Opposition to WW2 in USA (tanks, Eisenhower, Germans, Germany)

[2x3x29x41]

Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41

Your mistake is in embracing the myth that World War II was prosecuted because of 'good' and 'bad'. It wasn't.

Originally Posted by John-UK

It depends on which country you are talking about. The British were the only country to be in from the first day to the last. They were not attacked or attacked anyone. The declared war under principle. Good & bad.

Rubbish.

The UK sat idly by as German violated Versailles, forced the Anschluss, dismembered Czechoslovakia, and brutalize its people. Even after it declared war, it was for reasons of British strategic interest - Germany had become a clear and present danger.

This is not a criticism. It's simply the reality that flies in the face of your overriding national insecurity, that which compels you to seek refuge in your national myths.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41

Rubbish.

The UK sat idly by as German violated Versailles, forced the Anschluss, dismembered Czechoslovakia, and brutalize its people. Even after it declared war, it was for reasons of British strategic interest - Germany had become a clear and present danger.

This is not a criticism. It's simply the reality that flies in the face of your overriding national insecurity, that which compels you to seek refuge in your national myths.

It wasn't a question of sitting back, Britain was a naval power, which kept a smaller Army than most of Europe.

The Germans were no match for the Royal Navy, however in terms of the British Army it took a good deal of tme to move to a war economy and to increase the Army to a level that it could cause the German Army problems, and even the RAF was no match for the Luftwaffe on paper.

Britain tried to secure peace, which was the sensible thing to do, as there is no way we were going to march across Europe and save Czechoslovakia or Poland.

France couldn't even save itself, and that was with the backing of British forces who were left cornered at Dunkirk, it was only later in the deserts of North Africa that British and Commonwealth troops started to cause the German Army real problems.

In terms of Patton he was a decent enough General until he started slapping his men around and fell out with Eisenhower, whilst some of his speeches were controversial and made the papersm which annoyed Eu=isenhower even further.

Patton took over Peover Hall in Cheshire as an HQ during WW2.

Peover Hall | Historic Houses

[2x3x29x41]

Originally Posted by Brave New World

It wasn't a question of sitting back, Britain was a naval power, which kept a smaller Army than most of Europe.

The Germans were no match for the Royal Navy, however in terms of the British Army it took a good deal of tme to move to a war economy and to increase the Army to a level that it could cause the German Army problems, and even the RAF was no match for the Luftwaffe on paper.

Britain tried to secure peace, which was the sensible thing to do, as there is no way we were going to march across Europe and save Czechoslovakia or Poland.

France couldn't even save itself, and that was with the backing of British forces who were left cornered at Dunkirk, it was only later in the deserts of North Africa that British and Commonwealth troops started to cause the German Army real problems.

There's a reason I said "This is not a criticism".

I said that because I wasn't criticizing. I am perfectly well aware of British limitations regarding what it could do about Germany. On the other hand, going back far enough - 1935, when Hitler repudiated the arms limitations of Versailles; 1936, when the Rhineland was remilitarized - to where Germany was so weak, yes, the United Kingdom could have strangled the embryonic Third Reich in the cradle (to paraphrase Churchill as to what he'd have preferred been the fate the of Bolsheviks). Hitler himself knew this. When he sent troops into the Rhineland, it was a gamble and he openly professed that the still-small German Army could have been stopped cold, which would have led to his government being overthrown by the military.

Again, this is not criticism. I do not blame Britain for their reluctance to get involved in another conflict or for their inability to see what the future held. But these facts directly contradict a certain poster's tripe about the UK being unique among powers in that its participation in the war was supposedly all about good versus bad, as opposed to national interest. I have zero use for snowflakes who can't handle the realities of state interests and have to wallow in fairy-tale fantasies about what motivated their nation's actions in the war.

Can we perhaps discuss the war without everyone having their national feelings constantly hurt?

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by victimofGM

I know there were some public figures in USA who were opposed to going to war with Germany but in late 1941 most of them were willing to support the war against Germany. I know the attack on Pearl Harbor played a big part in the change, but did the earlier German invasion of Soviet Russia also play a part? There were Soviet communist spies and sympathizers in USA. prior to Germany’s invasion of Russia they had an agreement with Russia.

This was true big time in both WWI and WWI (and Korea, and Vietnam...of course).....

Churchill was a genius and is said to have manipulated public opinion and world leaders quite well. The Nazis were hated here even when we didn't want to get into the war.

But let me quote Goring here....who was an intelligent man, despite his black mark on history.....

---------
“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

— Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
-----------------------------

We saw it clearly with Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. Anytime "they" decide, the people can be dragged along. That is the truth of history.

[Quietude]

Originally Posted by craigiri

The Nazis were hated here even when we didn't want to get into the war.

Well, not by everyone... Lindbergh, Ford, the German American Bund... nearly all of these shut up or went into hiding after Pearl Harbor, but were not exactly fringe voices before that.

[Frihed89]

Originally Posted by John-UK

Montgomery was the finest general in WW2. He never suffered a reverse. He planned and controlled all the ground armies in Normandy. He had to take command of two US armies in the Bulge. He had more experience as a general than all the US generals in the ETO put together. Literally.

Do some reading. Some basic facts would be nice.

So, Operation Market Garden was a big success, was it? Unfortunately, Ike had little confidence that Monty's plan for Market Garden would work, and could have stopped this fiasco, but did not. Shame on them both.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41

There's a reason I said "This is not a criticism".

I said that because I wasn't criticizing. I am perfectly well aware of British limitations regarding what it could do about Germany. On the other hand, going back far enough - 1935, when Hitler repudiated the arms limitations of Versailles; 1936, when the Rhineland was remilitarized - to where Germany was so weak, yes, the United Kingdom could have strangled the embryonic Third Reich in the cradle (to paraphrase Churchill as to what he'd have preferred been the fate the of Bolsheviks). Hitler himself knew this. When he sent troops into the Rhineland, it was a gamble and he openly professed that the still-small German Army could have been stopped cold, which would have led to his government being overthrown by the military.

Again, this is not criticism. I do not blame Britain for their reluctance to get involved in another conflict or for their inability to see what the future held. But these facts directly contradict a certain poster's tripe about the UK being unique among powers in that its participation in the war was supposedly all about good versus bad, as opposed to national interest. I have zero use for snowflakes who can't handle the realities of state interests and have to wallow in fairy-tale fantasies about what motivated their nation's actions in the war.

Can we perhaps discuss the war without everyone having their national feelings constantly hurt?

It was mainly France that wanted to punish Germany after WW1 in relation to Versailles , Britain was never as enthusiastic with regard to punishing Germany economically, and really just wanted to prohibit Germany from having a Navy.

Germany already had economic control of the Rhine area, and Britain at the time saw the area as rightfully Germany's land, and it wasn't in Britain's interest to see an economically impoverished Germany both in relation to trade and in relation to the threat posed to Europe by the vast Soviet Union.

Britain also had enough on it's plate with Empire, the 1930's Global Recession and numerous other issues, which France and the League of Nations also decided to take no action.

To his credit Churchill did warn in his so called wilderness years about the rise of Hitler's Germany and called for action as well as Britain building up his military strength but fell on deaf ears.

However it should be noted that Hitler taking the Rhineland, was seen as Germany just taking what beonged to it already, and gave no indication that Hitler's Germany had plans to invade other countries, nor could the later events be predicted. Whilst as you rightly point out Britain didn't want to become embroiled in another war in Europe.

In terms of WW2, Britain's role in the later events of WW2 are generally looked upon in a favourable way by historians and the weak politics of the 1930's was replaced by the far more capable and determined figure of Winston Churchill.

[maf763]

Originally Posted by jtab4994

Incidentally the vote to go to war with Japan was 82-0 in the Senate but only 388-1 in the House. The lone vote against war was cast by Montana Republican Jeanette Rankin, an Suffragette and avowed pacifist who stated "As a woman, I cannot go to war and I refuse to send anyone else." She faced heavy pressure to change her vote or at least abstain but she stuck to her guns, so to speak.

Originally Posted by Moth

Must say I have sometimes wondered about the lone holdout.

Ironically, Rankin only served two terms in Congress, 1917-1919 and 1941-1943, and she voted against the declarations of war for both World War I and World War II. Montana had passed a women's suffrage law in 1914, in advance of the 19th Amendment.

[cebuan]

Originally Posted by 509

By the way.....Hitler was awful....the only people worse were Stalin and Mao.

Millions of people were worse, thousands are alive today. They just don't have access to power.

[markg91359]

Originally Posted by Moth

Must say I have sometimes wondered about the lone holdout.

Rankin's action was extremely unpopular. She had the good sense not to run in the next election.

There may be a place for pacifism as a moral and political ideology. However, when your country is militarily attacked by another nation, pacifism no longer makes any sense. Even Rankin should have understood that.