could have stopped Germany; there is a view that if they'd declared against Germany in 1938 during the invasion of Czechoslovakia, they could have stopped the Nazis then (the Germans were nowhere as ready to fight in '38, with far less equipment, particularly in terms of tanks and aircraft, both quality and quantity); but I'm doubtful; you need to have will to fight, and the British barely had in 1939, never mind '38, and the French definitely didn't have the will.

 

[Mabs]

should we have reacted earlier? maybe
COULD we have reacted earlier ? no
the french army was in a total shambles, they had gone through about 5 governments in about the same number of years, and were too obsessed with Maginot to think of going abroad anyway. British were in little better shape, and it showed. too much "we won ww1, weve proved the point, nobody will be stupid enough to kick off again" attitude.

the ironic thing being of course that if we had done so it would of been a lot different, in most cases they wehrmacht ground units had orders to withdraw/not engage if they met serious opposition, but they didnt.

I also think that the American government of the time cynically saw in WW2 a chance to remove Great Britain as the dominant world power and replace it with themselves, something they suceeded in of course.

it was very deliberately done to that end, to make sure the UK ended up as a no longer going concern, if you look at the strategic overview, even in 1944, the USA were reticent to engage in any action that they say as reinforcing the UK colonial view (Burma anyone?)
they took as much gold as they could out of people with their backs to the wall, did very little of any use, than claim they "won" it afterwards. go figure.

there is a school of thought that says that without Pearl Harbour the US would of sat on its fat arse and done nothing in europe.

The americans were also trying to get the russians on board, only churchill was ravingly anti communist, but the americans always were slow on the uptake

 

[throdgrain]

it was very deliberately done to that end, to make sure the UK ended up as a no longer going concern, if you look at the strategic overview, even in 1944, the USA were reticent to engage in any action that they say as reinforcing the UK colonial view (Burma anyone?)
they took as much gold as they could out of people with their backs to the wall, did very little of any use, than claim they "won" it afterwards. go figure.

there is a school of thought that says that without Pearl Harbour the US would of sat on its fat arse and done nothing in europe.

The americans were also trying to get the russians on board, only churchill was ravingly anti communist, but the americans always were slow on the uptake

Agreed.

 

[DaGaffer]

did very little of any use, than claim they "won" it afterwards. go figure.

I think that's rather overstating things; the US did an awful lot "of use", particularly in terms of materiel, and whether you like it or not, there were a lot more US troops on the ground in Europe by the end of the war than Empire troops.

there is a school of thought that says that without Pearl Harbour the US would of sat on its fat arse and done nothing in europe.

And your point is? To misquote De Gaulle, "countries don't have friends, they have interests". If it hadn't have been in the American interest to go to war against Germany, why should they? Just because WWII has been mythologised as the ultimate crusade against evil doesn't mean that was the reality. There's a perfectly valid argument to say the US, even after Pearl Harbor, would have been quite justified in staying out of Europe and concentrating on Japan. The fact that they didn't is to the credit of men like Roosevelt, who was, yes, no fan of the British Empire (which is not exactly surprising), but he could see the difference between bad and a whole lot worse, and if he did what was right for his country against Britain along the way, he was probably correct, from an American perspective. Besides, he actually did us a favour, even without WWII the Empire was on its uppers anyway; WWII was a catharsis for Britain, it gave us a relatively easy way out of Empire; without it, we could have replicated the Irish experience in country after country for the next 50 years, a bit like France managed to do.

The americans were also trying to get the russians on board, only churchill was ravingly anti communist, but the americans always were slow on the uptake

I'll agree with this, Roosevelt had an obvious blind spot about Stalin. But this is part of the failure of imagination; Roosevelt was an old man, and the map of the world he had in his mind was a 19th century one; and on that map, Russia was no real threat to American interests, whereas maritime Britain was. He knew about the Manhatten project, but almost certainly didn't make the intellectual leap to strategic nuclear weapons and that if you go north the US and Russia are actually near neighbours.

 

[Bahumat]

Didn't Hitler go to Roosevelt regarding a joint leadership for Nazi Germany and Roosevelt said no, then a year or two later he went back and Roosevelt said "Yes". Then Hitler removed his joint leader?

 

[Jiggs]

I think you should read The Remains of the Day. It explores a lot of the themes connected to your questions and their relationship with ideas of Britishness that were prevalent at the time.

 

[Marc]

they took as much gold as they could out of people with their backs to the wall, did very little of any use, than claim they "won" it afterwards. go figure.

The industrial might of american was a huge factor in the allies winning the war. Not our Stiff upper lip and unwavering cheer in the face of adversity.

I really dont think you actually believe that sentence of yours I just quoted and I think you are just trolling.

 

[Embattle]

The industrial might of american was a huge factor in the allies winning the war. Not our Stiff upper lip and unwavering cheer in the face of adversity.

Also not being in range of attack helps, unless you take the Japanese paper ballons seriously.

 

[throdgrain]

Helps enormously

I dont think this thread was made for arguing though, even if I suspect somehow I started it, unintentionally

 

[Embattle]

Hello all, First, some background- I'm a Yank from California, nearly 60 years old, came here with the other "Raiders" but don't visit often-

However, I have a WW2 question- (no, I'm not trolling or doing a "gotcha" moment, it's a legitimate question concerning the onset of WW2)-

Roosevelt was "officially" isolationist because America was isolationist. The attitude here during the 1930s was we were far removed from Europe both politically and geographically. Of course Roosevelt realized the threat of Nazi Germany, and bent the laws of the time that forbid military aid to any Nation at war whenever possible by classifying war ships as "yachts" for instance.

My question is two fold- Did Europe wait too long to react to Hitler's rise to power, and was GB also isolationist during this period of the mid 1930s? For that matter, could Europe even have prevented Hitler, even earlier in the game?

Thanks for answering, like I said it's a question basically about the general attitude of Europe in general and GB in particular in the face of Germany's rapid militarization. during the 30s.

With the hindsight that comes with time then yes more could of been done to dent hitlers hopes/plans, for example when the Germans moved into the Rhineland.

 

[Mabs]

The industrial might of american was a huge factor in the allies winning the war. Not our Stiff upper lip and unwavering cheer in the face of adversity.

I really dont think you actually believe that sentence of yours I just quoted and I think you are just trolling.

really ?
how much of our gold reserve went into Cash & Carry before Lend Lease came into force ?
USSR won WW2, UK lost it, based on most gained/least lost

 

[SAS]

How about this?

Spoiler

 

[Helme]

The entire war, or at the very least the horrible shit the Nazi's did could probably have been avoided with a more favourable Treaty of Versailles, but of course nobody wants to discuss that because it would mean the Heroic Allies had some responsibility for what happened.

 

[DaGaffer]

The entire war, or at the very least the horrible shit the Nazi's did could probably have been avoided with a more favourable Treaty of Versailles, but of course nobody wants to discuss that because it would mean the Heroic Allies had some responsibility for what happened.

Historians have discussed that, at great length, and generally agree with you. I'm not so sure; the Italians went fascist before Germany, and they were on the winning side in the Great War, ditto Japan. Totalitarianism could always find a reason to justify its actions; with the Nazis, if it hadn't been Versailles, it would probably have been something else (after all, the scapegoating of the jews had absolutely no justification in fact, but it don't stop the nazis doing it).

 

[Embattle]

It was that and a combination of other factors such as the depression that helped, really it was the worse mix for the allies and the best for the Nazis.

 

[Airhead]

Didn't Hitler go to Roosevelt regarding a joint leadership for Nazi Germany and Roosevelt said no, then a year or two later he went back and Roosevelt said "Yes". Then Hitler removed his joint leader?

Are you asking me? No. Roosevelt realized the Nazi threat and our historical ties to GB, and in fact he and Churchill exchanged over 500 letters during this period of time, and nowhere is the possibility even mentioned we'd have ever allied with Germany. In fact Roosevelt did as much as he could to support the British war effort, including bending our laws to provide said aid prior to our entrance in WW2.

I don't believe the resolve of our leaders, Roosevelt and Churchill, can be questioned. They knew the enormity of the task ahead, and after we entered the war our citizens realized to direness of our task, and sacrificed at home to provide for the war effort.

 

[rynnor]

If Germany hadn't gone fascist would it have eventually been absorbed into the USSR? The 20s were tough times and there were a fair number of communist sympathisers in Germany (until Hitler had em killed - he recognised competition).

Even GB could'nt have held out against a Europe united by Communism - then you could have had a serious War of Communism v Canada/North America - that would have arguably killed more people than WW2...

 

[PLightstar]

If Germany hadn't gone fascist would it have eventually been absorbed into the USSR? The 20s were tough times and there were a fair number of communist sympathisers in Germany (until Hitler had em killed - he recognised competition).

Even GB could'nt have held out against a Europe united by Communism - then you could have had a serious War of Communism v Canada/North America - that would have arguably killed more people than WW2...

Not to go too far off topic but isn't that the storyline for Red Alert?

Unless the USSR had been extremely aggressive from a political stand point this would not happen. There were alot of communist parties around in non communist countries but Russia herself was in no situation to fight a large scale war, that is one of the main reasons behind the USSR/Nazi truce pact. They were still recovering from the revolution fights and Stalins purges along with having most of their forces still stationed in Asia in case Japan tried to invade again.

 

[Gwadien]

I recently studied this, so have got quite a bit of knowledge into it...

Basically, Britain, France, and Germany had just came out of World War One, and were starting to rebuild the Country, and during the 30's onwards to 39, Hitler slowly started to rise to power - Britain saw this as a positive, because they saw Hitler as a potiental ally agaisnt the new Communist Russian threat that was increasing in power, Germany was severly crippled after the Treaty of Versailles, in terms of land, and debt.

Hitler started to flirt with the idea of being a bit of a rebel, - firstly, there was a small industrial strip of land called the Ruhr, which was demilitarized by the 'Allies' Hitler sent soldiers in and re-took control of this area - Allies? - Did nothing, were too crippled theirselves after World War One to threaten to go to war. Hitler then did a huge parade of his new army, showing off all the latest war-fare gadgets - which the Treaty of Versailles banned, offically, he could only have a army of 100,000 soldiers, NO airforce and a tiny Navy.

Again, the Allies did absolutely nothing, so he started to invade places around - He practically 'liberated' Austria, which I wont go into detail, so they were allied now, - which was also banned through the Treaty of Versailles, He then took a part of Czechslovakia which was called Lebenstrand or something - which means Living space, which yeah - fair enough, belonged to Germany pre-WW1, the Allies allowed it. Then Hitler cheekly invaded the rest of Czechslovkia, which raised the eyebrows of the Allies. - After this - Chamberlain - the British Prime Minister visited Germany and had a peice of paper signed by Hitler and the famous speech of 'peace in our time' (youtube it, it should be around) - Then Hitler invaded Poland and there you go - World War 2 began...

So yeah, - the 'Allies' had numerous accounts to intervine - Sorry America, but we couldn't really do it on paper - we were too weak, if we went to war, we would of been completely destroyed as a nation..

Personally - Yes, it was vital that the Americans came in when they did - but they should of fore-seen what was going to happen, they should of kept their knowledge of the world more open, and stopped being so stubborn and independant, - then they could of intervined ALOT earlier on - so that so many lives would of been saved.

I hope you find this interesting - and not too boring, This was pretty much a exam answer I did last year :\

I took a lot of personal interest into this - but i haven't read the whole thread, as I'm too lazy - so if there's any particular questions, - feel free

 

[throdgrain]

Are you quite young Gwadien me ol' chum ?

 

[Gwadien]

Are you quite young Gwadien me ol' chum ?

Haha, 17.. Why do you ask?

 

[throdgrain]

No offence mate, it's just that I suspect anyone reading this thread would have been perfectly aware of everything in your answer

Not being nasty by the way, just showing me age I think

 

[Gwadien]

No offence mate, it's just that I suspect anyone reading this thread would have been perfectly aware of everything in your answer

Not being nasty by the way, just showing me age I think

Hmm, I was answering this;

My question is two fold- Did Europe wait too long to react to Hitler's rise to power, and was GB also isolationist during this period of the mid 1930s? For that matter, could Europe even have prevented Hitler, even earlier in the game?

Which sort of did in a round-about way..

 

[Mabs]

what throd said, however nice to see people are still being taught right