FDR and World War II

[Gustave5436]

Ok, at one point, Britain was alone in the war. The USSR was in a non-aggression pact with Germany, and France was conquered, and the US was neutral. If Germany had been smart and not attacked Russia, England would've fallen soon after, then Germany and Japan could've focused on Russia, then the US...

Sealion was completely infeasible. Even if the Germans managed to land on Britain, they would have been driven right back into the sea, in complete disarray, with great haste. Also note that the longer Germany waits to attack Russia, the longer Russia has to build war material and train up its officer corps.

Also, for the poll: logically impossible. Congress declares war, not the President.

 

[ZeletDude]

We should have sided with the Germans against Russia and France in 1914.

That would of proven very interesting

I utterly despise the Entente, so I partially agree with you on this point. The only countries that can take any sort of moral high ground in WWI are Belgium and Austria-Hungary in my opinion.

I'm just wondering How come? Whats wrong with France/Britain/Germany.. etc..

 

[LightSpectra]

I'm just wondering How come? Whats wrong with France/Britain/Germany.. etc..

I suppose mentioning their colonial genocides isn't relevant; but France and Britain decided to blockade Germany after the end of the war and starve their civilians into accepting the Treaty of Versailles, which would be a crime against humanity if non-world powers had done it. Germany, with good intentions, invaded neutral Belgium and executed a great deal of Belgian civilians in order to pacify them during the war.

 

[ZeletDude]

I suppose mentioning their colonial genocides isn't relevant; but France and Britain decided to blockade Germany after the end of the war and starve their civilians into accepting the Treaty of Versailles, which would be a crime against humanity if non-world powers had done it. Germany, with good intentions, invaded neutral Belgium and executed a great deal of Belgian civilians in order to pacify them during the war.

I knew about that(Bolded), and it is wrong. And I knew about Germany invading through Belgium.. (of course) But did not know about them executing the civilians, also why would you call invading Belgium good intentions?

Also I kinda dislike the Entente too, but I pretty much find Imperial Germany fascinating from what i've learned and is probably just butt hurt that they ruined Germany and basically caused WW2.

 

[LightSpectra]

I knew about that(Bolded), and it is wrong.

It is wrong, as in incorrect, or wrong as in morally evil?

also why would you call invading Belgium good intentions?

Because Germany did so in the interest of winning the war quickly, thus saving more lives in the end. I reject the utilitarian reasoning but it would've been consequentially preferable to the four years of trench warfare. Thus I find it difficult to unilaterally condemn the invasion of Belgium, while at the same time, I have to concede that no sane person could not view the Belgians as justified in joining the Allies.

 

[ZeletDude]

It is wrong, as in incorrect, or wrong as in morally evil?



Because Germany did so in the interest of winning the war quickly, thus saving more lives in the end. I reject the utilitarian reasoning but it would've been consequentially preferable to the four years of trench warfare. Thus I find it difficult to unilaterally condemn the invasion of Belgium, while at the same time, I have to concede that no sane person could not view the Belgians as justified in joining the Allies.

I Meant as evil . Not incorrect.
Also with the Belgian thing I can agree on that.

 

[Masada]

The Germans weren't lily-white in this. They miscalculated on a monumental scale and by there actions guaranteed a general European war with everyone involved.

Germany, with good intentions, invaded neutral Belgium and executed a great deal of Belgian civilians in order to pacify them during the war.

And in doing so it set the tenor of the war. German violation of Belgian neutrality bought the British into the war something the Germans had already considered a likely thing.

Because Germany did so in the interest of winning the war quickly, thus saving more lives in the end.

Which leads into this contorted piece of apologist logic. The Germans invaded Belgium knowing all that while that it would draw the British into the war with the likelihood of prolonging the war significantly.

 

[LightSpectra]

A trench war with just France and Germany just on the border of Alsace-Lorraine would've been infinitely more expensive and bloody than an end to the Western Front on M-40 followed by a potential naval Anglo-German war (if even that; can't tell you if Britain would've been up for it if France surrendered a month into the war). By this I mean: naval battles result in a huge amount of material being lost, but relatively less human life. There were something like 9,000 casualties at Jutland, the biggest naval battle in the war, whereas there were something like 250,000 casualties just in the last four days of the Battle of the Frontiers.

It was the catastrophe of the Schlieffen Plan's failure that resulted in the entire Entente coming against the Central Powers; obviously the assumption on part of the Germans was that the plan would've succeeded.

 

[bombshoo]

And in doing so it set the tenor of the war. German violation of Belgian neutrality bought the British into the war something the Germans had already considered a likely thing.

Which leads into this contorted piece of apologist logic. The Germans invaded Belgium knowing all that while that it would draw the British into the war with the likelihood of prolonging the war significantly.

Well if the Germans figured Britain entering the conflict was inevitable wouldn't getting the British into the war as soon as possible (and on German's terms) still be a means of shortening the war?

 

[civ_king]

I utterly despise the Entente, so I partially agree with you on this point. The only countries that can take any sort of moral high ground in WWI are Belgium and Austria-Hungary in my opinion.

didn't Serbia meat their ultimatum?

 

[Masada]

Austro-Hungary are also scum for demanding absolutely ridiculous things from the Serbs in an effort to force a war. Which they did anyway.

Well if the Germans figured Britain entering the conflict was inevitable wouldn't getting the British into the war as soon as possible (and on German's terms) still be a means of shortening the war?

They forced the issue when it wasn't a certain thing. They also started the war in a way that was only to make them look like reprehensible monsters. Consequently, they lost almost all of there diplomatic room for manoeuvre.

A trench war with just France and Germany just on the border of Alsace-Lorraine would've been infinitely more expensive and bloody than an end to the Western Front on M-40 followed by a potential naval Anglo-German war (if even that; can't tell you if Britain would've been up for it if France surrendered a month into the war).

What were they going to gain from a war? They couldn't cripple France unless they were willing to completely occupy it (hardly a feasible thing) and they couldn't hope to hold onto Belgium or the Channel Ports without incurring British wrath. Even if they only demanded colonies that wouldn't have crippled France and it would still have pissed the British off not to mention it would have spread out the German military that little bit more. Furthermore, stripping peripheral territories from Russia was just going to piss the Russians off in perpetuity for little tangible gain and create its own problems: Polish Question. So what do we have? All three major powers arranged against Germany and Austro-Hungary while they both struggle to digest whatever gains minimal they've made. Even a quick German victory offered them nothing but problems in the long term with yet another Franco-Prussian war to be avenged with Britain and Russia firmly on side this time around regardless of what happens.

By this I mean: naval battles result in a huge amount of material being lost, but relatively less human life. There were something like 9,000 casualties at Jutland, the biggest naval battle in the war, whereas there were something like 250,000 casualties just in the last four days of the Battle of the Frontiers.

The German plan was to sacrifice its whole fleet to try to make a blockade infeasible. It was ridiculously optimistic in the first instance and completely ignored the psychological impact of actually ordering you nice shiny fleet to commit suicide. The Kaiser wouldn't and couldn't let it happen. Consequently, blockade became inevitable and the German navy lost whatever tawdry strategic worth it had: Glorified floating tin cans.

 

[JohnRM]

Read the book, "After Dachau", and you will understand why Germany had to go.

 

[dosed150]

without the americans the allies probably still could of won but it would have been much longer and bloodier. I mean germany and italy against the USSR and the British empire, thats not really a fair fight, the material aid from the americans did probably help quite a lot though

 

[sophie]

FWIW, This discussion on WWI is way more interesting than a "what if?" scenario on WWII.

 

[GhostWriter16]

About the Entente, Germain U-Boats were attacking US ships. If they weren't, the US would've stayed out. In that case IIRC it wasn't any of the US Business.

 

[civver_764]

The only countries that can take any sort of moral high ground in WWI are Belgium and Austria-Hungary in my opinion.

Belgium is obvious but Austria-Hungary? Seriously? I would say of the major powers involved Russia had the best reason.

 

[ParkCungHee]

About the Entente, Germain U-Boats were attacking US ships. If they weren't, the US would've stayed out. In that case IIRC it wasn't any of the US Business.

Entente ships were prepared to do the same.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Belgium is obvious but Austria-Hungary? Seriously? I would say of the major powers involved Russia had the best reason.

Plenty of blame can certainly be placed on Russia's doorstep as well.

 

[Fr8monkey]

About the Entente, Germain U-Boats were attacking US ships. If they weren't, the US would've stayed out. In that case IIRC it wasn't any of the US Business.

Sorry, no. It was Germany that Declared war against the United States on Dec. 11, 1941. The U.S. dent to war against Japan. Hitler declared war against the United States because of the pact with Japan.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Entente is the key word.
He is referring to the First World War.