USA won World War Two and saved England ?

Obama in the video as Sen. Obama: I had an uncle, who was one of the... hmmmm... who was... a part of .. the ... first troops to go in Auschwitz and liberated the concentration camp ...

I have never thought the President Obama was of Russian/Caucasian ancestry!?!? Namely, the Russians have deliberated Auschwitz on January 27, 1945, a day now commemorated as International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Obama's uncle was one of those who liberated Auschwitz. How nice.

 

Actually, the camp his great uncle helped liberate was in Ohrdruf, it was a sub-camp of the Buchenwald concentration camp complex.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5407590/Barack-Obamas-great-uncle-criticises-him-over-Buchenwald-visit.html
http://www.89infdivww2.org/ohrdruf/

 

I think the whole argument is built on what if's...Because as Belasar says what happened happened...The question probably should be...Would Britain have gone under or arranged a seperate peace...The answer to most what if's in this vein is no...Churchill existed...I agree..But to replace Churchill does not always mean an appeaser...Halifax was spent by September 40 Not a chance in Hell of appeasement. But never rule out a seperate peace with a Britian that has other leaders in waiting at that time. In my view. WW2 could not be won...one without the other allies...But Britain I can assure all...would not fall under any circumstances...a peace if necessary would have been effected. Not in the vein that all refer to as appeasment of prior to May 40. But one on a totally different staircase. And one that would leave a gaping hole in history. Perhaps one should say if it wasn't for America, Britain would have close the drawbridge and got on with her difficult but not impossible life. If that means South America spoke German and USA had trouble trading around the world and never became the arsenal of democracy and enriched themselves from that...then so be it. But it did not happen that way. We here don't speak German because we chose not to in 1940.

 

Actually British public or political establishment could always call quit and wish a seperate peace between 1940-42 (that was the only time frame or window of oppurtunity Germans could exploit in face of failures and fiascos of British arms , declining economy , social hardships , U-Boat sinkings and air raids etc ) It would be wrong , short sighted decision of course but these kind of faulty strategic and political mistakes were done by successive British goverments countless times since 1933 when Nazis came to power. Public trend was fear of massive air raids , gas attacks to cities , total collapse of social and economic order. Appeasement and Passivism were ascendancy due to bad memories of World War One , sacrifices it brought and illusion that all of them were in vain. People in Europe including UK did not wish to accept that they were in vain , wished to believe Great War was indeed the War that Ended All Wars. Unfortunetely Hitler and Nazis did not think so. They did not wish to repreat the Great War , they wanted to avenge it.

Now between Munich and 1940-42 era , two or four years passed. All the fears or actually worse than everyone's fears realized and happened. Entire Europe had fallen to Nazi tyrany under military domination. Cities in UK bombed day and night. In overseas British and Commonwealth arms were failing and performing miserably. There was rationing , U-Boat blockade. No help or involvement was coming from United States except some encouriging words and some war material purchased then "leased". War costs taking economy down. Still both war time coalition goverment of Churchill managed to hang on despite some heavy critism (especially in 1942 after the fall of Tobruk) and public accepted all hardships and carry on. What changed ? Surely attractive but (actually hollow ) peace offers of Hitler should have been taken seriously at least by British public or some rulers of Establisment. What Hitler was proposing was "Keep your Empire. Just don't interfere my affairs in Europe. Don't you see that I have won ? There is no hope that Britain could return to continent. Let's be allies against Bolsheviks"

What had changed for Britain to carry on ?

 

Now in a Freudian sense I will try to repreat my own question. What had changed for British goverment , Establishment and public to accept rhe war , its hardships and carry on despite Hitler's peace tryings.

1) In many discussions I had with regular people , history buffs etc there is a common overrated perception. Hitler , Nazis , Germany was badass , they took on every opponent and crushed it militarly , conquered every foe etc. That might be so in initial years of war militarily. But I will add my own opinion. Every military victory and territorial expansion in expense of others Nazis and German Armed Forces dug their own graves strategically and diplomaticly. Their bileteral withdrawal from Geneva Disarmament Conferances , disregard of Versailles with re armament , remilitarization of Rhine which went unchallenged , Anchluss with Austria , swallowing up Sudetenland with Munich Agreement by declaring it would last territorial demand of Reich , occupying rest of Czech six months later despite the promise and decleration poor Neville Chamberlain made much of a show with "Peace in Our Time" quote , repression of Jews , Kristallnacht , making a pact with Soviets despite idelogical vendetta with Communism , invading Poland and self justifying it as if Poles were responsible and then carving up Poland with Soviet Union , invading at least four neutral countries (Denmark , Norway , Holland , Belgium ) because it stood in the way despite "neutrality would be respected" declerations from German Foreign Ministry etc...

After all those actions it is really surprising that British (and American) ruling elite and their public took so long to shake up , open their eyes and realize they were dealing with a predetory despotic regime with an unstable absolute total ruler and his totally ignorant minions holding a most powerful military machine on Earth with half of Europe at their disposal. Nazi Germany's expansion policy , gaining Lebensraum in that short period of time alieneted everybody foe or would be friend alike. Hitler and Nazis consumed every diplomatic credit and legitimacy / respect with frequent invasions , occupartions , annexations up until invasion of Russia (an invasion despite Stalin making every friendly gesture ) Every event showed that Hitler's word or promise meant nothing. After invading Soviet Union and ending UK's isolation in struggle there was no turning back.

2) Another factor was I think Churchill's wartime leadership. As soon as he became prime minister and formed a wartime coalition with his opposion making Atlee second man in goverment , he took over Ministry of Defence making himself absolute authority in National Security and foreign diplomacy. Once British Army was saved in Dunkirk it was easy for him to reject any vague and hollow peace offers from Hitler who broke every commitment he signed/promised. His hand got stronger with his and opposion's acceptence of each others stance and stakes. There would be no revolution , overthrow or coup against Churchill and his wartime goverment as Hitler hoped. In face of Hitler's international deranged unstable image even an alliance with Communist Russia (a regime which Churchill was hostile and tried to strangle at his birth ) seemed preferable to both Churchill and everyone else in Allied camp. Stalin and Soviet Russia were brutal dictatorships too but compared to a freakshow like Hitler Soviet Russia seemed much more rational. Churchill also tried to strengthen ties with USA and tried to involve them to war because no matter Britain survived it would be US material resource that would liberate Europe from Nazi occupation and a possible Soviet dominence. All these shows that Churchill although frequently interfaring to Allied military strategy with disasterous results actually understood and engaged wartime diplomacy much better than his Axis counterparts and had a much much better grasp of Grand Strategy than any Axis dictator.

Without Great Britain it would be much more easier for Axis to beat Allies permenantly or temporarily out of war one by one. Neither Russia nor USA could help each other's war efforts in short term. Like William Pitt the Younger said after naval victory against Napoleon in Trafalgar was won
"Europe is not to be saved by any single man (or nation in that case). England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example." I think this quote sums well

 

Yes. Our dear leader's grasp of 20th century history is about as good as his grasp of economics.

 

Winston Churchill knew the war could not be won without the U.S. involved, an opinion shared by Franklin Roosevelt. Both also knew the overwhelming majority of Americans wanted no part in another European war. Among other things, the British had not repaid the war loans extended during WWI and this rankled. Neither had the Germans, for that matter, but that was behavior expected of them. So everything had to be handled on the sly. The two leaders were in secret communication about assisting England when Churchill became head of the Admiralty, and this continued at an accelerated pace after he became prime minister in May of 1940. Enough English foreign agents to fill two floors of the Rockefeller Center were working to undermine the America First movement. Hollywood had been persuaded to make movies that put the English in a good light and made the Germans look like villains; playing up dueling scars and brutish behavior were a couple of the techniques. FDR meanwhile was boxing in the Japanese, forcing them to make the decision to choose war or lose face. One of the White House demands was that Japan end its war in China, where it had suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties. It was an intolerable insult to the proud and warlike Japanese and their code of Bushido. That and the freeze on selling oil and other products essential to making war forced the military clique that ruled Japan into its desperate gamble on a quick win. Roosevelt knew a big hurt was necessary to swing the country into action. That is why he kept the Pacific Fleet exposed and vulnerable at Pearl Harbor after the annual fleet exercise instead of returning them to their West Coast home bases. The army and navy commanders at Pearl were denied the intelligence that showed the Imperial Japanese Fleet forming and then steaming south to attack their forces. But the administration knew and avoided warning them in a clear and unambiguous way until it was too late. On another point touched on here, the Soviets inflicted 90 percent of the casualties suffered by the Germany army. The war could not have been won without either the English, the Americans or the Soviets. And of course Hitler's lunacy.

 

Jerryjaycarroll,

I'm confused, what is unclear and ambiguous with regards to "This dispatch is to be considered a war warning."? How clear and unambiguous does the opening sentence of a dispatch need to be?

 

Two previous posts would fit nicely into this topic: http://www.ww2f.com/topic/43980-pearl-harbor-was-a-trap-to-catch-a-japanese/?hl=%2Bpearl+%2Bharbor

By the way: where is OpanaPointer, he seems to know everything on that subject.

 

He must be busy, his postings over on AHF have also been very sporadic lately. Last time I saw he was on was around the beginning of this month.

 

Takao, thanks for the info. I really miss OP's posts. I've learned a lot from him about the War of the Pacific.

 

Winston Churchilll

 

That's very simplistic : in june 1940,Britain (not only Winston,but also Chamberlain,who was de facto co PM) decided to continue the war .

Why ?

Britain's position was not hopeless : the Empire was mobilizing, in august 1940,it was obvious that the US would intervene,and,Germany had no chance against a British/US alliance,an invasion was impossible,the BoB was a failure,idem for the Battle of the Atlantic.

Churchill played an important role,but,if he died in september 1940,nothing would change : Britain would continue the war,the US would intervene,and,even in an ATL where the SU would remain an interested spectator,Germany would lose .

 

I think Chamberlain does not get alot of credit for preparing the empire for war. He realized what was up and started rearming which was an advantage for Churchill when he took over. Churchill did not just step in and reverse all that Chamberlain did.

 

LJAd I think you are right - enough was enough - even the most doveish British had seen Hitler lie after lie and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was the end as far as Chamberlain was concerned.

Germany had everything she had asked for - Versailles plus and still not satisfied.

At last - They understood the situation perfectly.

It is not generally realised that exactly the same situation had arisen during the French Revolution - Glorious Isolation, the British under the Prime Minister, Pitt the younger, had appeased, after appeased the French for three years until the French stupidly declared war on Britain and entered Holland. After that Pitt did a 180 degree turn, as I think Chamberlain was doing, and fought them to the bitter end. Fortunately for Europe with the same result as against the Hitler.

 

Well I am not sure. Chamberlain might have taken the correct course in Munich at the expanse of Czechs. (and that "Peace in Our Time" decleration) At the other hand although Churchill had recognized the true colors of Third Reich a war to defend Sudetenland would as impractical as to defend Poland. RAF Home Defence was non existent. French were not more willing to Rhineland thsn 1939 and British Army was much more weaker and unequipped. 1939 there was conscription army was growing and Chain Home Defence along with expansion of Fighter and Bomber Command of RAF was getting much stronger. But Chamberlain was a weak war leader to be sure. He "missed the bus several times : In allying with Soviet Union he was unwilling sent a diplomatic mission to Moscow with vague and non binding instructions. Hitler outwitted him by conducting business in state level with Schlussing in German Embassy and Ribbentrop and voila ! Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939. He was unwilling to authorize mining German harbours rivers canals , just imposed blockade neutrilized with Nazi-Soviet trade , tried to handle whole war effort with Anglo-French War Council in Paris in a cumbersome old fasioned way. Churchill at the other hand contacted statesmen in charge directly , worked vigorously to handle diplomacy and strategy of Grand Alliance even buried his hatch against Communism and became best friends with Soviet Russia once Hitler invaded. He was practical and energatic ( a little bit too much energatric to handle war effort by constantly interfaring with local theater strategy and operations maybe) Chamberlain was not.

 

There are 2 questions:

1) What was the role of Chamberlain between may and october A940?

2)What did he want ? A compromise peace? Or war till Germany had surrendered inconditionally ?


1) His role was very important : he was the leader of the Tories,,who followed him inconditionally (Churchill became party leader only in october),and,if he lifted his finger,Churchill was fired ..The majority of the Conservatives were hostile to Churchill,and were Chamberlainites ..Only on 4 july(after operation Catapult) did the conservative MP's cheer publicly Churchill . They did this....on the order of the right hand of Chamberlain,the chief whip ,Margesson .

It was an ominous warning to Churchill and a demonstration that Chamberlain commanded the majority of the Commons,not Churchill.

2)Already immediately after the British DOW,Chamberlain said that his policy was to continue the fight till the Nazi regime was destroyed,and,he never changed his attitude .

 

Without question Churchill was a more energetic PM than Chamberlain, which had both advantages and disadvantages for prosecuting a total war, something that no leader prior to the fall of France truly grasped. In this assessment I do include Churchill who, though by a wide margin was most aware of the cost of victory, still harbored some rather naive opinions on how the war should or could be fought.

I remain unconvinced that Munich was the better course for the Anglo-French Alliance than to resist Hitler in 1938. At best a 11 month respite was gained for the loss of a powerful ally in the Czech nation. Yes Britain and France were unprepared for war, but so was Germany as well.

Had the Anglo-French honored the implied promise to join the Czech's in any threat from Germany, after all they helped create Czechoslovakia (with its Sudetenland border) and Poland, precisely for the purpose of presenting some future Reich with strong barricades in just about any direction she might try to go, they stood a much better chance of holding back Germany without a Great War bloodbath.

Consider that Germany would have to execute a late fall invasion (three to four weeks later in the year than Poland 1939) of the Czech Republic though mountainous terrain, over fortifications better than Hitler's West Wall and against an Army with equipment not much inferior to that available to the Reich in late 1938. There would be no slashing Panzer thrusts in the Sudetenland, nor would the Luftwaffe be nearly as effective in the close support role in heavily broken terrain as they were in the plains of Poland.

As with Poland a year later, the Anglo-French would not be able to offer much aid, but they would still have nearly as much time ( 6 to 7 months) to mobilize before Germany can turn his Panzer's west, and this presumes that Germany could swallow up the Czech Republic in the 4 to 6 weeks of good weather left to him in late 1938. Frankly I doubt they could do so without ruiness losses to the Heer, so I suspect they would need the Spring and perhaps the Summer to fully vanquish the Czech's.

In such a scenario a German attack on the West probably still does not take place until the spring of 1940 and they do not get the Czech munition works and arms stockpiles without dramatic reductions, which they relied upon for arming the Heer for Poland in 1939 and France in1940.

All this does not factor in Poland who was no friend of the Nazi regime by any means. If Poland remains neutral thoughout the whole process, Germany Must honor the threat that they might intervene during any move on the West. Germany's frontier with Poland is twice (or more) that of the German-Franco border and with no fortifications already in place.

If Poland could be induced to join a Grand Alliance against Germany, something far more likely than securing Soviet aid, Germany now faces four powerful military machines that can strike from three different directions in time. For the Anglo-French the greatest fear was another bloodbath against Germany like 1914-18, but with Munich they essentially threw away two potential allies who could have drawn off considerable numbers of Hitler's minions and thus easing the cost of victory.

 

Only one thing:there was no implied promise to join the Czech's in any threat from Germany,not from Britain (who refused in 1919 to guarentee the borders of CZ),not from France.There only was the public statement that Britain and France would intervene if Hitler attacked CZ.

To put it simply:as long as Hitler was "only" bullying CZ,B + F would do nothing,if Hitler was shooting,B + F would declare war .War or peace : it would depend on Hitler, on Hitler only .