World War 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I'm a student of WWII and I've never heard anything like this before. FDR was helping out England long before Pearl Harbor, and against the wishes of Congress and possibly the majority of American people, who wanted to remain out of the war. FDR came up with the idea of Lend/Lease which allowed him to send weapons and supplies to England and later Russia, even though we were not yet in the war. I doubt that there was ever much of a chance of the US joining with Hitler. The Jewish owned banks would not have allowed it, for one thing. And let's not forget, there were Americans fighting WITH the British well before Pearl Harbor, notably in the Eagle Squadron. In fact, there was an American "observer" on Catalina Z of Coastal Command, which located the Bismarck after she'd slipped away from the British cruisers which had been tailing her. ("Pursuit" by Ludovic Kennedy)
As for the Empire being an obstacle to trade, I must admit I'm not very well informed on economic activities of the era, so I can't really comment on that. But this is definitely the first time I've ever heard anything which suggested the possibility of the US joining Germany.

---

To my regret, I have never been a student of history, let alone of this War specifically. I shall set out my understanding, and leave it to you to pick the bones out of it, and to expose the flaws in the rest. I have no sources to quote and this is my understanding of history and my interpretation of its causes and effects - or, at least, without authorities to cite, I must accept responsibility for them.

Britain was probably the richest nation in the world before WW1 and had the most powerful economy, thanks to its position at the head of the British Empire. The Great War changed that significantly: Britain fell into debt to pay for the war, and it traded less with the Empire, and it began to loosen its grip on the colonies. The Depression was also a factor, and the British economy suffered every bit as much as the America's did.

Meanwhile, British industry was becoming more and more outdated, being based on Victorian factories and practices, whereas other countries, which industrialised later, had better, more modern industries. Germany, in particular, had a much more modern heavy industry than we did, being centred upon rearming itself after its earlier defeat.

America, too, was later into industrialisation, but with its growing size, wealth and power, and with no significant international debt burden following the First World War, it was able to grow much faster than Britain. Its big problem after the War was the Depression, and to deal with it, it needed more trading outlets to stimulate growth. The British (and French) colonies were seen as ideal new trading partners, if only the colonising powers would relinquish their control/influence.

When Germany's expansionist ambitions became clear, most of the US Establishment was hostile. But there were movements such as the German-American Bund which were small in themselves, but able to promote the German cause through highly effective propaganda, and with influence among prominent and wealthy American politicians and industrialists. This gave Britain much concern, and, in its turn, it did whatever it could to counter the propaganda and to promote its own cause. It was very concerned that the Nazi propaganda would have a greater influence than it in fact did have, and that led to Churchill virtually prostituting himself to America (a habit that seems hard to stop, once begun).

When hostilities broke out in Europe, USA proclaimed its neutrality: Americans had no taste for another squabble between the European countries, and felt it best to let them sort it out themselves. Consequently, USA could not be seen to favour either side. Its policy of "Cash and Carry" arms sales had to be open to all belligerents, and, although it favoured Britain most, that was because (a) Britain was desperate for arms, while Germany could produce its own, and (b) The Royal Navy/Royal Canadian Navy controlled the North Atlantic sea lanes, making arms exports to Germany difficult (though not impossible). The Lease/Lend policy also had to appear neutral, and, in return for the aid Roosvelt was able to send to us, we had to allow him to open military bases in our colonial possessions, while Australia and New Zealand had to provide aid and support to US forces in the Pacific. This was to enable FDR to say that the transactions were for the defence of America.

Thus, although Britain received valuable assistance from America even before Pearl Harbour, equivalent assistance would (or, at least nominally, should) have been available to Germany had it sought it, and, from this side of the Atlantic, it appeared that the activities of Nazi sympathisers in USA could quite easily swing public opinion against the Allies, which would have meant either that USA stayed out of the war or that it would join in on the other side.

I understand where you're coming from with this, now. Yes, the Nazi propaganda machine did work overtime to try to win over Americans, and were successful in some cases, Henry Ford being a notable one. While my knowledge of the inter-war years is admittedly weak, I'm not aware of any large scale sympathy for the Nazi cause. Most who were attracted to Hitler were anti-Semitic to start with, and saw a kindred soul in him.

I do know that the US government, at least, was strongly opposed to the Nazis. Even before hostilities started they were withholding certain strategic materials from sale to Germany. One of the more famous (or infamous) was helium. Virtually all helium production in the '30's was confined to the US, and it was illegal to sell any to Germany. The Germans were forced to use hydrogen for their dirigibles, resulting in the Hindenburg disaster in May of 1937.

The Cash and Carry act, as you noted, allowed the US to sell arms to belligerents for cash, letting Roosevelt support England without violating neutrality, satisfying his opponents in Congress. The US people wanted to stay out of the war, sensibly enough. Roosevelt wanted in. He revised Cash & Carry into the Lend Lease program when Britain and France ran out of money. Both plans required the buyers to send their own ships to American ports to collect their goods, which virtually eliminated any possibility of the Germans being able to buy any, due to Britain's overwhelming naval superiority.

As for the bases you mentioned, the US was granted 99 year rent-free leases on those in exchange for 50 destroyers which the British desperately needed to fight the German U-boats. These bases were in the Caribbean and Newfoundland, not in England or Australia. As you stated, this allowed Roosevelt to claim the transactions improved America's defensive perimeter, which in fact it did.

One other item which you mentioned, and which many other people seem to forget, is that the "Great Depression" did not only affect the US: it was a worldwide economic collapse, and almost everyone was affected in some way. One of the few "good" things which Hitler can be credited with is pulling Germany out of the depression, though his ill advised war virtually destroyed everything he'd built, and just about everything else.

On another note, TYWD, you stated "To my regret, I have never been a student of history, let alone of this War specifically." If you are interested in learning about some of British forces great accomplishments during the war, I would suggest reading "Pegasus Bridge" by Stephen Ambrose. Though he was an American historian, this is a marvelous account of the heroic efforts of British Airborne troops to capture and hold a vital bridge behind the British/Canadian beaches at Normandy. Ambrose deals more extensively with the soldiers in the field rather than the generals and politicians in the rear.

If you want to take a different view. Lendlease was a part of Roosevelt's plan to appear to be friendly to the British whilst pursuing his plan to break the British Empire(pretty much on its knees) and replace with it US dominated spheres of influence(in other words an American empire). 50 tired old US destroyers for 99 year leases.
To quote the Arab saying 'my enemies enemy is my friend'. It wasn't so much that Roosevelt liked the british it was just that Germany looked absolutely abhorrent and more importantly Japan, which was rampaging through China, looked like it was about to pick up all the European bases and colonies in Asia. From Indonesia all the way through to India.
Once the war was over, the speed with which the US wanted the repaying of its loans was commented on.
The US funded its allies during WWII, but unlike the British who did the same in WWI, they demanded and received repayment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnmacadam

If you want to take a different view. Lendlease was a part of Roosevelt's plan to appear to be friendly to the British whilst pursuing his plan to break the British Empire(pretty much on its knees) and replace with it US dominated spheres of influence(in other words an American empire). 50 tired old US destroyers for 99 year leases.
To quote the Arab saying 'my enemies enemy is my friend'. It wasn't so much that Roosevelt liked the british it was just that Germany looked absolutely abhorrent and more importantly Japan, which was rampaging through China, looked like it was about to pick up all the European bases and colonies in Asia. From Indonesia all the way through to India.
Once the war was over, the speed with which the US wanted the repaying of its loans was commented on.
The US funded its allies during WWII, but unlike the British who did the same in WWI, they demanded and received repayment.

---

I've never been very interested in the political and economic aspects of the war, and pre-war years. Still not interested in current politics and economics, so I really can't comment one way or the other about Roosevelt's intentions. But tired and old or not, the British were pretty glad to get those destroyers. As for getting repayment for war loans, I fail to see anything sinister about that. You borrow money, you have to expect to pay it back. That's my brand of economic theory.

During WW1, the british used their foreign currency reserves to loan their allies money to fight the war. After ww1 all sides were financially exhausted and the British never required their allies to repay, on the grounds that they did not have the money, even though they suffered the worst financial losses of all the allies. After ww2, the US was alone among the allies in not being broke, in fact they emerged financially stronger. They required repayment from the British almost immediately. Loans were which finally paid off in 2007. It took 62 years to repay. The requirement to repay the americans was part of the financial problems which meant it was years before rationing was ended in Britain, well into the 1950s.
The bankrupt nature of Britain and the US requirement for repayment mean the British were not just a threat to the US in post war years, but were forced to withdraw from their empire(not necessarily a bad thing), but effectively on terms dictated to by the US. For example when the British couldn't afford to assist Greece, the US stepped as part of the Truman doctrine.

What I'm saying is that the US used the war to destroy not just their enemies, but weaken their allies and make themselves dominant in the post war period. They extended their dominance from the Americas to the whole world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnmacadam

What I'm saying is that the US used the war to destroy not just their enemies, but weaken their allies and make themselves dominant in the post war period. They extended their dominance from the Americas to the whole world.

---

Well it seems that the worm has turned and the US financial dominance is coming to a close. But with "outstanding" contributions such as "American Idol", "Survivor" and "The Simpsons" we should remain near the top culturally!

American idol is just a version of of a British show called Pop Idol. Ha. And you also got Simon Cowell ( and his amazingly high jeans). You give us the Sopranos and we give you Dancing on ice(and all those other dancing programs). That'll teach you not to forgive our debts. Just think if we'd had more money, we could have spent it on a third series of Fawlty Tower(or more likely Benny Hill)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnmacadam

During WW1, the british used their foreign currency reserves to loan their allies money to fight the war. After ww1 all sides were financially exhausted and the British never required their allies to repay, on the grounds that they did not have the money, even though they suffered the worst financial losses of all the allies. After ww2, the US was alone among the allies in not being broke, in fact they emerged financially stronger. They required repayment from the British almost immediately. Loans were which finally paid off in 2007. It took 62 years to repay. The requirement to repay the americans was part of the financial problems which meant it was years before rationing was ended in Britain, well into the 1950s.
The bankrupt nature of Britain and the US requirement for repayment mean the British were not just a threat to the US in post war years, but were forced to withdraw from their empire(not necessarily a bad thing), but effectively on terms dictated to by the US. For example when the British couldn't afford to assist Greece, the US stepped as part of the Truman doctrine.

What I'm saying is that the US used the war to destroy not just their enemies, but weaken their allies and make themselves dominant in the post war period. They extended their dominance from the Americas to the whole world.

---

Interesting, I've heard it the other way around: that the US wrote off a substantial part of the debts its allies had incurred during WW2, because it was obvious they could not be fully repaid. In any case, inflation during the decades after WW2 would have eaten up a huge part of the debts. And the US did organize the Marshall Aid Program, which helped rebuild Britain and Western Europe and never had any requirements of refunding.

You're right though that the war did mean the US established itself as a Superpower in the Old World, and that cooperation with Britain and France (de Gaulle's Free French Forces) wasn't always as smooth as it may look in retrospect. But the British Empire had never fully recovered from the First World War - it was bigger in 1930 than twenty years before and had better communications, but it was weaker, less cohesive, less sure of itself, less rich in terms of what the Empire brought to Britain (counting off what it cost to keep the whole thing going).

I would imagine that both stories have some element of truth in them. The European politicians could have used the story of the US calling in it's debts as an excuse for their failure to deal with the post war inflation, while the US politicians could blame the write-off of the debt for the same reasons.

There are two sides to every story, of course, and history is always subject to interpretation. In the US, Patton was a military genius who struggled against every other general on the Allied side in order to gain recognition and Montgomery was a posturing fool, while the British praise Montgomery for his remarkable achievements while denigrating Patton as a boor.

The truth is that both sides are partially right. Patton was a boor, but a great soldier. Montgomery was rather caught up in his own mystique, but was also a great soldier. They both were critical to the war effort. And both sides are probably partially right about the war debts.

In terms of 'great' war generals, the British only have Montgomery. The man who won the desert war against Rommel and gave them their first victory. The British in fact like Rommel more, he was a 'good' Nazi.

In fact the British don't really like their generals at all. Any study of British history, especially WW1 has a standard view of 'lions led by donkeys'.

WW2 doesn't have the same ressonnance, maybe because the number of British war dead was less than half that of WW1, maybe because WW1 still looks like a colossal blunder by blimpish morons, whilst WW2 looks like a classic battle between good and evil.

The Marshall Plan was morally honorable, but also a political act. Whether the US would have felt so inclined if the Soviet bear wasn't slavering at the door is impossible to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnmacadam

In terms of 'great' war generals, the British only have Montgomery. The man who won the desert war against Rommel and gave them their first victory. The British in fact like Rommel more, he was a 'good' Nazi.

In fact the British don't really like their generals at all. Any study of British history, especially WW1 has a standard view of 'lions led by donkeys'.

WW2 doesn't have the same ressonnance, maybe because the number of British war dead was less than half that of WW1, maybe because WW1 still looks like a colossal blunder by blimpish morons, whilst WW2 looks like a classic battle between good and evil.

The Marshall Plan was morally honorable, but also a political act. Whether the US would have felt so inclined if the Soviet bear wasn't slavering at the door is impossible to say.

---

I never thought about it before but now that you mention it, I can't think of a single well-known British general (aside from Montgomery) since Wellington. And even Montgomery I would have to hedge on the word "great." He did very little that was new and extraordinary. He defeated Rommel by building up the proverbial irresistible force behind the lines at Alamein and literally blasting the Axis from their positions. And even there he wasn't able to contain them, prevent them from withdrawing in good order. The one really daring plan which he had, "Market Garden", was a only partial success at best.

As for the Marshall Plan, every interchange between sovereign nations is, by its nature, political. Each national leader tries, or at least SHOULD try, to get the best possible outcome for his own country. While it may have been hard on Britain and France, I doubt you would find too many Americans who would be disappointed. But my interests don't lie in the political arena. I'm more into the military aspects of the war.

And by the way, Rommel was not a Nazi, not a member of the party. He was a German general/ field marshall, and he supported the leader of his country as far as he could, as is expected of any military commander. But he was never a Nazi. There can be no doubt, though, that he was among the best generals in the war.

'The Rommel was a good guy' could be said to be part of his mythology which actually dates back to ww2, when even his opponents, like Churchill purported to like him.He was also a good friend of Goebbels who helped build his mythology. He didn't treat PoWs badly, or kill captured Jews. However there is not evidence of his refusing to serve Hitler's plans, and he only became openly criticial of Nazi plans by 1944, when all was lost.
Whether serving the dreams of a monster, but not being a monster yourself is enough to protect a reputation is open question
As for the Marshall Plan, if the Soviets hadn't taken Eastern Europe and and kept a vast army waiting, it is impossible to say if the US would have given as much aid, keeping your allies from starving is different from rebuilding them. At this point it becomes counter factual and a What if scenario.

Great Britain repaid the last of her World War II debts to USA on 31/12/2006 (including interest). Now, when will the Provinces of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North & South Carolinas and Georgia, and the Colonies of Rhode Island & Providence Plantation, Connecticut, Delaware and Virginia pay for their planting, development and defence?

[QUOTE=johnmacadam;582432]'The Rommel was a good guy' could be said to be part of his mythology which actually dates back to ww2, when even his opponents, like Churchill purported to like him.He was also a good friend of Goebbels who helped build his mythology. He didn't treat PoWs badly, or kill captured Jews. However there is not evidence of his refusing to serve Hitler's plans, and he only became openly criticial of Nazi plans by 1944, when all was lost.
Whether serving the dreams of a monster, but not being a monster yourself is enough to protect a reputation is open question
QUOTE]

It has to be said that Rommel was a highly militarily, not politically thinking man. He only saw - or at least wanted to see - his assignment, was only interested in the welfare of his soldiers and the success of "his" Afrikakorps. Unlike many other division commanders he was always at the front line; a behaviour that was highly honoured by his men:

"Wo Rommel ist, ist vorn!" - Where Rommel is, is ahead/front!

And he respected his opponents. It is said that he and Montgomery had framed pictures of each other hanging in their tents/quarters.
Even today many barracks in Germany hosting tank divisions are named
after Rommel - and everybody of you should know how sensible Germans are to anything related with National So******m.

By the way: Why are these ***** in my last word above? Is it censored? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Great Britain repaid the last of her World War II debts to USA on 31/12/2006 (including interest). Now, when will the Provinces of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North & South Carolinas and Georgia, and the Colonies of Rhode Island & Providence Plantation, Connecticut, Delaware and Virginia pay for their planting, development and defence?

---

I believe all of that was paid for by the taxes which caused the rebellion in the first place. Besides, that's the fun of being an enemy. You can stiff your creditors much more easily when they're the bad guys.

And I've never fully understood how people who came over here from Europe to start fresh allowed the European monarchies to take over anyway. Who decided that the Americas belonged to the English, or French, or Spanish crowns? Probably the same people who decided that the American West belonged to the American people (read WASP's) instead of the natives who lived there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Venom

By the way: Why are these ***** in my last word above? Is it censored? :confused:

---

The term "C.I.A.L.I.S" is censored because of spam filters. Since it appears in So******m, we see stars!

What stands "C.I.A.L.I.S." for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Venom

What stands "C.I.A.L.I.S." for?

---

It's a male enhancement drug, similar to V.I.A.G.R.A.

No surprise that I don't know about it... :)

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I believe all of that was paid for by the taxes which caused the rebellion in the first place. Besides, that's the fun of being an enemy. You can stiff your creditors much more easily when they're the bad guys.

And I've never fully understood how people who came over here from Europe to start fresh allowed the European monarchies to take over anyway. Who decided that the Americas belonged to the English, or French, or Spanish crowns? Probably the same people who decided that the American West belonged to the American people (read WASP's) instead of the natives who lived there.

---

Bad guys? Us? Never!

Who had depended upon the British Army and the Royal Navy to defend them from the territiorial ambitions of the French and Spanish? Who needed money and supplies from the Mother country to establish and then defend them against the Indians and the other Powers? Who needed manpower and resources to build the colonies up and develop them?

Remember, colonies were not established for the good of the colonials, but for the benefit of the founding powers. Colonies were expected to show a profit or provide a strategic stronghold. They were owned by the French, Dutch, Spanish or British by right of discovery and possession, or conquest, or treaty, in just the same way that the US later claimed control over all of the other 37 states and the American colonies such as Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, and all the rest.

But once greed and corruption had taken hold in the colonies, who was it who treated with enemies of the Crown? The colonials. Who was refusing to pay lawful taxes? The colonials. Who attacked and intimidated Crown Agents simply for doing their duty by attempting to collect revenues due? Colonials. Who poured boiling tar over Loyalists and rolled them in feathers before driving them out of their property and sequestering it for themselves? Treacherous, criminal colonial rebels.

No, despite what "The Patriot" tells you, despite even what your history books tel you (remember, history is written by the victor) the War of Independence was an act of treason, not for liberty, but for American greed (in place of British greed I concede willingly); and it was fomented by the French and Spanish who sought to undermine British supremacy in America. Frankly, I believe Americans show very little gratitude to the French and Spanish, without whose aid they would not have achieved independence - at least, not at that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

No, despite what "The Patriot" tells you, despite even what your history books tel you (remember, history is written by the victor) the War of Independence was an act of treason, not for liberty, but for American greed (in place of British greed I concede willingly); and it was fomented by the French and Spanish who sought to undermine British supremacy in America. Frankly, I believe Americans show very little gratitude to the French and Spanish, without whose aid they would not have achieved independence - at least, not at that time.

---

I'm not basing my opinions on any movies, or any other fictions. And I willingly concede your points about treason and greed. Since the advent of civilization it has made the world go 'round. Even the history books are not necessarily accurate when dealing with opinions instead of facts. Sure, certain facts cannot be disputed, but the interpretations of those facts are dependent upon your views of history. If you are a British citizen you will, naturally, tend to think of the American revolution as an act of treason, something which I believe our founding fathers would agree on. American's, on the other hand, will tend to look upon it as a just war for independence from a tyrannical and "greedy" monarchy which was exploiting the colonies while not giving the people the rights of British citizens. It was a simple question of whether the profits from American resources and labor should be given to London, making their rich landowners wealthier, or remain in the Americas, making OUR rich landowners wealthier. Nothing new about that.

As for the French and Spanish, as you pointed out, they supported the rebellion not out of a love for America but out of hatred for Britain. And lets face it: we have helped the French out over the years. We gave the French more than $23 million, plus canceled debts over $3.7 million, for a worthless chunk (only 828,000 square miles) of land called Louisiana. We helped bail them out of two world wars. We even helped them return to Southeast Asia (Viet Nam) following WW2 despite promises made to Ho Chi Minh. For crying out loud, we even gave them EuroDisney! What more could they want?