FDR and World War II

[innonimatu]

Germany didn't need to egg on Austria-Hungary the way it did. Of course, that being said, I fully understand why Germany did so. Again, the book I mentioned earlier is a good source of information on this. Germany knew that both France and Russia were fast outstripping it both industrially and economically. I believe a defence paper was written in around 1912 which explicitly stated that while a war with Russia and France would be "disastrous" in 1913-14, a war with the two in 1918-20 would be "catastrophic," as both nations would have modernised their militaries completely by that point, leaving Germany far behind.

I understand that you are describing what people in that time believed, and that's what is relevant for the history of the time. But we should also learn from history when possible, so I can't resist commenting on this.

With hindsight we can now know that neither France nor Russia were likely to outdo Germany in industrial production of even military capability. Certainly a Germany which was reduced in territory and had gone through a devastating economic crisis managed to defeat one and seriously threaten the other in 1940-42.

A Franco-Russian attack on Germany was the most likely war between great powers that could have occurred had WWI not happened, but the myth of the war's inevitability is just that; myth. The war could have been avoided had any of the sides legitimately wanted to avoid it; none of them did, as they all saw the war playing out to their benefit.

Exactly, except that you made the argument that it was not so much about benefit as about fear. I wonder if most wars in modern history were caused by fear. It seems that only when the fear became that both sides would surely lose (nuclear war) did that haste to start a war before some enemy became more powerful cease. Even so we still see the same arguments today, sued against those potential enemies which do not yet have nuclear weapons, for example, but might be trying to acquire those.

 

[Lord Baal]

I understand that you are describing what people in that time believed, and that's what is relevant for the history of the time. But we should also learn from history when possible, so I can't resist commenting on this.

With hindsight we can now know that neither France nor Russia were likely to outdo Germany in industrial production of even military capability. Certainly a Germany which was reduced in territory and had gone through a devastating economic crisis managed to defeat one and seriously threaten the other in 1940-42.

Do not confuse post-WWI France and the USSR with the pre-war Republic and Czarist Russia. Both the French and Russian Empires were far more relatively powerful pre-WWI than they were in 1939, largely due to the fact that they hadn't suffered through a major war, internal revolutions, civil wars and economic depressions at that time. As it was, both France and Russia in 1939 were still far ahead of Nazi Germany in terms of industrial and military might. Germany merely had a more skilful military with superior leadership, not a better equipped one. I direct you to my own recent posts on these matters in the threads on Nazi economics, whether the US should have entered WWII prior to the Pearl Harbour attack and whether Operation: Barbarossa inadvertently saved Western Europe from an overwhelming Soviet assault.

Exactly, except that you made the argument that it was not so much about benefit as about fear.

Good point. Fear of France and Russia was clearly Germany's biggest motivator at this time, and fear of Russia and Serbia drove Austria-Hungary. It was also fear of the Central Powers that drove the Franco-Russian Entente, an fear of internal revolt that drove the British entry into the war.

I wonder if most wars in modern history were caused by fear.

Large-scale wars between major powers would certainly seem to support this idea, but most small-scale localised wars still seem to be about advantage. Including colonial skirmishes.

It seems that only when the fear became that both sides would surely lose (nuclear war) did that haste to start a war before some enemy became more powerful cease. Even so we still see the same arguments today, sued against those potential enemies which do not yet have nuclear weapons, for example, but might be trying to acquire those.

According to Kenneth Waltz's Neo-Realist interpretation of international relations - which is not perfect, but suffices for the current discussion - states seek to maximise their security above all other things - previous theories surmised that states sought to maximise their power first and foremost - which supports the "make war out of fear" theory. Of course, I must point out that a common excuse for war now is fear of another nation, even when the reasons for that fear are known by the powers that be to be false. Iraq is just the most obvious example of a nation's rulers creating a fear in order to capitalise on the sentiment it created. Also, even when they're afraid nations will only resort to warfare if they believe it will be advantageous for them to do so.

 

[Masada]

Innonimatu the Germans were terrified of Russia's swift industrialisation and the spectre of the rapid modernisation of the Russian military. Russia's 1917 plan called for the construction of a set of internal railways that would have increased the speed of Russian mobilisation in the advent of war to such an extent, the Germans felt, that it invalidated any hope of Germany winning by striking a swift blow against France before doubling back and trouncing the Russians. This was quite apart from the massive increases in the Russian army and the swift modernisation program that was taking place using French cash. Even France's military situation viz. a viz. the Germans had markedly improved with the passing of the Three Year Law which gave allowed it to bring substantially more forces to bear against the Germans. On paper the Germans thought any hope they had of winning would be gone in a few years.

On the German side things were not all that peachy either. Germany had frittered away to much money on the navy which wasn't much use against the French or Russians thrusting into Alsace-Lorraine and East Prussia respectively. And it was losing ground in the army stakes accordingly. This was quite apart from the significant strain already placed on the German economy by its military. German High Command honestly thought that it had only a very narrow window where victory could be attained and that it was slipping away quickly. Austro-Hungary wasn't really a factor in favour of German victory either really if you consider that Serbia had a standing army of a comparable size. Really, Germany inflated the quality of its opponents primarily Russia but it at the same time also messed up a whole bunch of its underlying assumptions notably the fact that Russia could mobilise at fast rate even in the absence of railways. Whatever the case, Germany military thought was very much in favour of throwing the dice now or risking being carved up by the Russians and French later. In all honesty that was a fair assumption to make with the information they had.

 

[Ahovking]

if The USA declare War on Nazi Germany when Britain When to War the us would not be a superpower today for the war would save the Europeans powers and then would prevent the Us from becoming a superpower as it was 1980.

The Europeans powers would have control the would the USA would become a weak power for her lack of colony's which would bring in massive amount of income. its because of the war that the Europeans powers became so weak they lost most colony's.

 

[Masada]

I'm sure everyone here will heartily agree with my sentiments to the above post: LOL WUT?

 

[bombshoo]

if The USA declare War on Nazi Germany when Britain When to War the us would not be a superpower today for the war would save the Europeans powers and then would prevent the Us from becoming a superpower as it was 1980.

The Europeans powers would have control the would the USA would become a weak power for her lack of colony's which would bring in massive amount of income. its because of the war that the Europeans powers became so weak they lost most colony's.

C'mon man. Ridiculous. Has anyone ever been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

 

[civ_king]

I'm sure everyone here will heartily agree with my sentiments to the above post: LOL WUT?

I think what he means is:
If US had entered WWII earlier, Europe wouldn't have been a smoking pile of rubble and then the US wouldn't be in so much better shape than them

 

[Ahovking]

I think what he means is:
If US had entered WWII earlier, Europe wouldn't have been a smoking pile of rubble and then the US wouldn't be in so much better shape than them

well in short yes but then Europe would be strong enough to stop there colony declaring Independence and would have much more resources than the Us and even the USSR wouldn't becomes as powerful

 

[xchen08]

well in short yes but then Europe would be strong enough to stop there colony declaring Independence and would have much more resources than the Us and even the USSR wouldn't becomes as powerful

You've got to be kidding me. The independence movements were all in full swing years before WWII, and all the "advantage" colony-wise that European nations not bled by WWII got was grinding warfare into the 70s instead of realising early on that it was hopeless (ie Portugal).

And the resources thing is also a joke. Almost all the colonies were net drains on the colonizer's economy rather than being profitable, with the handful that were profitable tending to be also the ones with the strongest nationalist movements, ie India and the Dutch East Indies. Just about the only profitable colony that any of the colonizers could have any realistic chance of holding on to was Malaya/Singapore.

And it's also useful to point out that lacking the "resources" of the colonies certainly didn't stop the U.S. from being by far the largest economy in the world before WWII.

 

[Cutlass]

And it's also useful to point out that lacking the "resources" of the colonies certainly didn't stop the U.S. from being by far the largest economy in the world before WWII

That's not a fair comparison. The US had the resources without the need to have colonies and an empire. A better comparison is Japan after WWII. They have little in the way of natural resources, and that did not stop them from becoming an industrial powerhouse in a world with fairly open trade.

 

[civ_king]

The US is almost as big as Europe with more useful land than Europe. it also wasn't as exploited for anywhere as close to as long as Europe, no surprise that the US didn't need an empire

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Ahovking seems to be saying that the US would have lost out be declaring war earlier, because this would have maintained European power, thereby enabling European states to retain economic strength from their colonies.
xchen08 seems to be arguing that Europe's economic power would have not been maintained if WW2 had been a swifter Western victory, because the colonies were unsustainable economic drains.

Let me tackle your points in reverse order.

And it's also useful to point out that lacking the "resources" of the colonies certainly didn't stop the U.S. from being by far the largest economy in the world before WWII.

I'm sure that Texan oil, Californian fruit, Oregonian timber, etc., were all massive economic drains for the US, severely impeding its growth. And that's before we get onto the United Fruit Company....

The US, like the Soviets, had a land-based colonization rather than a sea-based one. The US' colonization process was hugely important to its pre-WW2 economic strength.

And the resources thing is also a joke. Almost all the colonies were net drains on the colonizer's economy rather than being profitable, with the handful that were profitable tending to be also the ones with the strongest nationalist movements, ie India and the Dutch East Indies. Just about the only profitable colony that any of the colonizers could have any realistic chance of holding on to was Malaya/Singapore.

What about Australia? California? Oregon? All these colonies also proved highly profitable.


If the European powers had been able to recover from WWI and the Depression, they could have made highly profitable investments in their colonies, especially in infrastructure, education, and public health. British Ceylon or French Algeria could have played the economic role of South Korea or postwar Japan.

You've got to be kidding me. The independence movements were all in full swing years before WWII, and all the "advantage" colony-wise that European nations not bled by WWII got was grinding warfare into the 70s instead of realising early on that it was hopeless (ie Portugal).

The Portuguese were a corporatist regime basically left with the parts other people didn't want. It's like saying the poor economic performance of the Navaho shows that Yankees were better shot of California.

However, I think that you're on the right track here. The colonizers were losing the ideological battle in the European elites by the 1940s. India had been offered domestic self-government already.

civ_king's point still holds though. In 1945, the US produced about 50% of world output, because Europe and East Asia were in ruins (and the rest had never developed). Earlier involvement and a swifter Western victory in WWII would have meant much less rubble in Europe.

 

[LightSpectra]

I lol'd at referring to California and Oregon circa 1940 as "American colonies." Might as well call France a West Germanic colony while you're at it.

 

[civ_king]

I lol'd at referring to California and Oregon circa 1940 as "American colonies." Might as well call France a West Germanic colony while you're at it.

I think he meant that the US took them over and integrated them with all of these places providing the resources of colonies

 

[LightSpectra]

I think he meant that the US took them over and integrated them with all of these places providing the resources of colonies

No, he's most definitely suggesting that California and Oregon in 1940 were still colonies in the same manner that North Africa or the East Indies were.

 

[ZeletDude]

Weren't Oregon and California states.. Heck.. All were states except Hawaii and Alaska....
But still I Lol'd at that too!

 

[ParkCungHee]

Weren't Oregon and California states.. Heck.. All were states except Hawaii and Alaska....
But still I Lol'd at that too!

California had been a state for nearly a hundred years at that point.

 

[Disgustipated]

Some strange ideas in this thread. People seriously believe the Axis powers could have won? Defeat was inevitable, it's just a matter of timing. The Axis powers made the mistake of believing their opponents lacked the will to fight. They were wrong. Many believed the UK would roll over and die, they didn't. The Japanese believed the americans lacked the passion to fight as fervently as they do.

And after they realized their opponents would fight, they tried for peace agreements in their favor. They wanted to keep all their spoils of war. They severely underestimated the allies, and I just can't see how any victory was possible.

And California? The western U.S. was not some third world country. They had paved roads, railroads, and everything the east coast had. We even had paved roads in my city and we were out in the middle of the desert. I'm pretty sure California was a major source of U.S. GDP even back then.

 

[xchen08]

What about Australia? California? Oregon? All these colonies also proved highly profitable.

In case you didn't know, none of the above were colones circa 1940, and hadn't been for decades. Not that Australia was profitable before being made into a Dominion either, with South Africa being the only Dominion that was profitable before Dominion status, and reducing the drain on the Exchequer being one of the motives behind the whole idea of Dominions.

If the European powers had been able to recover from WWI and the Depression, they could have made highly profitable investments in their colonies, especially in infrastructure, education, and public health. British Ceylon or French Algeria could have played the economic role of South Korea or postwar Japan.

Right, of course. And all those nationalists will be happy to just sit there and take orders from their white masters and generate wealth for them no less.

The Portuguese were a corporatist regime basically left with the parts other people didn't want.

What in the world are you talking about? Portugal had the oldest colonial empire of all the colonial states, and it got first pick. Certainly, Angola was as developed and settled as Algeria.

 

[ZeletDude]

California had been a state for nearly a hundred years at that point.

Yeah I know. The only things that could be considered "colonies" were The Philippines, Hawaii and Alaska.. And The First was a Commonwealth and the 2 others were territories.