The only chance of America "being drawn in" would have been a post-FDR U.S. fighting with Germany/Italy/France against Russia. If Hitler's Blitz of London didn't stir up America then nothing could. Keep in mind Nik, America had just fought for the same folks against the same enemy, two decades before. The average farmer in Kansas had no interest in sending his boy all over again to Europe. Let's face it, 1941 middle America thought Europe's a primitive piece of shit. Not to mention America had ten's of millions living here who'd immigrated from Germany. No public support. Period. FDR knew this. Hence leaning on Japan. No, FDR didn't have "proprietary" information. I think the following: America's economy was ailing. Certainly not to Europe's degree but a major recession had hit the U.S. in 1939. For all the ballyhoo about FDR's socialist domestic agenda, the sad fact is America had not yet recovered from the Great Depression. In 1940, 14.6% (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt) of American's were unemployed. FDR had cynically hoped the war in Europe would spark a "War Bride Boom" like that of the first war. I think in 1915-16 GM rose 5000%. 1941 America wasn't like that. There was no war to speak of anywhere in Europe except between Russia and Germany. Thus no massive orders for U.S. built hardware and hence a crappy U.S. economy. Roosevelt wanted war for the economy (that 14.6% unemployed fell to 1.9% in 1943) plus he was an ideological admirer of Russia. Make no mistake about it, FDR viewed Hitler, Mussolini and the Vichy's as fascists for not giving the Red's their props. Roosevelt was a fucking moron. So was Hitler. But what you wind up then is a hypothesis of what was ultimately better for the world. To my death I'll say WWll was the single worst disaster in history. Bar none. To this day Russia is a costlier, more oppressive and more dangerous foe than Germany ever wanted to be. Frankly as an American I don't care what methods Hitler used if only he could have defeated the Communists.
It didnt help in vietnam, where its estimated around 10% of captured documents and intelligence reports were actually read. Regarding churchill, the thread title is typically inflammatory, the quotes are very much out of context; but he wasnt just whistling dixie either, he did mention the rising antisemitism across europe, right? Gee, i wonder what the meant. He must have been a switched on character, his journalistic career was surprisingly prolific. More surprising, is his overall popularity, with the bizarre high pitched speaking voice he had, but his lecture tour of the states must have played a part-maybe he wasnt particularly anti semetic, but like most of his contemporaries, was a diehard anglo supremist, something that likely struck a cord on that tour, certainly with the white house.
I'll think about what you said about whether or not the US would have been drawn into a war against Hitler. It seems unreal to me, and nothing I have ever read suggests this, but I'll think about it. I am curious to see if anyone agrees with this. America's decision to enter WWII as a booster to the economy? Solely? I do care how Hitler achieved his goals. I guess we'll just have to agree to diagree about that. And I am by no means referring only to the Holocaust, which by itself proves that Hitler and a few of his generals and administrators were crazier than a bunch of shithouse rats.
I'd have to agree with that, sure. I can think of only a handfull of wars that were legitimately waged on purely moral grounds, or objections. You have to remember, the early 20th century was still a climate of "big" empire-(it still is, maybe not so obvious now ) in fact, most of the wars of the 20th century were the result of protecting empires. Now, you already knew that-the british malaya campaign, rhodesia, french indochina, dutch guiana, german-prussian teritories, you name it. All these places were invaded for economic gain, originally. Not to bring civilisation to savages, not to spread "freedom" from oppressive regimes, hell no. Unless it would be an easy victory of course, and the place could supply trade routes or ports, always helpfull. So, on the law of averages alone, its reasonable to suggest it was purely economic. The u-boats were sinking huge amounts of US cargo headed for europe, too-an economic threat, it causes problems when produce doesnt reach its destination, in payment terms and elsewhere-remembering, that just a few years beforehand, the US was supplying nazi germany on an equal basis . And, given one of the first things the US military did, was protect the merchant marine; remarkably badly of course, but thats a military bureaucracy for you. Of course it was economics.
An interesting introduction to the subject of why Hitler didn't cause WW2 can be found on the following link. http://judicial-inc.biz/Broomberg.htm If anyone deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, it was Adolf Hitler. Hitler did not want war. World War II was forced on Germany. Poland was encouraged to attack Germany by the promises of British Ambassador Sir Howard William Kennard and French Ambassador Leon Noel. They promised unconditionally that England and France would come to Polandâs immediate aid should she need it in case of war with Germany; therefore, no matter what Poland did to provoke Germanyâs attack, Poland had an assurance from England and France. With this guarantee, Poland began acting ruthlessly. In addition, Kennard and Noel flattered Poland into thinking she was a great power. As the Chinese proverb says, âYou can flatter a man to jump off the roof.â They sabotaged the efforts of those Polish leaders who wanted a policy of friendship with Germany.
It was an injustice committed by Britain and France to declare war on Germany while Poland was attacked by the Soviets at exactly the same moment. Hitler was frustrated with the slaughter of over 50,000 germans from 1933 to 1939, which gave him enough reason to attack Poland without wanting to "conquer to world". Before 1940, Stalin was already attacking territories all over eastern Europe, Romania,Finland,Ukraine etc. The interesting fact about that is that the west didn't care, but whenever Hitler made the smallest move Britain and France started saber rattling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbentrop-Molotov_Treaty Wiki has its moments, but you need to remember its all someone's interpretation. Revisionist history, edited by revisionist historians.......based on the contemporary versions of what contemporary historians and journalists were forced to write, or allowed to write, assuming the version they had had been "cleared" by higher channels, with overwhelming agenda's.
Nice theory, maybe right. Dont you love it when you prove your own theory? Poland couldnt buy support from britain, more than empty promises-and empty they turned out to be. Polish forces refused inclusion in the victory marches, when their air force were denied honours, for the battle of britain. That must tell you they were gipped. Pride, honour, dignity........qualities none but they actually had.