What was the biggest mistake made during WWII? - Page 11

Cyrus · #**101** 07-07-2006, 02:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You need to study the war a little more deeply and understand the idea of Lebensraum.

[/ QUOTE ]Why would you think I haven't studied the history of World War One? Why would you think I don't understand and know about lebensraum ?

I posted that the war against the Soviet Union was a major error for Germany, perhaps the most decicive one, alongside with Germany's decision to declare war against the United States, as soon as Germany's Axis partner, Japan, found itself at war with the USA.

I acknowledged already that for ideological reasons, and since this was Hitler's war, more than anyone's, the war with Russia was a military folly, which should have been avoided by Germany -- but probably inevitable.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that Germany didn't finish the job meant that the Russian campaign was probably doomed from the start, but nearly succeeded anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]The fact that job was not finished is what signifies what the job was doomed from the start? No, that's STROT.

The war against the USSR was, for Germany, a military folly. Germany was a dog to win it - and if Germany had won that campaign (by some miracle), that would NOT have made her the favorite retroactively...

[ QUOTE ]
Still the definitive single-volume book on WWII:
link
Any serious student of the war needs to read this book, or you aren't a serious student.

[/ QUOTE ]Easy now.

adsman · #**102** 07-07-2006, 02:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you think I haven't studied the history of World War One?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny, I thought we were talking about WWII...

OrigamiSensei · #**103** 07-07-2006, 02:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm suggesting that Roosevelt's horrible understanding of economics would have driven him to perpetuate the war, just as it drove him to maneuver the United States into it (in both theaters) in the first place. He couldn't very well attack Britain or the recently "liberated" Europe; Japan and (half) of Germany were already under US monetary imperial control. That left The Soviet Union as an easy target for the next holy war to make the world "safe" for democracy. All Roosevelt would have needed was a trumped up pretext to attack, much like he created with Japan and Germany.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could we have some citations and references to support this, shall we say, "interesting" theory? In particular, evidence that Roosevelt had plans to prolong the war in Europe after victory over Germany. Also I'd like some cites for the "trumped up pretext to attack" - according to my history books Japan attacked Pearl Harbor without a formal declaration of war and Germany declared war on us a day later. That being said I will grant you that according to my reading Roosevelt had already taken sides on the European war and certainly was not looking to avoid a fight. I am not at all convinced he wanted to fight European and Pacific wars simultaneously.

There was another post about the Soviets essentially defeating the German Army on their own without significant assistance on the Western Front, etc. While there can be no question of the immense sacrifice and monumental contribution of the Soviets to the defeat of Nazi Germany the discrediting of the Western allies is a fairly severe understatement of their wartime contributions. America and Britain convoyed large amounts of supplies to the USSR, pounded Germany's industrial centers and cities from the air, fought the U-boat threat and conducted land campaigns in North Africa, the Balkans, Sicily and Italy as well as invading France. All of these things collectively served to scatter and reduce Germany's attention, manpower and industrial contribution to the Eastern front. The Western allies also were responsible for the codebreaking that led to numerous German setbacks. During this time America was also bearing the brunt of the Pacific war, not to diminish the efforts of the British, Dutch, Australians and New Zealanders who also fought.

OrigamiSensei · #**104** 07-07-2006, 02:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would you think I haven't studied the history of World War One?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny, I thought we were talking about WWII...

[/ QUOTE ]
One cannot fully understand the Second without understanding the First. And really, the precursors reach back to the formation of the German Empire with Bismarck as Chancellor.

Borodog · #**105** 07-07-2006, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm suggesting that Roosevelt's horrible understanding of economics would have driven him to perpetuate the war, just as it drove him to maneuver the United States into it (in both theaters) in the first place. He couldn't very well attack Britain or the recently "liberated" Europe; Japan and (half) of Germany were already under US monetary imperial control. That left The Soviet Union as an easy target for the next holy war to make the world "safe" for democracy. All Roosevelt would have needed was a trumped up pretext to attack, much like he created with Japan and Germany.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could we have some citations and references to support this, shall we say, "interesting" theory? In particular, evidence that Roosevelt had plans to prolong the war in Europe after victory over Germany.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no evidence, it is my personal guess as to what Roosevelt, given his previous actions and motivations, would have done. He maneuvered the United States into the war in the first place because he (falsely) believed it would mitigate his Depression, or at least that it would distract the population from his Depression and the economic policies that perpetuated it. Had he not died, it is quite certain that many of his Depression-era economic controls would have been left in place, the Depression would not have ended in '46, and Roosevelt would have needed another war. The most likely candidate would seem to have been the Soviet Union.

[ QUOTE ]
Also I'd like some cites for the "trumped up pretext to attack" - according to my history books Japan attacked Pearl Harbor without a formal declaration of war and Germany declared war on us a day later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbour? Because Roosevelt had placed Japan under an oil embargo. Why did Germany declare war on the United States? Prior provocations by the United States at the behest of the Roosevelt administration. Although it is inarguable that Hitler eventually wanted a war with America, he said as much in Mein Kampf, he had no pretext for one until Roosevelt ordered United States Navy ships to attack German naval forces for many months prior to Pearl Harbor:

[ QUOTE ]
MR. CHARGE D'AFFAIRES:
 . 
The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.
 . 
On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German sub-marines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.
 . 
Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.
 . 
The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:
 . 
Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.
 . 
The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.
 . 
Accept, Mr. Charge d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.
 . 
December 11, 1941.
 . 
RIBBENTROP.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said I will grant you that according to my reading Roosevelt had already taken sides on the European war and certainly was not looking to avoid a fight. I am not at all convinced he wanted to fight European and Pacific wars simultaneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he did not want to fight them simultaneously he would not have provoked them simultaneously.

[ QUOTE ]

There was another post about the Soviets essentially defeating the German Army on their own without significant assistance on the Western Front, etc. While there can be no question of the immense sacrifice and monumental contribution of the Soviets to the defeat of Nazi Germany the discrediting of the Western allies is a fairly severe understatement of their wartime contributions. America and Britain convoyed large amounts of supplies to the USSR, pounded Germany's industrial centers and cities from the air, fought the U-boat threat and conducted land campaigns in North Africa, the Balkans, Sicily and Italy as well as invading France. All of these things collectively served to scatter and reduce Germany's attention, manpower and industrial contribution to the Eastern front. The Western allies also were responsible for the codebreaking that led to numerous German setbacks. During this time America was also bearing the brunt of the Pacific war, not to diminish the efforts of the British, Dutch, Australians and New Zealanders who also fought.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I've posted.

MrMon · #**106** 07-07-2006, 02:37 PM

Sorry if I came off a bit harsh there, I was rushed and distracted by something else.

My point was, attacking Russia was organic to the Nazi ideology, getting away from it was no more likely than getting a dog not to chase a cat. Folly or no, it was going to happen, even if it killed them.

As for the book, everyone really should read it if they are at all interested in the Why of the war and not just the How. It's not just me who proclaims it, it really is that important a book.

bobman0330 · #**107** 07-07-2006, 03:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German sub-marines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would give Nazi propaganda a little less credit. According to wikipedia, both the Greer and the Reuben James were attacked by German U-boats, not the other way around.

Your argument that Roosevelt provoked either war is quite weak. The embargo against Japan was a response to Japan's entry into the Axis. Continuing to send them oil to power their fleet to threaten British and US holdings in the Pacific would have been bizarre.

The situation in Europe is a bit more grey, but as a matter of historical fact, I think it's well-established that Roosevelt's actions did not provoke Germany's declaration of war. It was a response to the US declaration against Japan. Whether Germany would have declared war, or would have induced the US to declare, is an interesting question, but I don't really see grounds here to infer that Roosevelt would have launched an insane war against the USSR. (His wussiness at Yalta strongly suggests he was trying to avoid said war.)

OrigamiSensei · #**108** 07-07-2006, 03:35 PM

Borodog, I thank you for the text of the Ribbentrop missive - I don't recall reading it before and it helps raise the tone of the debate. I have to admit I had a hearty lol over the phrase "ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939". Also before I go on that second item was in response to someone else's post and simply put in there to keep from unnecessarily inflating my post count. Also let me say right now I am no Roosevelt fan or apologist, both for his pre-war domestic policy and in my opinion his seeming appeasement of Stalin.

Now, why did we place the oil embargo on Japan? When you have a neighborhood bully and you think you have a way to keep him in check you do it. Don't forget that we had seen the resounding success (ahem) of appeasement in Europe so we played some brinksmanship and the hardline to try to bring them around. This is evidenced by Roosevelt's continual declarations of "Europe first". The hope was that it would forestall Japanese aggression by taking away a key resource needed to wage war, allowing us to take care of Europe. It turns out that we miscalculated and the leaders of the Japanese military regime decided to gamble anyway.

And why were US destroyers attacking German subs? Because the Germans decided to poke at the same sore they poked at in the First World War, that of unrestricted submarine warfare. There was a threat to US flag merchant ships (and warships) and to American goods being shipped on other flag carriers. This was rightly viewed as a belligerent restriction to our trade and we acted. I cannot speak to the treatment of German flag merchant ships having never read very much on the issue. However, my sense is that it does cross the line of neutrality in a way that the attacks on submarines did not. Now, to back off that high horse somewhat there is no question in my mind that Roosevelt had already chosen sides and was maneuvering us towards war. I think that's pretty clear from the historical evidence. How much of this was a cynical ploy to distract the American public and build the economy versus a genuine belief that the Axis powers were evil and must be stopped is a question I cannot answer for certain, but I believe it tilts significantly more toward the latter than the former.

The bottom line to me is that we did not provoke the war in any substantial manner. The war was provoked by ruthless, evil regimes bent on conquering their desired chunks of the world. To say that it's the fault of the person who stood up to the bully for starting the fight is IMO misguided and wrong.

Borodog · #**109** 07-07-2006, 04:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German sub-marines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would give Nazi propaganda a little less credit. According to wikipedia, both the Greer and the Reuben James were attacked by German U-boats, not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

American naval forces were attacking German naval forces, at Roosevelt's order, prior to the reverse, regardless of which side precipitated any particular engagements. If you would like to argue that such actions are not "provocative", you are free to do so.

[ QUOTE ]

Your argument that Roosevelt provoked either war is quite weak. The embargo against Japan was a response to Japan's entry into the Axis.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what?

[ QUOTE ]
Continuing to send them oil to power their fleet to threaten British and US holdings in the Pacific would have been bizarre.

[/ QUOTE ]

They weren't threatening US holdings until after Roosevelt initiated the embargo.

[ QUOTE ]
The situation in Europe is a bit more grey, but as a matter of historical fact, I think it's well-established that Roosevelt's actions did not provoke Germany's declaration of war. It was a response to the US declaration against Japan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pearl Harbor and the US Declaration of War against Japan provided a convenient trigger, but American naval attacks on German ships, along with America providing material and support to Great Britain was the reason.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether Germany would have declared war, or would have induced the US to declare, is an interesting question, but I don't really see grounds here to infer that Roosevelt would have launched an insane war against the USSR. (His wussiness at Yalta strongly suggests he was trying to avoid said war.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? He maneuvered the US into insane wars with Japan and Germany, which was my point. And yielding territory at Yalta lays the groundwork for later "reliberation".

All of this is a nice discussion, but what Roosevelt would have done had he not died when he did is an impossible counterfactual. All I'm stating is that Roosevelt's economic policies drove him to maneuver the United States into the war in the first place, and had he not died and many of those policies been abolished, his depression would not have ended in '46 and he would have needed another war, and the most likely target would have been the Soviet Union.

I've said my piece on the subject, and whether or not you find it credible really does not interest me.

Borodog · #**110** 07-07-2006, 04:40 PM

OS,

I find your assessment of Roosevelt's motivations lacking in light of his general character. Every political move he made in his life was calculated to expand and tighten his power, yet you assume that his maneuvering the United States into foreign wars was done out of some sense of nobility or justice? "Standing up to the bully"? Roosevelt was the bully, like Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin with him, he was a tyrannical socialist dictator who needed foreign wars because he was killing capitalism (and hence prosperity) at home.