Biggest Mistake of WWII

Originally posted by the_historian@Nov 8 2004, 01:52 PM
If only pacifists had the power you assign to them.
[post=29259]Quoted post[/post]

You mean myself and every lecturer and guest speaker at the Centre for Second World War Studies at the University of Glasgow. In fact, you are the only one I have ever met who holds that view.
America cared enough about the Japanese presence in China when Zeros attacked an American ship in 1937-I forget its name unfortunately. It almost triggered war between them four years before Pearl Harbour-not my idea of isolationism.
I won't accept that American isolationism was chiefly to blame for WW2-it sounds too close to the current trend of blaming America for everything-nor that there is any distinction between pacifism and appeasement. I thought that fallacy had been destroyed by the Falklands War.
Anyway, we're a long way off the topic here....
[post=29272]Quoted post[/post]

 

Originally posted by BeppoSapone+Nov 8 2004, 02:09 PM-->(BeppoSapone @ Nov 8 2004, 02:09 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-the_historian@Nov 8 2004, 01:52 PM
If only pacifists had the power you assign to them.
[post=29259]Quoted post[/post]

You mean myself and every lecturer and guest speaker at the Centre for Second World War Studies at the University of Glasgow. In fact, you are the only one I have ever met who holds that view.
America cared enough about the Japanese presence in China when Zeros attacked an American ship in 1937-I forget its name unfortunately. It almost triggered war between them four years before Pearl Harbour-not my idea of isolationism.
I won't accept that American isolationism was chiefly to blame for WW2-it sounds too close to the current trend of blaming America for everything-nor that there is any distinction between pacifism and appeasement. I thought that fallacy had been destroyed by the Falklands War.
Anyway, we're a long way off the topic here....
[post=29272]Quoted post[/post]
[post=29273]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
How does saying that American Congress refused to ratify a treaty put forward by the US President and agreed by France and Britain mean that I "blame America for everything"?

"The Anglo-American Treaty of Guarantee" is a historical fact. Why don't you ask "every lecturer and guest speaker at the Centre for Second World War Studies at the University of Glasgow" about it?

It is no fallacy to say that appeasement and pacifism were not the same thing. The British government between the wars favoured appeasement. It is wrong to suggest that they were pacifists. Pacifists were in the NMWM, Peace Pledge Union etc etc. Not a majority in the Cabinet.

I still say that if America had done what the treaty promised we would not have had a Second World War. This is hardly "Yanks Go Home" sentiment. In fact, it is the reverse. It would have meant an American military presence in Europe from the end of WW1, not WW2.

 

And you're still wrong......People spent decades whingeing about the American presence in Europe after WW2. Why would it have been different after WW1? There would have been no WW2 if Germany hadn't started WW1-where does America fit in there exactly?
Pacifism and appeasement are the same thing; always have been, always will be.
So can we get back on topic now?

 

Originally posted by BeppoSapone@Nov 8 2004, 12:08 PM
Kiwiwriter

Most of what you say I would agree with. However, I would say that the situation was more the case in the 1930s. Certainly not at the time of the negotiations prior to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. I still maintain what I said about Wilson, the USA and Isolationism.

Also, I would like to introduce a distinction between "Pacifism" and "Appeasement". The vast majority of British people were in favour of appeasement, but very few were pacifists.
[post=29264]Quoted post[/post]
I was talking about the 1920s and 1930s, not about the climate at Versailles. One of the big things happening in America at the time of Versailles was a visceral American right-wing reaction to the end of the war...a desire to put it behind them. 1919 was the year of Versailles. In America it was also the year of the Boston Police Strike, the introduction of Prohibition, major race riots, the Red Scares, and the White Sox "dumping" the World Series at the payoff and behest of gamblers. Idealism and Wilson's vision were being rejected by most of the country. All Americans wanted to do in 1919 was bring the boys home and make them stop drinking. Except at a speakeasy.

 

Hi Chaps,

I thought that I would put my twopence worth

May I say that we seem to be playing, what is known in Philosophy, as the "Foundation game". We seem to be going back further and further in time. If it goes back any further, someone will put the blame on the first amoeba!

 

And why not?! :P

 

Originally posted by the_historian@Nov 8 2004, 02:31 PM
And you're still wrong......People spent decades whingeing about the American presence in Europe after WW2. Why would it have been different after WW1? There would have been no WW2 if Germany hadn't started WW1-where does America fit in there exactly?
Pacifism and appeasement are the same thing; always have been, always will be.
So can we get back on topic now?
[post=29276]Quoted post[/post]


People spent decades whingeing about the American presence in Europe after WW2? Some in the "chattering classes" did, but the vast majority were pleased they were here. It would have been the same after WW1. But, you know, I would rather a few people complained about the GIs being 'over here' in the 1920s and 1930s than have to fight WW2.

An American force in Europe, coupled with the French Army and British Empire contingent would have stopped Hitler in his tracks and prevented WW2. Of course, WW1 had happened no matter what was decided at/after the peace negotiations. If Germany hadn't started WW1 (Good old Fischer!) I would think that America would have remained in isolation. However, it is one thing to be in isolation and quite another to seek to return to it after being involved.

Pacifism and appeasement are not the same thing at all. Never have been, and never will be, except to those with some sort of 'hidden agenda'. The typical pacifist has nothing to do with war, and will not serve in the army. Conscientious Objectors are pacifists, and were few in number in both wars, although there were more in WW2 than in WW1. People who favour appeasement, and I agree that they were a majority in the 1930s, feel that war is a pointless waste. However, when push comes to shove, and there is no alternative, they are prepared to fight.

If you were correct in what you say, that Britain was riddled with pacifists, we would never have fought WW2, let alone helped to win it. The country would have produced hundreds of thousands of "Conchies" This it did not do.

Have a nice day

 

Originally posted by morse1001@Nov 8 2004, 06:05 PM
Hi Chaps,

I thought that I would put my twopence worth

May I say that we seem to be playing, what is known in Philosophy, as the "Foundation game". We seem to be going back further and further in time. If it goes back any further, someone will put the blame on the first amoeba!
[post=29287]Quoted post[/post]


I can't speak for the others, but I am only going back to the period of November 1918 to June 1919. All that I am saying is that the west made a big mistake after WW1.

Note that the same mistake was not made after WW2, and because of the "entangling alliance' of NATO you have never fought in a total war.

 

[/quote] I was talking about the 1920s and 1930s, not about the climate at Versailles. One of the big things happening in America at the time of Versailles was a visceral American right-wing reaction to the end of the war...a desire to put it behind them. 1919 was the year of Versailles. In America it was also the year of the Boston Police Strike, the introduction of Prohibition, major race riots, the Red Scares, and the White Sox "dumping" the World Series at the payoff and behest of gamblers. Idealism and Wilson's vision were being rejected by most of the country. All Americans wanted to do in 1919 was bring the boys home and make them stop drinking. Except at a speakeasy.
[post=29279]Quoted post[/post]
[/quote]

Yes, I agree that the reaction you cite took place in America after WW1. This lack of idealism, and desire to retreat back into isolationism, probably has a lot to do with why Congress refused to ratify the treaty that we are speaking of.

However, my original point was that Woodrow Wilson made promises to protect the French borders and that America backed out of this.

I still maintain that if that treaty had been ratified WW2 would not have been fought.

 

If you were correct in what you say, that Britain was riddled with pacifists, we would never have fought WW2, let alone helped to win it. The country would have produced hundreds of thousands of "Conchies" This it did not do.

Have a nice day
[post=29301]Quoted post[/post]


Because thankfully they all rejoined the real world in enough time to realise their own stupidity/naivety.
Any chance you might now stop throwing tantrums long enough to get back on topic?

 

Originally posted by the_historian@Nov 9 2004, 06:30 AM
If you were correct in what you say, that Britain was riddled with pacifists, we would never have fought WW2, let alone helped to win it. The country would have produced hundreds of thousands of "Conchies" This it did not do.

Have a nice day 
[post=29301]Quoted post[/post]


Because thankfully they all rejoined the real world in enough time to realise their own stupidity/naivety.
Any chance you might now stop throwing tantrums long enough to get back on topic?
[post=29304]Quoted post[/post]

I never took this off topic. My original point was that America did not ratify a treaty that would have avoided WW2. I stand by what I said.

Far from "throwing tantrums" I think that I have been reasonable, no matter how much you have re-defined your position and applied blanket terms and wild statements.

Maybe the "stupid/naive" people in 1939 should have attended your lectures? Wonderful thing hindsight.

 

Well, the big failure of the US to ratify the Treaty of Versailles meant that the League of Nations lacked the backing of the only nation in the world in 1919 that had complete moral power and the strongest economy. The US had set itself up via Wilson as being the definitive "distinterested judge" of world affairs, the spokesman for democracy, and then it abdicated that position almost immediately. So the League lacked the moral, economic, and ultimately military power to do what it was supposed to do: prevent future conflicts.

 

It s nice really! for I am (At 80) in the happy position of having lived through those times and recall exactly what happened.

After Dunkirk this Nation was open to invasion, it would not have taken many troops to complete the job for we had NOTHING!

after some reorganisation, my old Div. The Third British Infantry was rearmed with what they could gather together. At that time they were the only divisioin capable of any kind of defence. That my friends! is all that we had. Nothing else at all, Nothing.....
His greatest mistake was in not taking a wide open for invasion Britian, then he would have had our industrial capacity, and 50 odd million slaves, that could have, and would have, been worked to death for the good of the Fatherland.
Sapper

 

Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Nov 9 2004, 09:50 AM
Well, the big failure of the US to ratify the Treaty of Versailles meant that the League of Nations lacked the backing of the only nation in the world in 1919 that had complete moral power and the strongest economy. The US had set itself up via Wilson as being the definitive "distinterested judge" of world affairs, the spokesman for democracy, and then it abdicated that position almost immediately. So the League lacked the moral, economic, and ultimately military power to do what it was supposed to do: prevent future conflicts.
[post=29315]Quoted post[/post]



Thats all I was saying. With Congress "rubber stamping" Wilson's ideas - world peace. Without it - WW2.

 

What a surprise-so you ARE blaming America for the war, despite denying it!
The title of the thread is "The Biggest Mistake of WW2". Can't see any reference to 1919 there, or to the League of Nations. Get back on topic.

 

Originally posted by the_historian@Nov 9 2004, 12:05 PM
What a surprise-so you ARE blaming America for the war, despite denying it!
The title of the thread is "The Biggest Mistake of WW2". Can't see any reference to 1919 there, or to the League of Nations. Get back on topic.
[post=29322]Quoted post[/post]


Have you been drinking? Read the whole thread!

 

Bepposapone please calm down. Beppo you are getting off topic this is about the Biggest Mistake of WW2 (although this may have been the Treaty of Versailles). You are going off topic, this is your last warning.

 

Originally posted by Gnomey@Nov 9 2004, 03:23 PM
Bepposapone please calm down. Beppo you are getting off topic this is about the Biggest Mistake of WW2 (although this may have been the Treaty of Versailles). You are going off topic, this is your last warning.
[post=29326]Quoted post[/post]


Gnomey

Rightly or wrongly I mentioned the Treaty of Versaille on Jul 25 2004. The Historian (sic) revived it in November.

When he can't win a debate he then tells me to get back on topic?

I also resent his suggestion that I am anti-American because of something that happened, and it did happen, in 1919. In particular when I am working on researching an American relative killed in Viet Nam.

My last warning? If this is how you moderate you know what you can do with your forum!

 

Isolated mistakes all contribute to the bigger picture of how the war unravelled.

Take Italys invasion of Greece in 1940. Of no strategic value whatsoever, simply Mussolini flexing his muscles. Yet this act of folly resulted in Hitler having to commit men and resources under the Pact of Steel when the Italians were forced into retreat.

Subsequently a full scale invasion of the Balkans was undertaken by the Axis Powers prior to the invasion of Russia.

Although unfavourable weather conditions delayed the invasion of Russia anyway it could still be considered a mistake in that this stretched their resources further than they may otherwise have considered prior to such a massive commitment in the East.

Atholl

 

Originally posted by the_historian@Nov 8 2004, 11:59 PM
And why not?! :P
[post=29291]Quoted post[/post]

I think he had enough problems with his "multiple personality syndrome" to start WW2! :P

:ph34r: :ph34r: