Split Thread The causes and legality of the declaration of WWII

[SpitfireIX]

I believe the U.S. hit Japan too hard by imposing the oil embargo (and a similar embargo on other raw materials, plus closing the Panama canal to Japanese ships). It would have been better to raise the price of oil exports by 20% using an export tax, and to give the proceeds of such a tax to freedom fighters in China (while urging dialogue and negotiations).

As has been explained to you by multiple people, the US was not going to amend the Constitution just so that an export duty could have been imposed on oil sold to Japan, so that's a non-starter. Further, as I have also explained, and you ignored as usual, the US was already providing China with far more military assistance than such a duty could have funded. Previously, you proposed a 100% export duty; your new proposed 20% would have obviously generated far less revenue. Prior to the embargo, Japan was purchasing around 20 million barrels per year, and the price of oil averaged less than $1.50 per barrel. So even your 100% duty, which the Japanese could not possibly have paid for any significant period of time, would have raised less than 30 million dollars a year. But by mid-1941 the US had already provided or earmarked nearly 200 million dollars in military assistance for China.

Sorry, I never wrote such a thing. I believe, though, that the UK and France shouldn't have declared war on (and attacked) Germany in September 1939. This raised the general level of anger and violence, they (UK and France) lost the first part of the war, and several countries were occupied as a result of this decision (we also know what happened later).

What Little 10 Toes said.

They could (for example) have limited themselves to accepting a large number of Polish refugees (including Jewish ones) on their soils, in order to provide some assistance to Poland.

First, exactly how would this have helped occupied Poland? Second, how would these refugees have reached France and Britain?

 

[Michel H]

To renew and expand upon another question I've posed, and which you've ignored, Michel, please explain why it was unreasonable for the US and Britain to have insisted on unconditional surrender when, as I mentioned, Churchill and FDR¹ were well aware that Germany and Japan were capable of developing nuclear weapons, especially when Germany was clearly much farther along than the Allies in the development of cruise missiles and heavy rockets.²_______________
¹A slight correction to my previous post on this subject. Although Einstein and Szilárd wrote their letter before Germany attacked Poland, FDR didn't actually receive it until October of 1939. However, he immediately recognized the danger, and ordered the military to begin studying the issue.

²I should note here that Spock's comment about putting nuclear weapons on V-2s in the classic ST:TOS episode "The City on the Edge of Forever" is incorrect. The V-2 had a payload of 1000 kg; a first-generation atomic bomb weighed about four times that. So the Germans would have had to have built a much larger rocket to carry a nuke, but obviously they would have been much better positioned to have done so than the Allies were.

It is true that Germany had good rocket technology at the end of WW2 (with the V-2 missile, for example), but they never got close to developing an atomic bomb:

“I don't believe a word of the whole thing,” declared Werner Heisenberg, the scientific head of the German nuclear program, after hearing the news that the United States had dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
...
By 1944, however, the evidence was clear: the Germans had not come close to developing a bomb and had only advanced to preliminary research. Following the German defeat, the Allies detained ten German scientists, at Farm Hall, a bugged house in Godmanchester, England, from July 3, 1945 to January 3, 1946. Some of them, such as Heisenberg, Kurt Diebner, and Carl von Weiszacker were directly involved in the project, while others, such as Otto Hahn and Max von Laue, were only suspected and later proven to have not been involved. Heisenberg's disbelief after hearing that the United States had dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima confirmed in the minds of the Allies that the German effort was never close. As one German scientist exclaimed, it must have taken "factories large as the United States to make that much uranium-235!"...
The German project had fundamental flaws from its conception. Many top German scientists had left Germany, some of them Jewish émigrés fleeing the new laws of German National Socialism. Other scientists left in protest, significantly decreasing the number of experts available to work on a German bomb. A substantial number eventually came to the United States to work on the Manhattan Project.
...
Significant work on the German project was halted in June of 1942. The Germans never achieved a successful chain reaction, had no method of enriching uranium, and never seriously considered plutonium as a viable substitute.

(https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/german-atomic-bomb-project).

However, I believe that, if Nazi Germany had succeeded in developing a nuclear weapon before the end of the war (admittedly a rather scary prospect), there could have been some positive aspects to this: they could have prevented an invasion of their territory, the later political disease of Israeli-British-American arrogance might not have occurred, the rights of Palestinians might have been better defended (after WW2), and it is even possible that the Jews would have been less persecuted, to the extent that Nazi persecutions of the Jews reflected German anger and exasperation during the war.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... the later political disease of Israeli-British-American arrogance

Okay, I think I'm done with this thread and this poster.

You wish Hitler's atomic bomb programme had succeeded so the world would have been spared Israeli arrogance?

That's a pretty special level of disgusting.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

France and Britain weren't really capable of launching a major offensive into Germany in 1939, for a variety of reasons. They should have tried to do more than they did, though. Also, whether such a hypothetical offensive would have led the Soviets to violate the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is debatable.

It's still more plausible than Michel_H's suggestions though.

 

[Lplus]

Okay, I think I'm done with this thread and this poster.

You wish Hitler's atomic bomb programme had succeeded so the world would have been spared Israeli arrogance?

That's a pretty special level of disgusting.

It's certainly a special level of hatred for Israel, the USA and the UK, but that's been the basic driver of his arguments since the start fo the thread this was split from.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

It is true that Germany had good rocket technology at the end of WW2 (with the V-2 missile, for example), but they never got close to developing an atomic bomb:

(https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/german-atomic-bomb-project).

However, I believe that, if Nazi Germany had succeeded in developing a nuclear weapon before the end of the war (admittedly a rather scary prospect), there could have been some positive aspects to this: they could have prevented an invasion of their territory, the later political disease of Israeli-British-American arrogance might not have occurred, the rights of Palestinians might have been better defended (after WW2), and it is even possible that the Jews would have been less persecuted, to the extent that Nazi persecutions of the Jews reflected German anger and exasperation during the war.

If by less persecuted you mean exterminated down to the last child, then yes, that would have happened had Hitler not been opposed.

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Sorry, I never wrote such a thing. I believe, though, that the UK and France shouldn't have declared war on (and attacked) Germany in September 1939. This raised the general level of anger and violence, they (UK and France) lost the first part of the war, and several countries were occupied as a result of this decision (we also know what happened later).

Michel continues his long debunked whine about how dare the Allies declare war on Hitler.

Well we have already heard from Michel that the Poles should not have resisted with arms the German invasion and that the Poles should ha ve resisted by strikes, demonstrations etc. Ignoring of course the great brutality with which occupied Poland was treated from the beginning. Mass murder, torture, violent suppression etc. Hitler made it clear his intention to eradicate the Polish state and turn the population into serfs. (Those that were allowed to survive anyway.) And of course the Polish intellectual class would be liquidated.

How is that for raising the level of violence and anger. And of course Hitler's history of broken agreements etc., before the war must be forgotten. And the genocidal fantasies of Mein Kampf dropped down the memory hole.

And of course Hitler raised the level of violence and anger by invading Poland in the first place. But Michel's "logic" is the logic of the Lion that whines about the Goat complaining about being devoured.

And of course in Michel's view Germany under Hitler is allowed to resist the supposedly unacceptable demand for unconditional surrender with armed violence. When of course the Germans could just have surrendered and resisted by protests, strikes etc., and not armed violence. (Snark)

And it is so terrible that the allies would not talk to Hitler and treated him terribly. (Snark) No doubt the fact that Hitler was one of the most vile humans who ever existed is of no importance it is still unfair that the allies regarded him has a monster. (Snark)

Michel's demand for restraint is very one sided.

 

[Michel H]

They could (for example) have limited themselves to accepting a large number of Polish refugees (including Jewish ones) on their soils, in order to provide some assistance to Poland.

First, exactly how would this have helped occupied Poland? Second, how would these refugees have reached France and Britain?

Acceptance by France and the UK of a large number of Polish (military or non-military) refugees helped the Polish people. Regarding the question of how these refugees reached France and the UK, the webpages below offer some insight:

After Poland's defeat in September–October 1939, the Polish government-in-exile quickly organized in France a new fighting force originally of about 80,000 men.[2]
...
In French-mandated Syria, a Polish Independent Carpathian Brigade was formed to which about 4,000 Polish troops had escaped, mostly through Romania and would later fight in the North African Campaign.[3]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Armed_Forces_in_the_West)

How exactly did Polish forces escape Poland after their defeat in WW2?
Some 85,000 Polish soldiers were raised to fight in France in 1940, and everyone knows about the Polish fighter aces who fought in the Battle of Britain. How did these people escape from Poland when it was attacked from both sides and closed off from the sea?
...
some were escapees via Romania and Hungary ... Brickie78 had a reply with more details of men via Romania and the Soviet Union.
...
The Polish government fled Warsaw on the 17th September, heading for Romania, along with other refugees. Their route was initially blocked by Red Army forces moving in from Kamenets-Podolsk (south west Ukraine), however the Soviets eventually let the Poles through that night. The Romanian people hid them, sometimes in return for bribes, however the government was under pressure from the Nazis to return the exiles to them. The majority of Poles were save from internment and deportation, unfortunately, some areas fell under the jurisdiction of officers who were members of the Nazi sympathetic Iron Guard, meaning some who fled to Romania were sent back.

(https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori...xactly_did_polish_forces_escape_poland_after/)

 

[erwinl]

Acceptance by France and the UK of a large number of Polish (military or non-military) refugees helped the Polish people. Regarding the question of how these refugees reached France and the UK, the webpages below offer some insight:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Armed_Forces_in_the_West)

(https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori...xactly_did_polish_forces_escape_poland_after/)

85.000 out of a population of more than 35 million in 1939. That’s less than a quarter of a percent.

Don’t forget that by the time the nazis were evicted from Poland in 1945, the population loss caused by the tender nazi touch, was such that it would only be in 1977 or 1978 that Poland would be at their 1939 level for population.

 

[Michel H]

85.000 out of a population of more than 35 million in 1939. That’s less than a quarter of a percent.

Don’t forget that by the time the nazis were evicted from Poland in 1945, the population loss caused by the tender nazi touch, was such that it would only be in 1977 or 1978 that Poland would be at their 1939 level for population.

85,000 was only an initial number. According to wikipedia, the "Polish Armed Forces in the West" had 249,000 soldiers at the "height of their power" (probably around 1945).
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Armed_Forces_in_the_West.

 

[RolandRat]

85,000 was only an initial number. According to wikipedia, the "Polish Armed Forces in the West" had 249,000 soldiers at the "height of their power" (probably around 1945).
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Armed_Forces_in_the_West.

They wouldn't have had to take in any if the Nazis hadn't invaded Poland and began systematically murdering the inhabitants.

 

[Rincewind]

By the way, Adolf Hitler gave a speech in Berlin in 1938 where he claimed that the only territorial demand of Germany is the Sudeten territories.

Chamberlain allowed him to take the Sudentenland.

So - no more demands!

Except he took the remainder of Czechoslovakia, and then continued with the invasion of Poland.

How could Britain and France ever believe he'd keep his word?

Hitler himself backed them into a corner from where they could only end up fighting against him.

And - as loads of people have said, the USA had been talking with Japan for years before Pearl Harbor. The last thing that the Japanese wanted was a peaceful settlement, as that would have forced them out of China.

 

[Garrison]

By the way, Adolf Hitler gave a speech in Berlin in 1938 where he claimed that the only territorial demand of Germany is the Sudeten territories.

Chamberlain allowed him to take the Sudentenland.

So - no more demands!

Except he took the remainder of Czechoslovakia, and then continued with the invasion of Poland.

How could Britain and France ever believe he'd keep his word?

Hitler himself backed them into a corner from where they could only end up fighting against him.

And - as loads of people have said, the USA had been talking with Japan for years before Pearl Harbor. The last thing that the Japanese wanted was a peaceful settlement, as that would have forced them out of China.

It should also be borne in mind that there were plenty of voices inside the Reich calling for a dialling back of military spending and an emphasis on civilian production and rebuilding foreign trade in the aftermath of Munich, they wanted a period of consolidation and an end to the economic chaos caused by the endless drain of ever increasing armaments spending. Hitler simply chose to ignore them because he saw Munich as a failure, he had been cheated out of the war he wanted by Chamberlain's extraordinary concessions and warnings from inside Germany that the Wehrmacht wasn't ready. In 1939 the military leadership stayed silent and Hitler dismissed the options for diplomacy and normalizing Germany's place in the world. The war happened because Hitler wanted war and no other reason.

 

[Rincewind]

It should also be borne in mind that there were plenty of voices inside the Reich calling for a dialling back of military spending and an emphasis on civilian production and rebuilding foreign trade in the aftermath of Munich, they wanted a period of consolidation and an end to the economic chaos caused by the endless drain of ever increasing armaments spending. Hitler simply chose to ignore them because he saw Munich as a failure, he had been cheated out of the war he wanted by Chamberlain's extraordinary concessions and warnings from inside Germany that the Wehrmacht wasn't ready. In 1939 the military leadership stayed silent and Hitler dismissed the options for diplomacy and normalizing Germany's place in the world. The war happened because Hitler wanted war and no other reason.

 

[SpitfireIX]

It is true that Germany had good rocket technology at the end of WW2 (with the V-2 missile, for example), but they never got close to developing an atomic bomb:

(https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/german-atomic-bomb-project).

Evasion noted. This is irrelevant. The point, which should be obvious, is that Churchill and FDR reasonably believed that Germany could have developed an atomic bomb; further, the Nazis likely would have built one had they had five more years to work on it. So kindly answer the question I asked, rather than the one you wish I'd asked: Was it unreasonable for Churchill and FDR to insist on Germany's unconditional surrender, knowing that, given enough time, Germany was likely to develop nuclear weapons eventually?

However, I believe that, if Nazi Germany had succeeded in developing a nuclear weapon before the end of the war (admittedly a rather scary prospect), there could have been some positive aspects to this: they could have prevented an invasion of their territory, the later political disease of Israeli-British-American arrogance might not have occurred, the rights of Palestinians might have been better defended (after WW2), and it is even possible that the Jews would have been less persecuted, to the extent that Nazi persecutions of the Jews reflected German anger and exasperation during the war.

Your swastika is showing again. That aside, the idea that Hitler would have attempted to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent, rather than just using them to nuke Allied cities as soon as each weapon was finished, is ridiculous.

 

[Michel H]

Evasion noted. This is irrelevant. The point, which should be obvious, is that Churchill and FDR reasonably believed that Germany could have developed an atomic bomb; further, the Nazis likely would have built one had they had five more years to work on it. So kindly answer the question I asked, rather than the one you wish I'd asked: Was it unreasonable for Churchill and FDR to insist on Germany's unconditional surrender, knowing that, given enough time, Germany was likely to develop nuclear weapons eventually?




Your swastika is showing again. That aside, the idea that Hitler would have attempted to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent, rather than just using them to nuke Allied cities as soon as each weapon was finished, is ridiculous.

No, no swastika here, I am neither a Nazi, nor a neo-Nazi, as I have already said repeatedly.

I believe it was very wrong, for Roosevelt and the Allies, to demand unconditional surrender of Axis contries in January 1943 (with or without a nuclear threat - we know, of course, that the atomic bomb was used against innocents civilians by the Allies, not by Germany). In fact, it can be argued that this decision, imposed by Roosevelt, is even the worst crime in human history, because it may have led to tens of millions of deaths during WW2 (and, to this, one should add the current crises, for example with North Korea and Iran, stemming from an incorrect interpretation of WW2, and the belief that essentially the victors of the world war should have a monopoly on these dangerous and unnecessary nuclear weapons). A more reasonable demand would have been that Germany (and other countries) renounce their recent conquests, and go back to pre-war borders

If Adolf had had nukes in 1945, he could have threatened to bomb a British city if the Allies moved to conquer Germany. Such a bombing would have been so devastating for the unfortunate Britons that, hopefully, Germany would have been spared an invasion, which might have been a very good thing, because this might have led to a more balanced world, without Germany becoming a puppet of the U.S. (and, to some extent, of Israel).

If Hitler had been forced, in 1943, to go back to the pre-war borders after large conquests, it is possible that his loss of prestige would have been so great that he would have forced to resign. Do not forget, also, that Adolf had serious opponents in Germany, as the July 1944 Stauffenberg plot showed.

 

[Garrison]

No, no swastika here, I am neither a Nazi, nor a neo-Nazi, as I have already said repeatedly.

Sorry but people here like to base their opinions on facts and evidence and based on your statements about WWII and the sources you use to support them, yeah you're a Nazi apologist.

 

[Rincewind]

You know, the Adolf Hitler that I've read about is totally different from the person presented here by Michel.

I believe that the view I have is the view of the vast majority of people - here's a few points:
He was an extremely untruthful negotiator.
He was a warmonger, desiring wars to conquer 'Lebensraum'.
His aim was to control all of east up to the Ural mountains.
He hated the Jews (and others) enough to try to exterminate them.
In 1945 he wanted to destroy Germany as not being worthy of him.
There was no away he would have considered stopping the war in 1942 - or ever; he believed he would win.

 

[Rincewind]

In Japan during WWII, the whole population was mobilized to support the war effort.

A lot of assembly work was done in private houses, so very few Japanese were innocent.

I understand that there's an element of 'tu quoque' in what I'm about to write, but after what the Luftwaffe did in the Battle of Britain, you can understand the comment made by 'Bomber' Harris"

"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

 

[RolandRat]

@ Michael, you seem to be condemning the Allies for responding to the Nazis invading sovereign countries and slaughtering their inhabitants. Don't you think that if the Nazis hadn't, well, invaded sovereign countries and started slaughtering their inhabitants then there would have been no need for a response?

I would like to say thanks to a lot of the respondents here, I have learned a lot I didn't know from reading this thread.