What would have happened if the US had been one of the allies in 1939?

**philipjd** · 07 Oct 04,, 00:01

Originally Posted by donnie

the problem with compareing the domestic pressure of europe and that of the US is that europe was a world away. and the US already sent thousands of troops to thier death in the family fued of WWI.

i believe we would have had to eventualy. but we were involved in the war from the begining, with the oil embargo on japan to keep them from taking french possesions, and to stop japans agression in china, and lend lease. eventualy this was going to pi$$ them off enough to attack us, if not japan then certainly germany. pobably on the eastern coastline.

Sorry to all you USA people, but one of 'your problems' is that you do not get out and about enough in the world - where principle is concerned distance is irrelevent. Either domestic pressure is a valid reason or it isn't. With regards to the US eventually entering, yes I think it would, because the Nazi regine is not 'nice' and the unofficial war would eventually become official. But without Pearl (which was inevitable anyway) it would have taken much longer and probably, as surmised by previous poster, the Russians would have won and the world we know today would be a bit different.

Family fued - that's a very patronising way of labelling a conflict in which millions of people (on both sides) died fighting for, 'place in the sun' 'resetting the balance' I can both believe and 'respect', but not because all the nations involved had some sort of family bust up - checks and balances is what governance is all about, three of the major powers did not have that built into their system of governance. We all know that going to war for an elected government is now really very difficult (back to public opinion again) but where individuals are concerned it is not so hard.

regards
Phil

**Donnie** · 07 Oct 04,, 00:27

Originally Posted by philipjd

Sorry to all you USA people, but one of 'your problems' is that you do not get out and about enough in the world

no need to start mudslinging

Originally Posted by philipjd

- where principle is concerned distance is irrelevent. Either domestic pressure is a valid reason or it isn't.

you cant tell me it would be just as easy during WWII to get europe to fight an invasion force going into mexico, as it would for american politicians to get americans to do the same. the ramifications are completly different for both.

Originally Posted by philipjd

Family fued - that's a very patronising way of labelling a conflict in which millions of people (on both sides) died fighting for,

i found it to be quite accurate, they were warring family members, that brought along with them all the people they had treaties with. what rightouse cause was wold war I fought over? the US had a rightous roll in helping to end it, but the wars begining was meaningless and gained no purpouse other than to set the stage for world war II, which was just a continuation of the first war, germanys utter humiliation by the allies in WWI (above and beyond and against the wishes of the US) was the direct cause of hitlers rise to power. the US's warnings that europe was being to hard of germany went unheaded, and sent them headlong into WWII. and then the US was expected to jump right in again, this would have been a never ending circle of destruction if left to europe.

**philipjd** · 08 Oct 04,, 01:33

Originally Posted by donnie

no need to start mudslinging.

Not my intention to mudsling, but I do find that the ponds surrounding the US has a 'blinkers' effect to it's views on the rest of the world. Apologies if it comes across that way - just my own opinion, I say as much to me american relatives (3rd generation now, live in NY and FL).

Originally Posted by donnie

you cant tell me it would be just as easy during WWII to get europe to fight an invasion force going into mexico, as it would for american politicians to get americans to do the same. the ramifications are completly different for both.

Centres of power - quite different, an invasion of Mexico by anyone (except maybe the US, and that was not likely to happen circa WW2, is not going to have anything more than a local effect. Within Europe, what could be called a local war, would have a global impact if the major countries were involved. The world of the 30's is not the US/USSR dominated era post WW2.

Originally Posted by donnie

i found it to be quite accurate, they were warring family members, that brought along with them all the people they had treaties with. what rightouse cause was wold war I fought over? the US had a rightous roll in helping to end it, but the wars begining was meaningless and gained no purpouse other than to set the stage for world war II, which was just a continuation of the first war, germanys utter humiliation by the allies in WWI (above and beyond and against the wishes of the US) was the direct cause of hitlers rise to power. the US's warnings that europe was being to hard of germany went unheaded, and sent them headlong into WWII. and then the US was expected to jump right in again, this would have been a never ending circle of destruction if left to europe.

I agree that no righteous cause in the biblical way was the "cause" behind WW1, that is because we are all human and suffer from human vanities, arogance etc. The whole point of (or the major one rather) of elected government is to take the power out of the hands of individuals and give it to 'the people' as a whole, thus reducing the potential negative impact of any individual.

Set the stage for WW2 - the Germans people believed they were winning the war, right up until the end - because they were told nothing else. Hence the feeling of betrayal and the need to blame some one for that illusion, initially it was the imperial government then Hitler manipulated that sense of betrayal into a tool he could wield.

Peace too tough, maybe not tough enough, try talking with the French/Belgians on how tough the peace was (French more than the Belgians). Although a Europe without Germany with revolutionary Russia on it's border is not something I would like to contemplate. The unfortunate thing about revolutionary change is that without a strong leader (a la Napoleon) it takes a society a long time to regain it's feet, thus making it vulnerable to extreme's, and Europe had a four fold revolutionary change, Russia (obvious), dismantalling of Austro Hungry, disolution of the Ottoman empire and the move, for the first time, from a form of absolute government to an elected one in Germany. The Balkans had not recovered (or maybe never found in the first place) a sense of coexistence with the other balkan nationalities that made up the former Ottoman Empire territories in the region. "Interesting Times".

Whoever is unjust let him find justice
Whoever is righteous let him show humility
Whoever is filthy let him be cleansed
Understand the words long written down
When the man comes around- Jhonny Cash [adulterated, prefer positives, apologies again]

cheers
Phil

**Donnie** · 08 Oct 04,, 02:08

Originally Posted by philipjd

Not my intention to mudsling, but I do find that the ponds surrounding the US has a 'blinkers' effect to it's views on the rest of the world. Apologies if it comes across that way - just my own opinion, I say as much to me american relatives (3rd generation now, live in NY and FL).

being your conversation was with me and not other americans i took it personal.

Originally Posted by philipjd

Centres of power - quite different, an invasion of Mexico by anyone (except maybe the US, and that was not likely to happen circa WW2, is not going to have anything more than a local effect.

not if it was the end of a domino effect, you better believe the US would be concerned, with the US in its isolationist state they were there own center of power, the people of the US (as a whole) couldnt have cared less what was happening in europe, because europe was no longer considered thier center of power. so eropes center of power is begining to teeter, who is percieved (real or otherwise) to be more effected? europe of course, that mean a much harder struggle to get americans into the war than any country in europe.

Originally Posted by philipjd

Within Europe, what could be called a local war, would have a global impact if the major countries were involved.

not so much for the US, they were in an isolationist state (good or ill) they did not percieve europe as thier power center. to the US as a whole it was a localized event till pearl.

sorry ran out of time for the rest will continue later

Originally Posted by philipjd

Whoever is unjust let him find justice
Whoever is righteous let him show humility
Whoever is filthy let him be cleansed
Understand the words long written down
When the man comes around- Jhonny Cash [adulterated, prefer positives, apologies again].

no need to apologize, unfortunatly, the words cannot be changed, not one iota.

anyone get that?

**Kipruss** · 08 Oct 04,, 05:24

I must admit that when I started the thread I thought it might encourage the British on the World Affairs Board to come out and say that the damage to their country in WW2 did stop them from joining the super powers

. Perhaps they realised that their population would not be large enough to compete with the US and the Soviet Union and the time of the British Empire was doomed to failure.

Also, as I believe the majority of the deaths in the holocaust came towards the end of the war, I thought that it might bring more comment. I used to support Israel because of my "collective" guilt of not being able to stop the awful, revolting, inexcusable tragedy. I wonder if that guilt has anything to do with the billions of dollars in military aid the US gives Israel each year and the constant stream of vetos it uses in the security council? Or perhaps it is as simple as encouraging at least one state in the middle east to be a democracy (Turkey not withstanding).

**philipjd** · 08 Oct 04,, 19:02

Originally Posted by Kipruss

I must admit that when I started the thread I thought it might encourage the British on the World Affairs Board to come out and say that the damage to their country in WW2 did stop them from joining the super powers

. Perhaps they realised that their population would not be large enough to compete with the US and the Soviet Union and the time of the British Empire was doomed to failure.

It was WW that sounded the death knell for the Empire, a few of the main reasons;

First it shifted the principle financial centre of the world from London to New York, with major permanent effects (especially during WW2 a la Neutrality Act passed in 1938 IIRC)

Second it had a serious impact on the National Outlook - due to the number of casualties (dead and disabled), submarine campaign negated the traditional Royal Navy (perceived)

Thirdly - industrial, TOTAL WAR destroys economies that are not geared towards it at a fundamental level (wear and tear on capital equipment, equipment that was useless after hostilities, plus our medium/heavy industril base was insufficient to cope with the wars demands so you have to import at much greter expense)

Lastly, the UK during the war was a net lender so its allies (not borrower as conventional wisdom puts it) but a major part of that lending was to the Russians - the Bolsheviks repudiated that debt which left a significant whole in the Nations finances.

Originally Posted by Kipruss

Also, as I believe the majority of the deaths in the holocaust came towards the end of the war, I thought that it might bring more comment. I used to support Israel because of my "collective" guilt of not being able to stop the awful, revolting, inexcusable tragedy. I wonder if that guilt has anything to do with the billions of dollars in military aid the US gives Israel each year and the constant stream of vetos it uses in the security council? Or perhaps it is as simple as encouraging at least one state in the middle east to be a democracy (Turkey not withstanding).

There was a recent TV program (historical reconstruction of a meeting held in 1942 IIRC that played out the formal authorisation of the Final Solution and in that one of the main resons for accelerting the 'process' was the entry of the US into the war. Not sure how accurate that was though.

cheers
Phil

**xxxxx** · 09 Oct 04,, 08:33

Originally Posted by Blademaster

How could the French and Brits supported the Germans? Did they have any sufficient expedionary forces available at that time?

If not, that might explain the reasons for Chamberlain's "appeasements". Everybody keeps calling Chamberlain a coward but nobody remembers that he was singly responsible for restarting the British military which was in serious decline. He was the one that made several huge orders to build more warships and planes and started the path to military innovation. Without those things, even Churchill would have a very very tough time standing up to the German war machine.

The credit for the buildup of the British war machine goes to Chamberlain, not Churchill.

Remember before the war broke out, the world was in midst of a great depression, and England was not immune to it. To deal with the depression, British was forced to make several cuts in the military budget and have an empire army and navy on the cheap. Chamberlain was the one who changed the direction of that military thinking.

at the start of the war, the great depression was ages ago.

I read that at the beginning of WW2 the birtish army included only about 10,000 men!!! (Encarta premium suite) no miracle that they didn't feel like invading the well-equiped, well-trained and fairly big Wehrmacht.

while the Royal Navy was among the best navies of the world for centuries, the british army "traditionally" has been weak and small.
When Bismarck was asked during the Danish war, what he would do if the british would invade the German north sea coast in order to support the Danish, he ansewered:
"Nothing. the police will arrest them

"
that was probably the only time Bismarck showed some sense of humour.