"America Saved Britain"

[Monroe]

As has already been stated on this thread by others, while the American public largely wanted to remain neutral, the American government (and industry) was very concerned about what was happening in Europe and elsewhere. Watching trade partners collapse is not something that can be described as "happily watched". There was plenty of behind doors involvement prior to the American declaration of war. Do you think it was a complete coincidence that the British setup a spy school on Whitby prior to the Americans declaring war? Do you think it is a coincidence that the first directors of the CIA were trained there? Are you familiar with the early works of William Donovan, or perhaps why William Stephenson had his office for the BSC in Rockerfeller center from 1940?

The American government cared. The American people didn't. There's only so much a government can do without the will of the people in a democracy.

 

[Sukerkin]

Where did you read that? I said, "You don't have to thank us. But don't make us out to be Shylocks, either." Pronoun trouble? :angel:

:chuckles: I was getting around to thinking of a tactful way of pointing that out without causing any embarrassment .

 

[Monroe]

Where did you read that? I said, "You don't have to thank us. But don't make us out to be Shylocks, either." Pronoun trouble? :angel:

If America (specifically the people) had actually cared, they would have been fighting at the beginning of the war and there wouldn't have been money borrowed.



Still, I want to know what would the American people have done if Britain hadn't fought? I doubt Russia and Italy would have switched sides. Would America have continued to think it was "Europe's War?" Obviously America was still recovering from WW1. So was the rest of Europe. How big would the Axis of had to get before America got involved or would they wait for Japan to strike in that scenario as well?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If America (specifically the people) had actually cared, they would have been fighting at the beginning of the war and there wouldn't have been money borrowed.

We may have cared - there was much written about the situation in the USA, but we didn't want to get involved.

Keep in mind that things were not that different then than they are now. Europe has always tended to tell the USA to mind our own business and stop sticking our noses into things that don't concern us. And many Americans agreed and still agree with that sentiment.

Still, I want to know what would the American people have done if Britain hadn't fought? I doubt Russia and Italy would have switched sides. Would America have continued to think it was "Europe's War?" Obviously America was still recovering from WW1. So was the rest of Europe. How big would the Axis of had to get before America got involved or would they wait for Japan to strike in that scenario as well?

I do not know. From what I have read, Hitler had no plans to invade the USA; so the world might have ended up with a unified Europe under Germany, a unified Asia under Japan, and a semi-unified North America under the USA & Canada. That's just idle speculation, I have no idea what would have happened.

 

[Tez3]

Bill you take great trouble to misread or misunderstand things I've written on this thread. Mentioning Shylocks as I said is offensive full stop.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill you take great trouble to misread or misunderstand things I've written on this thread. Mentioning Shylocks as I said is offensive full stop.

What do you mean, "as I said?" You said nothing of the kind. How can I misread "As calling us/me Shylock/s? Inappropriate to say the least, a different phrasing would have been better if you think we didn't pay enough back," and "Calling us Shylocks though is offensive especially to me." You made a specific accusation that I said something I did not say. Now you want to modify the accusation and be offended that I misunderstood your accusation too as well as being offended by something I didn't say in the first place? What a stretch!

I suggest you take another look at our interchange; I do not think you are reading anything resembling what I'm saying. And if you're actually telling me I can't use the word "Shylock" period, I respectfully decline to honor your request. I mean no insult by use of the term, and I'm not going to stop using it, as I am not using as an antisemitic pejorative.

Shylock, for those who do not know, was a character in a Shakespeare play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shylock

He was a usurer, a loan-shark, lender-of-last-resort who lent money for short periods of time at a very high interest rate, so much so that the character's name has come to be synonymous with such lenders. The term is even generic enough to be written into US law as a term of law itself in many states:

http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2007/TitleXXXIX/chapter687/687_071.html

(f) "Loan shark" or "shylock" means any person as defined herein who lends money unlawfully under subsection (2), subsection (3), or subsection (4).

(g) "Loan sharking" or "shylocking" means the act of any person as defined herein lending money unlawfully under subsection (2), subsection (3), or subsection (4).

Since the character in Shakespeare's play was also Jewish, many take the use of the term 'Shylock' to be pejorative towards Jews. Especially when used to a Jewish person, ie, "You Shylock!"

I assure everyone that I do not mean any such connotation. I have not accused England of being "Shylocks" in either sense of the word (which would make no sense anyway, the US ran the Lend/Lease program to the UK, not the other way around), and my only statement was that England not accuse the US of being Shylocks, by which I meant loan-sharks or usurers.

 

[Monroe]

We may have cared - there was much written about the situation in the USA, but we didn't want to get involved.

Keep in mind that things were not that different then than they are now. Europe has always tended to tell the USA to mind our own business and stop sticking our noses into things that don't concern us. And many Americans agreed and still agree with that sentiment.

Really? I thought calls for America to "not get involved" started once America started fighting communist countries.

I do not know. From what I have read, Hitler had no plans to invade the USA; so the world might have ended up with a unified Europe under Germany, a unified Asia under Japan, and a semi-unified North America under the USA & Canada. That's just idle speculation, I have no idea what would have happened.

I don't think the Axis would have stopped with the old world.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't think the Axis would have stopped with the old world.

You may be right:

http://hnn.us/articles/32084.html

I simply state that I do not know. You keep saying "I want to know" as if someone can tell you with certainty or pick a fight. I can understand arguments either way, and I am no expert, so I cannot speak with certainty. I simply do not know.

 

[Monroe]

You may be right:

http://hnn.us/articles/32084.html

I simply state that I do not know. You keep saying "I want to know" as if someone can tell you with certainty or pick a fight. I can understand arguments either way, and I am no expert, so I cannot speak with certainty. I simply do not know.

When the concensus seems to be that America saved Britain, it bothers me. There is no recognition that Britain choosing to fight suited America. Britain has German monarchs and close ties. They could have worked out reasonable terms and America would have been left to deal with the aftermath. It wouldn't have been ideal for Britain, but would have saved the UK a lot of casualties and destruction and debt. Chamberlain didn't have to guarantee Poland.

I think America needed Britain to fight while the Axis was still mostly limited Europe or it would have grown out of control. The Allies all needed each other and no one "rescued" anyone.

 

[Carol]

There were certainly forces at work to sway the American people from getting involved. Here's an article from my city's newspaper, in 1933. 8 years before Pearl Harbor and the propaganda machine is well underway.
View attachment $37-01.jpg

TELEGRAM TO CARDINAL O’CONNELL Asks Catholics Not to Take Part In Jewish Protest Meetings BERLIN, Mar. 27 (AP)–Konstantin Von Neurath, German foreign mini- ster, today sent the following cablegram to Cardinal O’Connell of Boston. “According to newspaper reports representatives of the Roman Catholic clergy will take part in large protest meetings at Madison Square Garden in New York, and elsewhere, tonight against alleged programs against German Jews. “I beg to assure your eminence that such allegation are devoid of all foundation. “The recent national revolution in Germany, which aims at stamp- ing out the Communist danger and cleansing the public life of marxist elements, has proceeded with ex- emplary order. Cases of disorderly conduct have been remarkably few and trifling. “Hundreds of thousands of Jews carry on their lives throughout Please Turn to Page Eight

TELEGRAM TO CARDINAL O’CONNELL –Continued from First Page– Germany as usual. Thousands of Jewish stores are open every day. Big Jewish newspapers, like the Tageblatt and the Frankfurter Zeitung, appear daily. Synagogues and Jewish cemeteries are un- molested, contrary to reports cir- culated in America. “These reports, which have in- cluded a fantastic fumor of a St. Bartholowem’s masacre for the night of March 4, evidently eman- ate from sources which desire to poison the friendly relations be- tween Germany and the United States, and to discredit the new na- tional government of Germany. “I would deplore it if the Cath- olic clergy should lend a hand in actions against Germany’s good name.”

 

[Monroe]

But the American people were aware of Germany invading European nations prior to Pearl Harbour.

 

[frank raud]

If America (specifically the people) had actually cared, they would have been fighting at the beginning of the war and there wouldn't have been money borrowed.
QUOTE]I am curious how you think that the money/materiel would have been exchanged. Even after the Americans became directly involved in the war, many of the Allies were purchasing/borrowing under lend lease from the Americans. America had the factories and manpower to turn out the munitions, they were not being shelled on a nightly basis. I somehow doubt that the end result would have been significantly different. Britain essentially ran out of hard currency due to having to pay outright for munitions, tanks, planes, etc. The war continued after the coffers ran dry.

With WWI fresh on their minds, why are you surprised that the American public wasn't enthusiastic about sending "their boys" back to Europe? Has anything changed today? How many folks are pleased that American(and Nato) troops are in Iraq and Afganistan? Not support the troops, but welcomed the opportunity to send their men in harms way half way around the world?

Are you going to answer any of the questions I have posted?

 

[Monroe]

I am curious how you think that the money/materiel would have been exchanged. Even after the Americans became directly involved in the war, many of the Allies were purchasing/borrowing under lend lease from the Americans. After Britain had lost how much of their equipment in France? The US didn't put any troops in action in Europe until the end of 1942. Britain had been using their money and resources since 1939. America had the factories and manpower to turn out the munitions, they were not being shelled on a nightly basis. I somehow doubt that the end result would have been significantly different. Britain essentially ran out of hard currency due to having to pay outright for munitions, tanks, planes, etc. The war continued after the coffers ran dry. It would have been over much sooner if the US had joined much sooner and less resources would have been dependent from an island. The Allies needed each other.

With WWI fresh on their minds, why are you surprised that the American public wasn't enthusiastic about sending "their boys" back to Europe? Of course not, neither was Canada (they had a choice) or most of Europe. Has anything changed today? What nation has been invading industrial nations and breaking international laws in the process? We don't have a similar problem today. How many folks are pleased that American(and Nato) troops are in Iraq and Afganistan? Afghanistan and Iraq are two different beasts and post 9/11, I didn't hear a whole lot of people that disagreed with fighting in Afghanistan. Not support the troops, but welcomed the opportunity to send their men in harms way half way around the world? No one does, but I saw a lot of Canadians damn proud to send their troops to Afghanistan. How many Americans put up resistance to sending troops to Afghanistan after 9/11?

Are you going to answer any of the questions I have posted?

Did I ignore previous questions? I'll go back and take a look.

 

[Monroe]

I thought I answered your questions. I see this one.

Originally Posted by frank raud
Going to war is not necessarily a "choice" that you get to make. Germany had conquered most of Europe, was working on Africa. Working their way towards world domination, with the assistance of their Axis partners. What do you think Britain could have done? Allow Germany to take over?

Yes. America happily watched Germany take over. Britain was offered good terms for peace. Why is it that America joining the war is often seen as "saving Britain?" Britain had a choice. Britain could have surrendered. I'm glad Britain didn't. But it was a reasonable option given Britain wasn' recovered from WW1 yet and not in a position to start a war against Germany, Italy and Russia. Britain was offered better terms than other European countries and Hitler was gambling on Britain joining him.

America was theoritically neutral in the war until the attack of Pearl Harbour. I would debate the "happily watched" part of your statement. How many countries surrendered before being invaded?

As has already been stated on this thread by others, while the American public largely wanted to remain neutral, the American government (and industry) was very concerned about what was happening in Europe and elsewhere. Watching trade partners collapse is not something that can be described as "happily watched". There was plenty of behind doors involvement prior to the American declaration of war. Do you think it was a complete coincidence that the British setup a spy school on Whitby prior to the Americans declaring war? Do you think it is a coincidence that the first directors of the CIA were trained there? Are you familiar with the early works of William Donovan, or perhaps why William Stephenson had his office for the BSC in Rockerfeller center from 1940?

To this I answered that the American people were content to sit back and watch. The people chose not to help until they were attacked. Britain didn't wait until they were attacked and I don't think the Brits were anymore eager to send their men than America was.

 

[Carol]

To this I answered that the American people were content to sit back and watch. The people chose not to help until they were attacked. Britain didn't wait until they were attacked and I don't think the Brits were anymore eager to send their men than America was.

Does this sound like a person willing to sit back and watch?

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...of-my-dad-and-his-service&p=793390#post793390

 

[Sukerkin]

I appreciate the sentiment that Monroe is putting forward and to some extent s/he (sorry, M, don't know which gender is correct ) is not far from the truth. But as ever with matters of history it's not quite as straightforward as the plain statement of the American people on the whole not wanting to go to war again.

America joined the First World War half way through but her units still took a kicking, thanks in no small part to inexperienced officers with inadequate preparation for the 'new' type of war. My grandfather (who fought in both wars) described seeing American units being marched in column at German machine gun positions; you can imagine the loses such behaviour bought. As far as ordinary American's were concerned, they had got involved in a war that was none of their business and lost a lot of young men for no reason.

So it's not a surprise, when Europe exploded in flames yet again (largely because of foolish punitive reparations against the German's), that those same ordinary people were less than keen to get embroiled once more in a fight so far away. Their position was wrong because they were not appreciating quite the magnitude of the threat that Hitler's ambitions represented but it is hard to blame them for it.

As to why we got sucked into it all, well that was an unpleasant mix of our politicians really not wanting to start another war, Hitler being deceptive and making false promises to take advantage of that unwillingness and our having made treaties with other countries that we had no choice but to honour (tho' I think the Polish (justifiably) reckon to this day that we dragged our feet terribly).

 

[Carol]

I appreciate the sentiment that Monroe is putting forward and to some extent s/he (sorry, M, don't know which gender is correct ) is not far from the truth. But as ever with matters of history it's not quite as straightforward as the plain statement of the American people on the whole not wanting to go to war again.

America joined the First World War half way through but her units still took a kicking, thanks in no small part to inexperienced officers with inadequate preparation for the 'new' type of war. My grandfather (who fought in both wars) described seeing American units being marched in column at German machine gun positions; you can imagine the loses such behaviour bought. As far as ordinary American's were concerned, they had got involved in a war that was none of their business and lost a lot of young men for no reason.

So it's not a surprise, when Europe exploded in flames yet again (largely because of foolish punitive reparations against the German's), that those same ordinary people were less than keen to get embroiled once more in a fight so far away. Their position was wrong because they were not appreciating quite the magnitude of the threat that Hitler's ambitions represented but it is hard to blame them for it.

As to why we got sucked into it all, well that was an unpleasant mix of our politicians really not wanting to start another war, Hitler being deceptive and making false promises to take advantage of that unwillingness and our having made treaties with other countries that we had no choice but to honour (tho' I think the Polish (justifiably) reckon to this day that we dragged our feet terribly).

Also, many Americans were being brutalized right here at home, between the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl.

I find pre-war sentiment to be a bit of a curiosity. Listening to my dad, he has fondly said that he and his schoolmates really wanted to fight Hitler. Given what he had to do to join the Army, I think he's right...and that's a very different image than the isolationist description I'd later read about. I wonder sometimes about the sentiments before the war and how many people held what view. My dad may not have been in the majority, but I certainly don't think he was alone in his thoughts either. Someday I'll spend some quality time in the library going through some old newspapers. In my copious free time.

As far as the US and Britain, I'm not sure I fully understand it, there were so many complexities to the situation. The Bretton Woods Accord probably did more to drive the postwar economy than anything else, but I am still trying to wrap my head around it.

This is a sweatshirt I picked up when I went skiing. Its funny, but at the same time the irony is stunning.

View attachment $bretton woods.jpg

 

[Monroe]

Does this sound like a person willing to sit back and watch?

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...of-my-dad-and-his-service&p=793390#post793390

You're referring to an individual. That doesn't change the response the nation had.

I'm not trying to condemn America here. There's only so many times one can put up with America saving Britain when Britain wasn't the only country fighting and as a combined effort, it wasn't enough. All of the Allies were needed and it wasn't a rescue mission.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You're referring to an individual. That doesn't change the response the nation had.

I'm not trying to condemn America here. There's only so many times one can put up with America saving Britain when Britain wasn't the only country fighting and as a combined effort, it wasn't enough. All of the Allies were needed and it wasn't a rescue mission.

One can get a feeling for the tenor of the times here:

http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&h....,cf.osb&fp=d4e5d42df5db18f8&biw=1680&bih=851

For example:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&pg=2380,6996138&dq=america+war+germany&hl=en

"Let it be said right here that this newspaper believes we should never again send American soldiers to Europe."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&pg=1269,4536496&dq=america+war+germany&hl=en

"Mister Sullivan gives his impression of the war's first hours. He notes particularly the immense amount of news broadcast by radio - describes scene at President's Conference when he pledged US non-participation."

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant...t&desc=As+Americans+View+the+War&pqatl=google

"As Americans View the War
The Hartford Courant (1923-present) - Hartford, Conn.
Date: Sep 6, 1939
In his proclamation of August 19, 1914, when Europe was last plunged into a general war, President Wilson said that the United States, "must be neutral in fact as well as in name," and he admonished his countrymen to be "impartial in thought as well as in action." This warning as to "thought" it was impossible to heed."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&pg=6571,3270778&dq=america+war+germany&hl=en

"US Follows Rigid Policy of Neutrality"

Even citizens who were against Nazi Germany and the US Neutrality Act were against war with Germany..

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...J&pg=3646,559504&dq=america+war+germany&hl=en

Seriously; anyone who thinks that the citizens of the USA wanted to go to war with Germany prior to Germany declaring war on us after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would be engaging in revisionism. The USA was in an isolationist mood - not much different from the mood of many of our Tea Party citizens today. We did not want to get involved in a war in Europe. That is not really subject to debate; it's historical fact.

 

[Monroe]

Also, many Americans were being brutalized right here at home, between the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. The Great Depression was international and Canada experienced the dust bowl.

I find pre-war sentiment to be a bit of a curiosity. Listening to my dad, he has fondly said that he and his schoolmates really wanted to fight Hitler. Given what he had to do to join the Army, I think he's right...and that's a very different image than the isolationist description I'd later read about. I wonder sometimes about the sentiments before the war and how many people held what view. My dad may not have been in the majority, but I certainly don't think he was alone in his thoughts either. Someday I'll spend some quality time in the library going through some old newspapers. In my copious free time.

As far as the US and Britain, I'm not sure I fully understand it, there were so many complexities to the situation. The Bretton Woods Accord probably did more to drive the postwar economy than anything else, but I am still trying to wrap my head around it.

This is a sweatshirt I picked up when I went skiing. Its funny, but at the same time the irony is stunning.

View attachment 15448

Most of my Grandparents were London children during WW2, so I know their perspective.
One Grandmother left London at 5 years old and didn't go home until she was 10. Her parents had the money to arrange a nice private school and she said it was lovely.
One Grandfather was shipped out of London, but pissed off every family he stayed with and got sent back to London pretty soon. He was 10 when the war started and felt he was getting a raw deal having to leave London. He did find it disconcerting that classmates started to die off. He liked to see the planes fighting overhead. He was lucky he didn't take cover in the tube, because his mother and little sister both died in the the underground.
One Grandfather isn't from London and turned 18 in '46.
And one Grandmother never left London because her mother had a complete distrust of authorities/society in general. She had 2 teenage sisters dating soldiers, arriving home when the sun was coming up and 3 preteen older brothers smashing windows, pick pocketing soldiers and getting in trouble. She has said London was a big playground with guns, ammo, shrapnel, shelled out buildings, unexploded bombs and plenty of injuries. She didn't really understand the gravity of neighbours dying. Everyone took it so well, she supposed they'd pop in on them later.

I don't really know what the Great-Grandparents were doing during the war.