PDA

View Full Version : If Britain were defeated



Mosquito
05-16-2007, 08:55 AM
I have to write up a report, and answer this question,

"What if Hitler defeated Britain in the Battle of Britain and succeeded in conquering Britain?"

Now lets just forget the fact that even if hitler did gain air supremacy he may not have been able to conquer britain (due to Britains large navy), but instead suppose Hitler was succesful in carrying out Operation Sealion fairly early in the war-1940 (after the Battle of Britain). What would the outcome be?, and how would that change the tide of the war?

My opinion:


If Britain were to fall early on in the war then the outcome would be entirely different. Instead of Hitler having to fight and worry about four aspects of the war (The Atlantic, North Africa, invasion of mainland Europe, and the Soviet Union) It would be limited to only one, the Soviet Union. Judging from the speed and success of conquest of the Soviet Union the added troops and supplies not having to be used in the North African campaign but also in the the Atlantic and the Atlantic Wall, would have greatly helped the German offensive. The Battle of Stalingrad was a close and hard one, and with Hitler directing all his resources and attention to the Soviet Union, Stalingrad would have been captured and the Soviet Union taken. With most of Europe (all the important bits) under Germany, there would be absolutely no incentive for the U.S. to enter the war in Europe. We also cannot forget the Commonwealth and its massive contribution to the war effort, and they would certainly not have entered the war either.

With Britain gone, there would be no bombings of German cities, no S.O.E. helping the resistance, and no Royal Navy to combat the German Navy. With the largest navy (Royal Navy) under German hands, Hitler would rule much of the seas. So in my opinion, Britain was an extremely important aspect of the war that needed to be eliminated fairly early on in order for hitler to have complete success.

In summary,


The Commonwealth would stop most operations (unless attacked) This includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa...

Germany would only be fighting on one front (Russain campaign)

Germany would have the largest navy in the world after the capture of the Royal Navy

The United States would propably not delcare war on Germany and not have anything to do with the war in Europe.

The Soviet Union would be captured and under German control.

If you add everything up, Germany would have won the war in Europe and taken much of Africa...



Naturally I would have to back this up with facts, so it would be a great help if some of you could help me there. Im having a bit of a hard time finding the exact stats i need.

what I need:


Strength of the Royal Navy during the war

Strength of the Canadian Navy during the war (I heard they had a pretty big navy)

Stregnth of the British armed forces in general

Strength of the Commonwealth forces in general

Distribution of German forces (what percentage is where, North Africa, Europe, Russia...)

Stregnth of the German Navy

Any massive contributions Britain provided for the war effort (intelligence maybe? S.O.E.?)


It would be much apreciated and of a great help if anybody can find any of the above mentioned things. Or anything that you think may help in supporting my arguement.

And also if you find my reasoning to be seriously off the mark please be feel to tell me so...

Winters
05-16-2007, 09:10 AM
In 1939 Britain had a small professional army. This was backed up by a poorly trained and ill-equipped Territorial Army.

On the outbreak of the Second World War, the British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, agreed to send a British Expeditionary Army to France. Under the command of General John Gort, the force included four regular infantry divisions and 50 light tanks.

The British government introduced conscription and by May 1940, British Army strength was brought up to 50 divisions. Of these, 13 divisions were in France fighting against the German Western Offensive. After the evacuations from Dunkirk were complete, the British Army had 1,650,000 men.

Winters
05-16-2007, 09:11 AM
The British Army only had 100 tanks left after Dunkirk and Vauxhall Motors were under instructions to produce the tanks as quickly as possible. As a result, the early Churchill tank suffered considerable mechanical problems. It performed badly at the Dieppe Raid but was more successful in North Africa. The armament was also inadequate and in March 1942 it was produced with a 6-pounder gun. The following year this was replaced with a 75mm gun.

The first Valentine tanks were delivered in May 1940 and the following year they were sent to take part in the Desert War. During the war there were eleven versions of the tank. For example, the tank's armament changed from a 6-pounder in 1938 to 75mm in 1944. However, the size of the turret remained a problem and the crew constantly complained about a lack of room.

Winters
05-16-2007, 09:12 AM
The Royal Navy, still the largest in the world in September 1939, included:

15 Battleships & battlecruisers, of which only two were post-World War 1. Five 'King George V' class battleships were building.

7 Aircraft carriers. One was new and five of the planned six fleet carriers were under construction. There were no escort carriers.

66 Cruisers, mainly post-World War 1 with some older ships converted for AA duties. Including cruiser-minelayers, 23 new ones had been laid down.

184 Destroyers of all types. Over half were modern, with 15 of the old 'V' and 'W' classes modified as escorts. Under construction or on order were 32 fleet destroyers and 20 escort types of the 'Hunt' class.

60 Submarines, mainly modern with nine building.

45 escort and patrol vessels with nine building, and the first 56 'Flower' class corvettes on order to add to the converted 'V' and 'W's' and 'Hunts'. However, there were few fast, long-endurance convoy escorts.

Winters
05-16-2007, 09:12 AM
hope this helps :D

Gen. Sandworm
05-16-2007, 09:29 AM
Its hard to even ponder a German invasion attempt without having won air supremacy. The Germans lost mainly due to bad intell which resulted in attacking the wrong or insignificant targets. So lets say they got to the point where the RAF was almost combat ineffective. Now you have to cross the channel. Germany did have the supplies and a plan for attack.......sure you can find the details. What I would take a look at is how effective were German Bombers against the RN. I feel confident in saying that there is no way the German Navy could have secured a crossing for the invaders. So that leaves it to air power. Now we know Air power can do it but alot of commanders didnt give it that much concern. Early in the war at least. The idea of the Germans winning air supremacy is possible but could they have kept the RAF at bay and still have enough power to focus on the RN???? Dont for get you need to keep the crossing open too............you cant invade to far without a stream of supplies.

What would keep Britain from withdrawing their Navy to a safe point waiting for the invasion and the trapping the Germans? This plan would work well if you were confident in you land forces.

So

How effective were RN ships against aircraft and vice versa? If the answer is not great then I dont see how the Germans could ever stay on the island! And if they did what where the Germans facing? The best time to launch the invasion would have been right after the retreat at Dunkirk. Of course the German were not prepared. Also remember that it seems to appear thru history that bombing the crap out of people usually seems to strengthen their resolve.

Ok .......... so by some miracle ........ I dont see at the moment. The Germans invade and force the Brits to surrender. Also dont forget about Ireland..........what would they do in the event of a British surrender? Hard to say. What would the rest of the commonwealth do? If Britain did fall I think the Soviet would be watching their boarders alot closer knowing that the Germans could throw the bulk of their forces that way.

I think its safe to say that if Japan bombed Pearl Harbor that Germany still would have honored its pact and declared war on the US. German invasion of the US..........no way. Or Japan for that matter.

Actually at this point your just in the realm of "what if" anymore so you can pretty much say whatever. With all the possiblities is hard to juggle what would have happened. So whatever you come up with minus aliens landing and fighting the Nazis ......... cant really be disputed. :roll:

Gen. Sandworm
05-16-2007, 09:34 AM
hope this helps :D

Good job on the more specific details there Winters! ;)

Winters
05-16-2007, 09:35 AM
Good job on the more specific details there Winters! ;)

thank you sir. :D

Gen. Sandworm
05-16-2007, 11:00 AM
I

The United States would propably not delcare war on Germany and not have anything to do with the war in Europe.And also if you find my reasoning to be seriously off the mark please be feel to tell me so...

If you read my post I find this assertion to be false! Of course "what ifs" are problematic. Yet remember the US never actually declared war on Germany. Germany declared war on the US in response to Japans actions and their alliance. I think you would find the US would still attempt to take on Japan but focus alot more on building up the Navy to keep Axis powers out of N. and S. America. Anyhoo...........JMO

Winters
05-16-2007, 11:18 AM
I think its safe to say that if Japan bombed Pearl Harbor that Germany still would have honored its pact and declared war on the US. German invasion of the US..........no way. Or Japan for that matter.


i agree , theres no way the japanese would have the forces to stage such an invasion of the USA , neither would germany for that matter ...

Winters
05-16-2007, 11:23 AM
Immediately after the defeat of France, Adolf Hitler ordered his generals to organize the invasion of Britain. The invasion plan was given the code name Sealion. The objective was to land 160,000 German soldiers along a forty-mile coastal stretch of south-east England. Within a few weeks the Germans had assembled a large armada of vessels, including 2,000 barges in German, Belgian and French harbours.

However, Hitler's generals were very worried about the damage that the Royal Air Force could inflict on the German Army during the invasion. Hitler therefore agreed to their request that the invasion should be postponed until the British airforce had been destroyed.

By the start of what became known as the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe had 2,800 aircraft stationed in France, Belgium, Holland and Norway. This force outnumbered the RAF by four to one. However, the British had the advantage of being closer to their airfields. German fighters could only stay over England for about half an hour before flying back to their home bases. The RAF also had the benefits of an effective early warning radar system and the intelligence information provided by Ultra.

The German pilots had more combat experience than the British and probably had the best fighter plane in the Messerschmitt Bf109. They also had the impressive Messerschmitt 110 and Junkers Stuka. The commander of Fighter Command, Hugh Dowding, relied on the Hawker Hurricane and the Supermarine Spitfire that had performed well during the Western Offensive.

On the 12th August, 1940, the German airforce began its mass bomber attacks on British radar stations, aircraft factories and fighter airfields. During these raids radar stations and airfields were badly damaged and twenty-two RAF planes were destroyed. This attack was followed by daily raids on Britain.

As a result of the effective range of the Luftwaffe, the battle was mainly fought over southern England. This area was protected by Fighter Command No. 11 under Keith Park and Fighter Command No. 12 led by Trafford Leigh-Mallory. They also but received support from the squadrons based in the eastern counties.

pdf27
05-16-2007, 12:22 PM
Oh no! He mentioned a successful marine mammal. Burn him!

Seriously, nobody has ever managed to come up with a scenario where Sealion would have been a success. The most plausible suggestion I've seen (and a highly unlikely one at that) is of a coup by Lord Halifax and RAB Butler in June 1940 bringing about an armistice on German terms. If the British decide to make a fight of it, they literally cannot lose.


However, Hitler's generals were very worried about the damage that the Royal Air Force could inflict on the German Army during the invasion. Hitler therefore agreed to their request that the invasion should be postponed until the British airforce had been destroyed.
Not really. They required the destruction of the RAF to give the Luftwaffe a chance at protecting the invasion from the RN (the Kriegsmarine having been largely sunk during the Norwegian campaign). Given the German performance over Crete a year later, when unopposed German bombers did a relatively minor level of damage to a large RN force operating far from their home bases, they are highly unlikely to be a major threat.


The RAF also had the benefits of an effective early warning radar system and the intelligence information provided by Ultra.
At this point in the war Ultra decrypts were rather limited and of no tactical use - aircraft simply move too fast.


The German pilots had more combat experience than the British and probably had the best fighter plane in the Messerschmitt Bf109. They also had the impressive Messerschmitt 110 and Junkers Stuka. The commander of Fighter Command, Hugh Dowding, relied on the Hawker Hurricane and the Supermarine Spitfire that had performed well during the Western Offensive.
The Me 110 (allegedly a fighter) required escort by the Bf109s to survive over the UK, while the Stukas were rapidly withdrawn as obselete once the battle started.


As a result of the effective range of the Luftwaffe, the battle was mainly fought over southern England. This area was protected by Fighter Command No. 11 under Keith Park and Fighter Command No. 12 led by Trafford Leigh-Mallory. They also but received support from the squadrons based in the eastern counties.
Wrong. The squadrons based in East Anglia themselves formed 12 group under Leigh-Mallory. Virtually all of the fighting in the battle (and all of the fighting over the south-east) was conducted by 11 group. 12 group were requested on occasion to provide air cover for 11 group airfields, but the combined egos of Leigh-Mallory and Bader resulted in them trying to form up "big wings" which always arrived after the airfields had been bombed.

Frankly, the only way for Sealion to be a success is massive intervention by Alien Space Bats.
However, I suspect your report is more about examining the consequences of the UK dropping out of the war. There are any number of alternate history works dealing with this, but the one I find most plausible ends up with Germany being destroyed from the air in a single day by nuclear armed B-36 bombers from the US (in summer 1947). Certainly the US will get nuclear weapons before everyone else (as in reality), and they are unlikely to remain at peace with Germany for very long after a successful Sealion.

Winters
05-16-2007, 12:25 PM
arrrr , my intellengence has failed :(

32Bravo
05-16-2007, 12:34 PM
It's not your intelligence, it's google. :)

Chamberlain, was pushing for Halifax as his replacement, as opposed to Churchill, it would be interesting to have seen what would have come about if he had had his way and Halifax had become Prime Minister - no it wouldn't ...what am I saying? :)

Winters
05-16-2007, 12:45 PM
god damnit man . i shall not hear of such nonsense :D

Gen. Sandworm
05-16-2007, 02:06 PM
.... minus aliens landing and fighting the Nazis .........




Frankly, the only way for Sealion to be a success is massive intervention by Alien Space Bats.


Speaking of Aliens :D .............there is a what if book out there (cant remember the name) where aliens do come to take over the world during WW2 and all the countries stop fighting each other to fight the aliens...........I did not complete this book coz the aliens didnt seem realistic enough comparded with the ones ive meet. :mrgreen:

Chevan
05-16-2007, 07:34 PM
Seriously, nobody has ever managed to come up with a scenario where Sealion would have been a success. The most plausible suggestion I've seen (and a highly unlikely one at that) is of a coup by Lord Halifax and RAB Butler in June 1940 bringing about an armistice on German terms. If the British decide to make a fight of it, they literally cannot lose.


I/m agree with pdf.
the Sealion was a pure bleff. Germany had no real means to land in England.
All what Hitler wanted by the bombing compain the only to terrorise the Britain and to show who is the "new master of Europe".
And honestly speaking he has reached its goal in the 1941.
Although the Luftwaffe lost more aircrafts but the RAF was absolutely incapable to make the simular action to the Germany( untill the 1943 with help of USA).
Personaly i think the Hitler should be very close to the defeat of Britain in 1942 when u-boats of Deniz had reached the rate of sinked british tonnage till the 700 000 tonns per month - this was a critical limit after that the Britain was incapable to lead the war.
But.... god has created the America , that happily helped to restore the British sea transport.

Rising Sun*
05-17-2007, 12:32 AM
"What if Hitler defeated Britain in the Battle of Britain and succeeded in conquering Britain?"

Now lets just forget the fact that even if hitler did gain air supremacy he may not have been able to conquer britain (due to Britains large navy), but instead suppose Hitler was succesful in carrying out Operation Sealion fairly early in the war-1940 (after the Battle of Britain). What would the outcome be?, and how would that change the tide of the war?

The first issue to deal with is what is meant by ‘conquered’?

1. Negotiated peace with Britain?

2. Control of parts of the British Isles?

3. Total military defeat?

4. British surrender?

The most likely was 1 and or 2, still resulting in 1 and 2. There is no reason to believe that Britain’s peace terms would be any worse than France’s. So I’ll proceed on the assumption that some form of Vichy type government continues in partially occupied Britain.


The Commonwealth would stop most operations (unless attacked) This includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa...

Probably. Although it might be that substantial British forces are transferred to the Commonwealth, or to the colonies, notably Malaya, Burma and India. This also has profound implications for the looming with Japan, especially if the forces to be employed in North Africa and the Mediterranean go there.


Germany would only be fighting on one front (Russain campaign)

Agreed.


Germany would have the largest navy in the world after the capture of the Royal Navy

It doesn’t follow that Germany gets it, any more than it got the French navy. So, like France, Britain may retain its navy to use in its colonies and, if it has any brains, makes sure that that’s where they are and stay upon peace being agreed. This also has profound implications for the looming war with Japan.

Or the ships which would fall into German hands might have been scuttled. Or gone to Commonwealth countries and become part of their navies exempt from any peace with Britain, or even gone to America.


The United States would propably not delcare war on Germany and not have anything to do with the war in Europe.

Almost certainly.

The US was happily trading with, and had corporations operating in, Germany during and after the Battle of Britain. Political and economic reality dictates that the US continues to do so on the terms most favourable to the US.

American strategic assessments well before the war decided that America's interests lay in supporting Britain in any war with Germany. However, once Britain folded, America would have had to adapt to the new circumstances to its best advantage.


The Soviet Union would be captured and under German control.

Probably, apart perhaps from eastern Siberia which could be under Japanese control and a central part which neither Japan nor Germany wanted.

The likelihood depends upon the terms of the peace with Britain.

Assuming that the peace terms prevent Britain fighting the Italians in North Africa and Greece, thus drawing Germany into both theatres and Greece delaying Barbarossa, Germany will be able to execute Barbarossa much better.

If Britain is allowed to operate independently in its colonies then the USSR is safer, because Japan still has to invade Burma and Malaya so that it might come to the same conclusion as it actually did in 1941 and abandon any thought of invading Siberia because of the need to employ forces in the southward advance. If British forces in S.E. Asia are then substantially larger than they actually were, especially air and naval forces, Japan has a much bigger problem in invading British colonies and may not even attempt it.

If Britain is not allowed to operate independently in its colonies, then it may accept Japanese occupation of Malaya and Burma, as Vichy France did with Indo-China. The Japanese then do not need to invade those countries. Britain will not be in a position to impose oil and other embargoes on Japan which led to the Pacific War. America, having reached an accord with the Germans, may be unwilling to pursue the China issue and impose embargoes etc on Japan. America may prefer to come to some arrangement with Japan. Japan has avoided war with Britain in British colonies and has forces actually used for those campaigns available for other purposes, most likely the Netherlands East Indies which produces a third of the world’s oil and can meet Japan’s needs, with or without Burma, and especially if Japan is not engaged in a primarily naval and air war for the next four years. Maybe Japan decides to avoid attacking the US and just takes British and Dutch colonies. Whether America feels threatened enough by Japan’s actions and encirclement of the Philippines to go to war with Japan depends upon what is negotiated between them. Maybe Japan prefers to get the Dutch and British colonies; avoid war with America; and move into Siberia. If so, the USSR is now in deep trouble.

The USSR now gets the opportunity to find out just how well it can fight without British and American Allies, including their naval and air attacks on Germany and Lend Lease support for the next four years while occupying German forces elsewhere. The USSR almost certainly loses on both fronts and ceases to be an important power, regardless of what territory Japan and Germany allow it to hold between the Germans and Japanese. The strongly anti-communist Axis powers will ensure the eradication of communist control of the remnants of the USSR.



If you add everything up, Germany would have won the war in Europe and taken much of Africa...

And a lot else flows from this which would produce a very different world now, such as

- Japan contains or defeats the Nationalists and Communists in China. With the defeat of the USSR and the containment or defeat of Mao, post-war communist states in eastern Europe and Asia don’t exist; international communism is defeated before it got out of the blocks, which suits influential pre-war opinion in the US, and there will be no Cold War.

- Israel never comes into being, while oil rich Arab states would provide oil to the Axis powers as colonies and have no political or economic significance in their own right. The Middle East would remain an under-developed backwater in many respects.

- European colonial powers, either directly or supplanted by Axis ones, continue as before, so the tumultuous post-war overthrow of colonialism in Asia and Africa doesn’t occur. Asia and Africa remain vastly more underdeveloped than now, and with less control of their own affairs.

- No U.N. The Axis powers do whatever they feel like on most of the planet. Until, inevitably, they start fighting among themselves.

- America doesn’t get the WWII boost and never becomes a super-power, but merely a major power along with Germany and Japan.

- Sooner or later the Axis powers probably apply the economic screws to America, to pay back old grievances, and because they can. America either kow-tows to them or embarks on a war which, without the other Allied forces involved in WWII apart, perhaps, from British Commonwealth forces (but don’t bet on it), it has a good chance of losing. Unless by whenever that happens America alone has developed sufficient nuclear weapons and delivery systems to pretty much wipe out Germany and Japan within their national borders and other substantial concentrations elsewhere.

Chevan
05-17-2007, 03:26 AM
The first issue to deal with is what is meant by ‘conquered’?

1. Negotiated peace with Britain?

2. Control of parts of the British Isles?

3. Total military defeat?

4. British surrender?

The most likely was 1 and or 2, still resulting in 1 and 2. There is no reason to believe that Britain’s peace terms would be any worse than France’s. So I’ll proceed on the assumption that some form of Vichy type government continues in partially occupied Britain.

I do not think the Britain could really surrendered without the seriuos battle.
i.e the 1 and 2 is excepted
About 3 and 4 - i think all depends of when?
In in the spring of 1941 befor the Barbarossa and joing the USA into the war - this was a one case.
Certainly the bombing compain was not not enought to defeat Britain.
Let's imagine the Garman had enough the transport ships and air sureriority for the realising the Sealion.
Even if the british troops were relatively weak in the islands the Germans nevertheless needs a big part of its 220 division to occupate the britain ( i think no less then 80-100 division should be sended to the Britain).
Thus this was a best moment for the attacking the Germans by the Red Army through the Poland.
I/m sure the comrade Stalin must clearly understand if the Britain were dwfeated the next turn for the USSR. So the best moment to attack the Britain is the when the Germany captured the Islands.
In this way the sitution could be much less tragical for the Red Army i/m sure the casualites should be ever less then it was in 1941.
Another case if the Britain capitulatded in the 1942 under Germans u-boat terror.
But in this case the USA was already widelly involved into the war, so i do not think the fate of the war really could changed


The US was happily trading with, and had corporations operating in, Germany during and after the Battle of Britain. Political and economic reality dictates that the US continues to do so on the terms most favourable to the US.

American strategic assessments well before the war decided that America's interests lay in supporting Britain in any war with Germany. However, once Britain folded, America would have had to adapt to the new circumstances to its best advantage.

i/m strongly doubt the USA leaders were so stupid to let the Japanes capture the whole asia and Pacific islands - in this way the Japanes could easy to cut off the oxygen for the America.
independently of the interests of some americans companies the strategy of USA should be to stop the Japanes. So i think the americans should make everything for defence of the Australia, New Zeland and ets. ( even if the Malay and India was in the Japane hands).
So the strong Soviet-USSR alliance was inevitable..
BTW in the any case if the Britain was surrendered the whole of lend-lise should come to the USSR. So the Red Army get the additional supporting.
Certainly if the Britain was lost the about 50 division from the Normandy could be moved to the Eastern front finally ( additionaly to the 150 divisions that ere already there).
But ONLY after that the Britain should finally captured.


Assuming that the peace terms prevent Britain fighting the Italians in North Africa and Greece, thus drawing Germany into both theatres and Greece delaying Barbarossa, Germany will be able to execute Barbarossa much better.

I/m really do not think the Britains ere so cowards to surrendered the Garmany without the stragle. So if even iif the Nazy had landed to the islands they was still vilnerable for the attack of red army.


If Britain is allowed to operate independently in its colonies then the USSR is safer, because Japan still has to invade Burma and Malaya so that it might come to the same conclusion as it actually did in 1941 and abandon any thought of invading Siberia because of the need to employ forces in the southward advance. If British forces in S.E. Asia are then substantially larger than they actually were, especially air and naval forces, Japan has a much bigger problem in invading British colonies and may not even attempt it.

If Britain is not allowed to operate independently in its colonies, then it may accept Japanese occupation of Malaya and Burma, as Vichy France did with Indo-China. The Japanese then do not need to invade those countries. Britain will not be in a position to impose oil and other embargoes on Japan which led to the Pacific War. America, having reached an accord with the Germans, may be unwilling to pursue the China issue and impose embargoes etc on Japan. America may prefer to come to some arrangement with Japan. Japan has avoided war with Britain in British colonies and has forces actually used for those campaigns available for other purposes, most likely the Netherlands East Indies which produces a third of the world’s oil and can meet Japan’s needs, with or without Burma, and especially if Japan is not engaged in a primarily naval and air war for the next four years. Maybe Japan decides to avoid attacking the US and just takes British and Dutch colonies. Whether America feels threatened enough by Japan’s actions and encirclement of the Philippines to go to war with Japan depends upon what is negotiated between them. Maybe Japan prefers to get the Dutch and British colonies; avoid war with America; and move into Siberia. If so, the USSR is now in deep trouble.

The USSR now gets the opportunity to find out just how well it can fight without British and American Allies, including their naval and air attacks on Germany and Lend Lease support for the next four years while occupying German forces elsewhere. The USSR almost certainly loses on both fronts and ceases to be an important power, regardless of what territory Japan and Germany allow it to hold between the Germans and Japanese. The strongly anti-communist Axis powers will ensure the eradication of communist control of the remnants of the USSR.
well i could agree.
But as i said i/m strongly doubt the americans were so naive to let the Japanes to do what they want.
In any way the Japanes staff very understimated the USA ability to fight. So i think the Perl Harbor was inevitable in any cases - was the britain surrender or not.

Rising Sun*
05-17-2007, 07:18 AM
I do not think the Britain could really surrendered without the seriuos battle.
i.e the 1 and 2 is excepted
About 3 and 4 - i think all depends of when?
In in the spring of 1941 befor the Barbarossa and joing the USA into the war - this was a one case.

I was sticking to the OP’s scenario that Britain is defeated by the end of 1940 by a successful Sealion invasion after Britain loses the Battle of Britain.

Germany probably couldn't do what was necessary to defeat Britain by arms in the couple of months before the end of 1940, if only because it couldn’t get enough troops, weapons and supplies over and the RN, and remaining RAF, would be hammering invasion fleets and supply fleets. But Germany could do enough to make the British leadership, some of whom were already in favour of negotiating terms with Germany following Dunkirk, negotiate terms. That’s why I picked 1 and 2.


i/m strongly doubt the USA leaders were so stupid to let the Japanes capture the whole asia and Pacific islands - in this way the Japanes could easy to cut off the oxygen for the America.

True.

But if Japan got Malaya and Burma by British permission and took the NEI, and didn’t attack America, they didn’t need to go to the other places they took primarily for their defence. If America was assured that Japan would not attack, it might have done a deal.

Remember that the Pacific war was in part a contest between America and Japan for control of the Pacific and access to China, which had been a long standing contest, but the immediate issue was about Japan getting access to resources and America denying them. If each party had compromised, they could have done a deal. It wouldn’t be any more surprising than the staunchly anti-communist Americans allying themselves with the USSR when it was in their interests. Nations will always make deals with the devil when it suits them and they don‘t have a better choice.


independently of the interests of some americans companies the strategy of USA should be to stop the Japanes. So i think the americans should make everything for defence of the Australia, New Zeland and ets. ( even if the Malay and India was in the Japane hands).

Not in a fit.

America considered abandoning Australia and New Zealand in the real war. In this ‘what if’ war America would have no reason to defend Australia and New Zealand, with which it had no important trade or other relationships. Anyway, in the real war America didn’t defend Australia and New Zealand. It used them as bases for its own purposes and in the process defended them. In this ‘what if’ war, America is better off ditching Australia and New Zealand and freeing itself of long lines of supply to countries it doesn’t need to fight Japan, when it’s not going to fight Japan anyway. It would make a lot more sense to devote the same forces to anywhere else, from the Philippines to Wake Island to Hawaii to California.


So the strong Soviet-USSR alliance was inevitable.

Do you mean Soviet-US alliance?

If so, I wouldn’t bet on it.

What does America get out of supporting the communist USSR to defeat Germany in eastern Europe when strongly capitalist and strongly anti-communist America’s pre-war strategic assessments were all based on America’s interests being connected with the survival of capitalist Britain and western Europe?

America could be a lot better off with Germany bogged down fighting and occupying the USSR, and cutting off the Comintern and communism at its main source, while maintaining trade and peaceful relations with Germany.


BTW in the any case if the Britain was surrendered the whole of lend-lise should come to the USSR. So the Red Army get the additional supporting.

I wouldn’t bet on that, either.

Who runs the convoys to the USSR with Britain out of the war?

Why does America want to do this, if it suits America to let Germany wear itself out in fighting and occupying the USSR?

America is a capitalist economy. Will it have a lend lease arrangement with the USSR when the USSR is likely to be defeated; America won’t get paid; and supporting the USSR will antagonise the Germans that America has decided are now the real power in Europe that America has to deal with for the foreseeable future?


Certainly if the Britain was lost the about 50 division from the Normandy could be moved to the Eastern front finally ( additionaly to the 150 divisions that ere already there).
But ONLY after that the Britain should finally captured.

But if Britain negotiates terms before the end of 1940, Germany doesn’t need to use too much in the way of forces there. Occupation forces don’t need to be first line troops. Nor does Britain need to be completely disarmed. IIRC France kept about 100,000 troops under Vichy as well as its navy.


In any way the Japanes staff very understimated the USA ability to fight. So i think the Perl Harbor was inevitable in any cases - was the britain surrender or not.

That’s why Britain dropping out by the end of 1940 becomes critical. If it can’t support American embargoes on Japan, maybe America won’t impose them and Japan doesn’t get the trigger for war in mid-1941, so Pearl Harbor doesn’t happen.

pdf27
05-17-2007, 08:53 AM
Probably. Although it might be that substantial British forces are transferred to the Commonwealth, or to the colonies, notably Malaya, Burma and India. This also has profound implications for the looming with Japan, especially if the forces to be employed in North Africa and the Mediterranean go there.
Why would any part of the Commonwealth/Dominions/Empire continue to do what London told them to? London no longer has the power to tell them what to do, anti-German feelings will probably be running high, the Germans can't reach them and their economy has just been kicked out from under them. The Commonwealth/Empire will fragment overnight, and the RN overseas will go with it. At this point, "Vichy" Britain has just lost it's most powerful bargaining chips.


- Sooner or later the Axis powers probably apply the economic screws to America, to pay back old grievances, and because they can. America either kow-tows to them or embarks on a war which, without the other Allied forces involved in WWII apart, perhaps, from British Commonwealth forces (but don’t bet on it), it has a good chance of losing. Unless by whenever that happens America alone has developed sufficient nuclear weapons and delivery systems to pretty much wipe out Germany and Japan within their national borders and other substantial concentrations elsewhere.
Remember that in @, Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour, rather than vice-versa. There is no reason to suspect things would be different in this alternate timeline. If so, the US is capable of building huge numbers of intercontinental bombers (B-36s) by 1945-46 along with around 100 nuclear devices by 1947. At this point Germany rapidly becomes an ex-country.

Rising Sun*
05-17-2007, 09:40 AM
Why would any part of the Commonwealth/Dominions/Empire continue to do what London told them to? London no longer has the power to tell them what to do, anti-German feelings will probably be running high, the Germans can't reach them and their economy has just been kicked out from under them. The Commonwealth/Empire will fragment overnight, and the RN overseas will go with it. At this point, "Vichy" Britain has just lost it's most powerful bargaining chips.

I wasn't thinking about Australia doing what London told it to do, but what it decided to do in its own right.

London didn't have any power to tell Australia and New Zealand to declare war on Germany, but we both did it at the same time as Britain.

Australia moved away from Britain towards America after Japan attacked and Malaya / Singapore were lost, when Australia realised that Britain couldn't and wouldn't perform its part of the long-standing imperial defence arrangements.

If Japan acquires, by whatever means, Malaya / Singapore, Burma from a defeated Britain and the NEI, and doesn't attack America and America doesn't come into a war with Japan, Australia and New Zealand are left like shags on a rock with no big boys to protect them.

There is then no reason for Australia to alter its allegiance from Britain to America, unless America cuts a better deal with Japan and is willing to include Australia, which was not in America's predatory nature then or at any time since, as our woeful trade arrangements with America have consistently shown.

There was in 1940-41 a depth of fond feeling in Australia towards Britain that Britain probably never understood, to the extent that as child in the 1950's I occasionally heard second and third generation Australians of a particular type refer to Britain, or usually England, as 'Home', even though they'd never been there and would never go there. That inferior colonial sense of connection to the mother country, which wasn't reciprocated from Britain, was at the heart of the raising of the first and second Australian Imperial Forces which Australia sent to both European wars, in which it had no real stake, for Britain's benefit.

Without the abandonment that followed Singapore, and certainly following a distant defeat in Britain, Australia would still be sympathetically disposed towards Britain and avenging its defeat. Not that Australia could do much about it, nor would it be any different to any other nation in looking to its own survival when tested.

On the other hand, if Britain transferred its Mediterranean and Indian Ocean fleets and sundry other remnants from various theatres to Australia then Australia becomes a serious problem for both Japan and America in deciding what to do, as in conjunction with the useful NEI navy it can frustrate Japan's intentions and in conjunction with the NEI navy and America it presents rather more naval forces from a different direction than Japan ever had to contend with.


Remember that in @, Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour, rather than vice-versa. There is no reason to suspect things would be different in this alternate timeline. If so, the US is capable of building huge numbers of intercontinental bombers (B-36s) by 1945-46 along with around 100 nuclear devices by 1947. At this point Germany rapidly becomes an ex-country.

But this assumes that America has decided to go to war with, rather than continue to trade with, Germany. Why would America want to wipe out what could be its biggest export market by 1947, including occupied Britain?

Pvt. SNAFU
06-02-2007, 11:36 PM
The Nazis could have won the war through sea power if Hitler was more patient. according to the book "Hitler Military Commander" by Rupert Matthews, the Kriegsmarine was still under construction during Sealion. If hitler put the same amount of time and money into the Krigsmarine as he did with the army, the German Navy would have been completed by 1943, and would have enough strength to challange the Royal Navy in 1946. This could have brought Britain to her knees.

BDL
06-03-2007, 02:00 AM
The Nazis could have won the war through sea power if Hitler was more patient. according to the book "Hitler Military Commander" by Rupert Matthews, the Kriegsmarine was still under construction during Sealion. If hitler put the same amount of time and money into the Krigsmarine as he did with the army, the German Navy would have been completed by 1943, and would have enough strength to challange the Royal Navy in 1946. This could have brought Britain to her knees.

Assuming the British just didn't bother building any new ships to challenge this new Kriegsmarine of course...

Also, if Germany had put as much time and money into the Kriegsmarine as they did into the Heer, the Heer would have been a lot weaker, could well have been defeated in the invasion of France and the invasion still wouldn't have been possible.

Digger
06-05-2007, 03:10 AM
I'll open another can of worms here. In 1940 the USA was largely isolationist in outlook and the majority of it's people wanted nothing to do with any European war.

To further complicate the issue by 1938 the third largest political party in America was the National Socialist Party of America and remember there was enough racism in the US for many people to whole heartedly agree with Nazi Germany's ideals.

So a British defeat in 1940 would not have automatically led to future hostilities between Germany and the USA. This was a similar line of thinking in a novel some years ago-Fatherland, which became a major movie starring Rutger Hauer.

Regards digger.

Chevan
06-05-2007, 03:38 AM
Hi Digger-mate.
Its strange - why i/m absolutly agree with you practically always;)
Sure you right in the USA the NSP was a big power and the american isolationism could peacefully exist near the fascist Europe.
Indeed was the European war so bad for the some of american capitalists?
The oil and wearpon super-profits is good think;)
I heared the Hitler were called the "men of year" in one american magazine in the 1938;)
Indeed the treat for the USA coudl appeared only fro a japanes militarism - if the case of the war success in Asia and Pacific Japanes could cut off the USA from a resources. So it was absolutly normal that the USA joined the WW2 agains Japanes.

Chevan
06-05-2007, 07:04 AM
.

But if Japan got Malaya and Burma by British permission and took the NEI, and didn’t attack America, they didn’t need to go to the other places they took primarily for their defence. If America was assured that Japan would not attack, it might have done a deal.

I/m strongly doubt mate that the Japane would wish to do a deal with USA if they succesfully captured the British colonies in asia.
Do not forget the american army in that period was a too small and they had a lack of combat experience. To the contrast the Japanes feel good - they were insolent.
Why the were need to sign a treaty with the USA if they could capture the whole asia and Pathific ( especially when the Hitler peomised them to declare the war for the USA)
So i think the war Japane-USA comflict shoulf be inevitable.


Remember that the Pacific war was in part a contest between America and Japan for control of the Pacific and access to China, which had been a long standing contest, but the immediate issue was about Japan getting access to resources and America denying them.

Actually the China was the one mor ethe reason to attack the USA for the japanes.


If each party had compromised, they could have done a deal. It wouldn’t be any more surprising than the staunchly anti-communist Americans allying themselves with the USSR when it was in their interests. Nations will always make deals with the devil when it suits them and they don‘t have a better choice.

As i said above there is no any comromise could be becouze - the Japanes do not wish any compromise;)
And i think you uncorect about "staunchly anti-communist" of Americans - it will apeared only AFTER the WW2 when the Cold war has come, but befor the WW2 the USA took active part in supporting of bolshevicks - they selled them a lot of things and sponsorred them.
For instance to company of Bransdall corp helped the bolshevick to bagan the oil extraction in the Baky in 1921-22.
So i do not see the reason to reject the US-Soviet ally in the ww2 ( especially if you admit the "deal with the devil")




America considered abandoning Australia and New Zealand in the real war. In this ‘what if’ war America would have no reason to defend Australia and New Zealand, with which it had no important trade or other relationships. Anyway, in the real war America didn’t defend Australia and New Zealand. It used them as bases for its own purposes and in the process defended them. In this ‘what if’ war, America is better off ditching Australia and New Zealand and freeing itself of long lines of supply to countries it doesn’t need to fight Japan, when it’s not going to fight Japan anyway. It would make a lot more sense to devote the same forces to anywhere else, from the Philippines to Wake Island to Hawaii to California.

I think befor the treat of the Japan invasion the USA will help the Australians ans New Zeland to defence themself- somply coz after the downfallof those terrotories the Japane wiould get the excellent bases for the future attacks at the US.


Do you mean Soviet-US alliance?

If so, I wouldn’t bet on it.

What does America get out of supporting the communist USSR to defeat Germany in eastern Europe when strongly capitalist and strongly anti-communist America’s pre-war strategic assessments were all based on America’s interests being connected with the survival of capitalist Britain and western Europe?[

Exactly that same interests forced to support the strong communists in USSR in fight agains GErmany- the own interests.
Indeed as teach us the experience of the WW2 the difference of ideology is not a barier for the succesfull war alliance.
So in the case of Britain osin the war in the 1940-41 the ONLY single state who could joint the USA - USSR. Becouse in the Japanes-American war the alternatives simply were not existed.


America could be a lot better off with Germany bogged down fighting and occupying the USSR, and cutting off the Comintern and communism at its main source, while maintaining trade and peaceful relations with Germany.

Do not make me laugh dear Rising Sun;)
The USA simply could never hve the peacefull relations with the NAzy Germany - coz - the elite of the USA already in the 1930-40 were moslty jewish . (In fact the manies of superichest american families - have a jewish families).
So you please do not be the naive to believe in the peace with Nazy;)
Actually for the first time the USA could get the profit from a trade with the bloody fighting Europe - to sell the oil, wearpons and ets. But in the case of Britain and Soviet lose the fate of USA would be decided.And American gov should make everythink possible not to let germany win the war.


Who runs the convoys to the USSR with Britain out of the war?

The Americans runs the convois via the Pacific way.
It seems you don';t know but the Nothern sea way throug the Murmansk was not a main way of lend-leas. the majority of the goods come from the Iran and Pathific ocean and Syberia.
So indeed the lost of Britain would no effect to the Lend-lise supplies to the USSR.


Why does America want to do this, if it suits America to let Germany wear itself out in fighting and occupying the USSR?

Becouse the Victory of Germany was not in the interests of rulling elite of USA.

America is a capitalist economy. Will it have a lend lease arrangement with the USSR when the USSR is likely to be defeated; America won’t get paid; and supporting the USSR will antagonise the Germans that America has decided are now the real power in Europe that America has to deal with for the foreseeable future?

As i sid the foreseeable future of USA was not interested in the Nazy victory over the Europe so the defeat of Britain should force the USA to help the USSR - simply coz no one more resisted the Nazy in Europe.

That’s why Britain dropping out by the end of 1940 becomes critical. If it can’t support American embargoes on Japan, maybe America won’t impose them and Japan doesn’t get the trigger for war in mid-1941, so Pearl Harbor doesn’t happen.
Well i there is a lot of foolish try to bet in the speculative like "What if".
My point -if the britain losed the war already in the 1940 - the NOTHINK could stop the agressive japanes to attack the whole Pathific except the USA- therefore from a point of Japane the conflict should be inevitable - this means the Perl Harbor should be.
But.... i m understand this is just a speculative so you could be right too.

Cheers

Rising Sun*
06-05-2007, 08:26 AM
Chevan

In November 1941 only about 25% of Americans favoured involvement in the European war.

There were strong and influential movements against such involvement
http://libraryautomation.com/nymas/americafirst.html

Check out some of the American corporations heavily involved with Nazi Germany.


In the 1920s many big American corporations enjoyed sizeable investments in Germany. IBM established a German subsidiary, Dehomag, before World War I; in the 1920s General Motors took over Germany's largest car manufacturer, Adam Opel AG; and Ford founded a branch plant, later known as the Ford-Werke, in Cologne. Other US firms contracted strategic partnerships with German companies. Standard Oil of New Jersey — today's Exxon — developed intimate links with the German trust IG Farben. By the early 1930s, an élite of about twenty of the largest American corporations had a German connection including Du Pont, Union Carbide, Westinghouse, General Electric, Gilette, Goodrich, Singer, Eastman Kodak, Coca-Cola, IBM, and ITT. Finally, many American law firms, investment companies, and banks were deeply involved in America's investment offensive in Germany, among them the renowned Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, and the banks J. P. Morgan and Dillon, Read and Company, as well as the Union Bank of New York, owned by Brown Brothers & Harriman.

The Union Bank was intimately linked with the financial and industrial empire of German steel magnate Thyssen, whose financial support enabled Hitler to come to power. This bank was managed by Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush. Prescott Bush was allegedly also an eager supporter of Hitler, funnelled money to him via Thyssen, and in return made considerable profits by doing business with Nazi Germany; with the profits he launched his son, the later president, in the oil business.

As for trading with Germany once the European war began (my bold)


Putting the Blitz in the Blitzkrieg

Germany's military successes of 1939 and 1940 were based on a new and extremely mobile form of warfare, the Blitzkrieg, consisting of extremely swift and highly synchronized attacks by air and land.

To wage "lightning war," Hitler needed engines, tanks, trucks, planes, motor oil, gasoline, rubber, and sophisticated communication systems to insure that the Stukas struck in tandem with the Panzers. Much of that equipment was supplied by American firms, mainly German subsidiaries of big American corporations, but some was exported from the US, albeit usually via third countries. Without this kind of American support, the Führer could only have dreamed of "lightning wars," followed by "lightning victories," in 1939 and 1940.

Many of Hitler's wheels and wings were produced in the German subsidiaries of GM and Ford. By the end of the 1930s these enterprises had phased out civilian production to focus exclusively on the development of military hardware for the German army and air force.

This switch, requested — if not ordered — by the Nazi authorities, had not only been approved, but even actively encouraged by the corporate headquarters in the US. The Ford-Werke in Cologne proceeded to build not only countless trucks and personnel carriers, but also engines and spare parts for the Wehrmacht. GM's new Opel factory in Brandenburg cranked out "Blitz" trucks for the Wehrmacht, while the main factory in Rüsselsheim produced primarily for the Luftwaffe, assembling planes such as the JU-88, the workhorse of Germany's fleet of bombers. At one point, GM and Ford together reportedly accounted for no less than half of Germany's entire production of tanks. (Billstein et al., 25,) 24

Meanwhile ITT had acquired a quarter of the shares of airplane manufacturer Focke-Wulf, and so helped to construct fighter planes. 25 Perhaps the Germans could have assembled vehicles and airplanes without American assistance. But Germany desperately lacked strategic raw materials, such as rubber and oil, which were needed to fight a war predicated on mobility and speed. American corporations came to the rescue.

As mentioned earlier, Texaco helped the Nazis stockpile fuel. In addition, as the war in Europe got underway, large quantities of diesel fuel, lubricating oil, and other petroleum products were shipped to Germany not only by Texaco but also by Standard Oil, mostly via Spanish ports. (The German Navy, incidentally, was provided with fuel by the Texas oilman William Rhodes Davis.) 26 In the 1930s Standard Oil had helped IG Farben develop synthetic fuel as an alternative to regular oil, of which Germany had to import every single drop. (Hofer and Reginbogin, 588–9)

Albert Speer, Hitler's architect and wartime armament minister, stated after the war that without certain kinds of synthetic fuel made available by American firms, Hitler "would never have considered invading Poland." 27 As for the Focke-Wulfs and other fast German fighter planes, they could not have achieved their deadly speed without a component in their fuel known as synthetic tetraethyl; the Germans themselves later admitted that without tetraethyl the entire Blitzkrieg concept of warfare would have been unthinkable.

This magic ingredient was produced by an enterprise named Ethyl GmbH, a daughter firm of a trio formed by Standard Oil, Standard's German partner IG Farben, and GM. (Hofer and Reginbogin, 589) 28 Blitzkrieg warfare involved perfectly synchronized attacks by land and by air, and this required highly sophisticated communications equipment. ITT's German subsidiary supplied most of that apparatus, while other state-of-the-art technology useful for Blitzkrieg purposes came compliments of IBM, via its German branch plant, Dehomag. According to Edwin Black, IBM's know-how enabled the Nazi war machine to "achieve scale, velocity, efficiency"; IBM, he concludes, "put the 'blitz' in the krieg for Nazi Germany." (Black, 208) From the perspective of corporate America it was no catastrophe that Germany had established its mastery over the European continent by the summer of 1940.

Some German subsidiaries of American corporations — for example the Ford-Werke and Coca-Cola's bottling plant in Essen — were expanding into the occupied countries, riding the coat-tails of the victorious Wehrmacht. IBM's president, Thomas Watson, was confident that his German branch plant would gain advantage from Hitler's triumphs. Black writes: "Like many [other US businessmen], Watson expected" that Germany would remain master of Europe, and that IBM would benefit from this by "[ruling] the data domain," that is, by providing Germany with the technological tools for total control. (Black, 212)

On 26 June 1940 a German commercial delegate organized a dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York to cheer the victories of the Wehrmacht in western Europe. Many leading industrialists attended, including James D. Mooney, the executive in charge of GM's German operations. Five days later, the German victories were again celebrated in New York, this time at a party hosted by the philo-fascist Rieber, boss of Texaco. Among the leaders of corporate America present were James D. Mooney and Henry Ford's son, Edsel. 29

What a Wonderful War!

Nineteenfourty proved an exceptionally good year for corporate America. Not only did the subsidiaries in Germany share in the spoils of Hitler's triumphs, but the European conflict was generating other wonderful opportunities. America herself was now preparing for a possible war, and from Washington orders for trucks, tanks, planes, and ships started rolling in. Moreover, initially on a strict "cash-and-carry" basis and then through "Lend-Lease," President Roosevelt allowed American industry to supply Great Britain with military hardware and other equipment, thus enabling brave little Albion to continue the war against Hitler indefinitely.

By the end of 1940, all belligerent countries as well as armed neutrals like the US itself were being girded with weaponry cranked out by corporate America's factories, whether stateside, in Great Britain (where Ford et al., also had branch plants), or in Germany. It was a wonderful war indeed, and the longer it lasted, the better — from a corporate point of view.

Corporate America neither wanted Hitler to lose this war nor to win it; instead they wanted this war to go on as long as possible. Henry Ford had initially refused to produce weapons for Great Britain, but now he changed his tune. According to his biographer, David Lanier Lewis, he "expressed the hope that neither the Allies nor the Axis would win [the war]," and he suggested that the US should supply both the Allies and the Axis powers with "the tools to keep on fighting until they both collapse." 30

On 22 June 1941 the Wehrmacht rolled across the Soviet border, powered by Ford and GM engines and equipped with the tools produced in Germany by American capital and know-how.

While many leaders of corporate America hoped that the Nazis and the Soviets would remain locked for as long as possible in a war that would debilitate them both, 31 thus prolonging the European war that was proving to be so profitablee experts in Washington and London predicted that the Soviets would be crushed, "like an egg" by the Wehrmacht. 32 The USSR, however, became the first country to fight the Blitzkrieg to a standstill.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PAU20070127&articleId=4607

Rising Sun*
06-05-2007, 08:27 AM
Chevan

Corporate America had a lot more real influence than the influence you think Jews had.

If Jews were so influential, why didn't they get America involved from the beginning when it was long known that Jews were being persecuted in Germany? The fact is that Jews had negligible influence on American policy, as demonstrated by the following.


Yet even as Congress passed restrictive legislation, persons fleeing political and religious persecution were exempted from the bars to entry. But in the 1930s, the restrictive forces, bolstered by the strength of anti-Semitism, succeeded in sharply limiting the number of refugees from Nazism able to enter the United States. In 1939, more than 900 Jews aboard the S.S. St. Louis, a passenger ship that left from Hamburg, Germany, bound for Havana, Cuba, were forced to return to Europe when-after Cuba refused to allow the refugees to disembark-the United States then denied the ship, which was in sight of Miami, permission to dock. Hundreds of those refused entry to the United States died in concentration camps.

Even in 1943, when the facts of the ongoing Holocaust were well-known to U.S. policymakers, Secretary of State Cordell Hull opposed any expansion of existing refugee quotas to receive Jewish refugees from Europe. Hull argued that this "would be likely to result in throwing the whole refugee question into Congress, where there is a prevailing sentiment for even more dramatic curtailment of immigration into this country.. I cannot recommend that we open the question of relaxing the provisions of our immigration laws and run the risk of a prolonged and bitter controversy in Congress on the immigration question-considering the generous quantity of refugees we have already received." [6] (Official statistics later showed that between 1933 and 1943, the refugee quota from European countries dominated by the Nazis was underfilled by more than 400,000 places.)
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/refugees/reports/due_process/due_pro_I.htm

Kato
06-05-2007, 09:17 AM
If Jews were so influential, why didn't they get America involved from the beginning when it was long known that Jews were being persecuted in Germany?

I believe that before the WWII the main enemy of jews or at least zionists was Britain. It closed Palestine for jewish emigration in order to calm down the Arabian majority and avoid a full-scale armed erthnic conflict there. Britain supressed jewish claims to restore Israel then. By the way in the mid 1930s Nazi collaborated with zionist organizations assisting them to deploy German jews to Palestine in spite of the British ban and tight security measures on the borders of Palestine. There were very few German jews who wanted to move to their hystoric motherland due to harsh local conditions. Neither Nazi nor zionists didn't care much for their opinions. Tens of thousands of jews from Germany were smuggled to Palestine in violation of the British laws thanks to the fruitful cooperation between SS and Zionists. However Britain imposed the total land and sea blockade on Palestine and managed to put an end to jewish illegal emigration as well as that Nazi-Jewish project.

pdf27
06-05-2007, 10:32 AM
...the German Navy would have been completed by 1943, and would have enough strength to challange the Royal Navy in 1946. This could have brought Britain to her knees.
As has been said before, only if the UK did nothing. That was highly unlikely to happen, and remember that the UK had an absolutely commanding position - every sea lane from the Atlantic to Germany goes right past the UK, making the German fleet sitting ducks for land-based air by 1946. Note also just how bad the German carrier designs were.

Finally, you're missing another critical point. The Germans had finite resources, and those spent on building ships could not be spent on other things. In this case, it would have impacted on heavy artillery, tanks and U-boats - the very weapons that were to prove the most critical to the German war effort in @. Had they built up their fleet, it is quite possible that they would have faced a strategic repeat of 1914-18 - without the good luck they had at Jutland and facing British Warships greatly superior to their own.

Chevan
06-06-2007, 12:33 AM
Chevan

In November 1941 only about 25% of Americans favoured involvement in the European war.

There were strong and influential movements against such involvement
http://libraryautomation.com/nymas/americafirst.html

Check out some of the American corporations heavily involved with Nazi Germany.

I know about corporate american isolationaim.
And thatks for the interesting material Rising Sun.
But it seems you do not understand something;)
True american investitions to the Germany in 1920-yearly 1930 is nothing surprised.As we know the american corporation helped even the bolshevicks in that time.Just bisiness.
The trade with Nazy Gerrmany since 1933-untill 1941 is not surprised too. As we know the USSR also sell the Nazy the materials and get the equipment for its plants in 1939-1941.
So for the first period of war the all state make a profit from a trade with Nazy coz it was in its interests.
But my fried...... the next period of war ( till the end of 1941) when there were no a much mass executions, deat-camps and war crimes this war look like a simple imperialistic war for the resources.
And every both USSR and USA get a profit from this situation for ITS OWN INTERESTS.
Till the 1941 when the Nazy while did not show its unhuman race face - this was all right.
The next stege of war when the Nazy bagan its "final solution" of jews the situation has changed - and american elite could no more be the neitral for the Nazy.


Albert Speer, Hitler's architect and wartime armament minister, stated after the war that without certain kinds of synthetic fuel made available by American firms, Hitler "would never have considered invading Poland
Thanks mate for infor.
I will say it for my polish friends every time when they will say the Stalin help the Hitler to conquer the Poland:)
Now we know the American corporations did it.:D

Cheers.

Chevan
06-06-2007, 12:47 AM
If Jews were so influential, why didn't they get America involved from the beginning when it was long known that Jews were being persecuted in Germany? The fact is that Jews had negligible influence on American policy, as demonstrated by the following.



And how do you think mate , why the soviet gov ( that consist at leas 80% from a jews at that time) decided to colloborate with Nazy in 1939;)?
As i said the everybody had its OWN interests in this period - american made a money ,soviet made a military plants- everybody were glad while the Garmans conquered the Europe. This was a simple imerialistic war .........for the while.
They all watch to the pinching of jews in the Poland and western Europe- but they did not see while the mass executions and death-camps.Becouse it were not there.
So the American corporation that controlled by the jews actually see nothing against very profitable trade with Nazy in this pariod of war.
May be Hitler did not wish widly pursuted the jews in this period - to not harm the trade with the America and other. He wish still to save the "human face" for the other world.
What do you think?

Chevan
06-06-2007, 01:12 AM
Sorry Risin Sun but even the American presiden Roswelt wish to join the USA in the war against Germany.I read a article where he told the sombody (it seems his sun Eliot ) about resistence of american isolationists like Ford in senat.
And if i'm righ Roswelt was a ...jew.
He clearly understand the danger of victory Nazy in the war.
So you claims that the USA could be the "friend" (or neithral) for the Nazy in perspective IMO are wrong.
Coz even the Hitler wish the USA as neitral but the American gov was not neitral.

On 11 January, 1941, the U.S. Government introduced to the examination of congress the project of law about rendering aid to states, which fight with the fascism, on the basis of the principle of lease or transfer on loan of weapon and strategic materials. In the course of two-month debates the supporters of Roosevelt overcame the resistance of "isolationists", and on 11 March congress accepted lend-lease act.
It authorized the President OF THE USA to sell, to transfer, to exchange, to give on loan, to give up to the hire and the lease weapons, equipment, foodstuffs and any other goods and materials to any state, whose defense it considers vitally important for the defense of the United States. Actually, lend-lease act meant that THE USA will, at the discretion of their President, send weapon and strategic materials of all those, who fight and will fight with the Fascist block, independent of their solvency.
R.Sherwood. Rosewelt and Hopkins.: look of eyewitness 1958

Anyway the US gov was not interested in the victory of Nazy.

Chevan
06-06-2007, 01:13 AM
I believe that before the WWII the main enemy of jews or at least zionists was Britain. It closed Palestine for jewish emigration in order to calm down the Arabian majority and avoid a full-scale armed erthnic conflict there. Britain supressed jewish claims to restore Israel then. By the way in the mid 1930s Nazi collaborated with zionist organizations assisting them to deploy German jews to Palestine in spite of the British ban and tight security measures on the borders of Palestine. There were very few German jews who wanted to move to their hystoric motherland due to harsh local conditions. Neither Nazi nor zionists didn't care much for their opinions. Tens of thousands of jews from Germany were smuggled to Palestine in violation of the British laws thanks to the fruitful cooperation between SS and Zionists. However Britain imposed the total land and sea blockade on Palestine and managed to put an end to jewish illegal emigration as well as that Nazi-Jewish project.

Well Kato has a point that i/m agree with.

Rising Sun*
06-06-2007, 02:00 AM
Till the 1941 when the Nazy while did not show its unhuman race face - this was all right.
The next stege of war when the Nazy bagan its "final solution" of jews the situation has changed - and american elite could no more be the neitral for the Nazy.

Publicly, maybe, because America was going to war for freedom and all that.

Privately, I'm not sure about the American elite. Here's some example of members of the American corporate super-elite who didn't change their views one little bit, and which supported and profited from Germany even after America entered the war.


Historical records show that, unlike most American-owned property in Nazi Germany, the Ford Werke A.G. plant was never confiscated by the German government. It continued to be owned by Ford Motor Company throughout the war. Edsel Ford and Robert Sorenson, high-ranking officials of Ford Motor Company, served as directors of Ford Werke A.G. throughout the Nazi Third Reich.

During that period, Ford Werke A.G. generated enormous profits, and other economic advantages, from the use of unpaid, forced labor.

The detailed allegations of the complaint set forth facts that the Nazis had achieved domination over territories with an aggregate population of 350,000,000 people. It became impossible to obtain sufficient voluntary labor from the German people to sustain the Nazi war machine, the Nazi regime increasingly turned to unpaid, forced labor, impressed from its captive populations, the inmates of concentration camps, and prisoners of war.

The Nazi forced labor program was prosecuted with unrelenting cruelty and persistence. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg found that '...[m]anhunts took place in streets, at motion picture houses, even at churches and at night in private houses'. Over 7,500,000 human beings were forcibly deported from occupied territory to Germany to support its war effort. From the moment of their abduction, the victims were subjected to all the tortures, indignities, and suffering that the human mind can encompass.

Ford Werke A.G. began utilizing French prisoners of war as forced laborers, and continued utilizing thousands of forced laborers throughout the war in violation of Article 52 of the Hague Convention, and the provisions of the Geneva Convention Governing Prisoners of War.

Ford Werke A.G. quickly became an eager, aggressive and successful bidder for forced laborers. More than 50% of the work-force utilized by Ford Werke A.G were unpaid, forced laborers as well as concentration camp inmates from Buchenwald.

Until 1938, Ford Werke A.G. produced passenger vehicles. In 1938, Ford began manufacturing tracked vehicles for the transport of German troops, and other military equipment. Soon, it had ceased producing passenger vehicles, and was devoting its entire production capacity to the manufacture of military trucks. Military historians estimate that approximately 60% of the 3 ton tracked vehicles produced for the German army were manufactured by the Ford Werke A.G. company.

Apparently, the use of unpaid, forced laborers by Ford Werke A.G. was immensely profitable. Relieved of the necessity of paying wages, and operating at peak capacity to meet the inexhaustible need of the German army for tracked vehicles and other trucks, Ford Werke A.G. realized enormous wartime profits.

Throughout the war years, Edsel Ford and Robert Sorenson, high-ranking officials of Ford Motor Company, continued to serve as directors of Ford Werke A.G. http://www.dailyrepublican.com/ford_slave_labor.html


Iwanowa's lawsuit, believed to be the first of its kind against a U.S.-based company, also alleges that senior Ford executives knew that thousands of workers were being abused. The German plant "became an eager, aggressive and successful bidder for forced laborers" after a Nazi labor official encouraged German industries to use such workers to meet quotas, according to the lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Newark.

Ford issued a statement acknowledging slave labor was used at the plant. But it said historians who wrote a company history in the 1950s determined the company lost contact with its German operations before the United States entered the war and only regained control seven years later. Still, the company will look further into the allegations, Ford corporate secretary John Rintamaki said.

Up to 10,000 men, women and children were pressed into working at Ford Werke A.G. in Cologne during the war, said Melvyn Weiss, the attorney who filed the lawsuit. He said the vast majority were non-German and were not Jews.

The first forced labor brought to the plant were French POWs in 1941, and by 1943 half the work force was slave labor, the suit said. "By 1944 Russians, Ukrainians, Italians, and Belgian civilians, as well as concentration camp inmates from Buchenwald, were laboring at Ford's Cologne plant under utterly barbarous conditions," it said.

Laborers who became ill were sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp and were replaced by other concentration camp inmates, the lawsuit said. Workers who failed to meet production quotas were beaten with rubber clubs and escape attempts were punished by execution or transfer to Buchenwald, the suit said. http://www.scripophily.net/foakr19.html


Dearborn maintained its communication with Ford of France well after the United States entered the war. In late January of 1942, Dollfus informed Dearborn that Ford's operations had the highest production level of all French manufacturers and, as summed up by the Treasury report, that he was "still relying on the French government to preserve the interests of American stockholders."
During the following months, Dollfus wrote to Edsel several times to report on damages suffered by the French plant during bombing runs by the Royal Air Force. In his reply, Edsel expressed relief that American newspapers that ran pictures of a burning Ford factory did not identify it as a company property. On July 17, 1942, Edsel wrote again to say that he had shown Dollfus's most recent letter to his father and to Dearborn executive Sorenson.
"They both join me in sending best wishes for you and your staff, and the hope that you will continue to carry on the good work that you are doing," he said. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporations/Ford_Fuhrer.html

Another major corporation happily engaged with the Nazis, against the Jews.


This past November [1999] NBC News reported that Chase Manhattan's French branch froze Jewish accounts at the request of German occupation authorities. Chase's Paris branch manager, Carlos Niedermann, worked closely with German officials and approved loans to finance war production for the Nazi Army.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporations/Ford_Fuhrer.html

Continued

Rising Sun*
06-06-2007, 02:00 AM
Continuation

And another


IBM claims that its German subsidiary came under Nazi control both before and during World War II.
We're not just talking about the German subsidiary. We're talking about the Swiss, the Swedish, the Italian, the Spanish, the Polish, the Romanian and Brazilian subsidiaries--more than 20 subsidiaries located across Europe and elsewhere. This was, in fact, a global commitment by IBM to support the Hitler machine as it conquered Europe and as it destroyed ethnic peoples: Gypsies, Jews and others.

IBM would want to say they lost control of their German subsidiaries. That's clearly false. Thomas Watson and the New York office micromanaged every aspect of their subsidiaries in Europe and especially in Germany, their most profitable foreign operation. The New York office was aware of all uses for their machines in Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe from the moment Hitler came to power in 1933 until about the fall of 1941, two years after World War II started.

Remember, IBM custom-designed the machines, custom-designed the applications and custom-printed the punch cards. There were no universal punch cards or machine wiring. Programs to identify Jews, Jewish bank accounts, barrels of oil, Luftwaffe flights, welfare payments, train schedules into camps, and even the concentration camp information--all these had to be tailored for each application.

Even after America entered the war, when the Nazis appointed the custodian, all the original IBM managers were in place. The Reich just locked the profits for a few years just as any receiver would be for any company in receivership. IBM collected all the money after the war.

What was IBM's involvement with the Nazis once America had entered the war?
In October of '41, the whole world knew America was about to enter the war. We had been preparing to enter since 1933, debating it. War fever became most intense from 1937. The question was always, "Can we stay out of the war?" No one knew exactly when. Our entry was of course precipitated by the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7. Shortly before that, with sudden new trading-with-the-enemy regulations in force--this is October 1941--Watson issued a cable to all IBM's European subsidiaries, saying in effect: "Don't tell us what you're doing and don't ask us any questions." He didn't say, "Don't send machines into concentration camps." He didn't say, "Stop organizing the military forces of Nazi Germany." He didn't say, "Don't undertake anything to harm innocent civilians."

He then bifurcated the management of IBM Europe--one manager in Geneva, named Werner Lier, and the other one in New York, in his office, named J.L. Schotte. So all communications went from Switzerland to New York. Ultimately there was a Hollerith Department called Hollerith Abteilung--German for department--in almost every concentration camp. Remember, the original Auschwitz tattoo was an IBM number.

Watson stopped all communications with Nazi Germany directly. And in point of fact, he danced on the head of a pin to obey U.S. law. It was the legal participation in genocide--legal because it was pursued through foreign subsidiaries from 1942 to 1945.
http://news.com.com/Probing+IBMs+Nazi+connection/2009-1082_3-269157.html

Rising Sun*
06-06-2007, 02:10 AM
May be Hitler did not wish widly pursuted the jews in this period - to not harm the trade with the America and other. He wish still to save the "human face" for the other world.
What do you think?

I don't think Hitler had too much to worry about when there was strong anti-semitism in America, and other Western countries. The extermination camps were probably more a consequence of acquiring a lot more Jewish concentration camp inmates from the conquered territories and unleashing more brutal policies generally, notably in Russia, from mid-1941, than from consciously holding back on mistreating the Jews before then. After all, concentration camps had existed for years before the war, but not as extermination camps, and Jews were confined in them. Jews were also persecuted outside the camps, and that was well known internationally for years before the war.

I think you’re underestimating the extent of anti-semitism in America, before, during and even after the war.
Public opinion polls taken from 1938 onwards show that there was generally a majority of negative attitudes towards Jews by other Americans, and a minority with any sympathy for the predicament of Jews in Europe..

"Do you think the Jews have too much power in the United States?" In March 1938 41% said yes, and 46%no; in August 1940 42%'yes' and 42% 'no'; in December 1942 51% 'yes' and 33% 'no'; and in June 1945 58% 'yes' and 29% 'no'.
The image of the quintessentially all powerful Jew and implicitly malevolent Jew has also had a centuries long life in Europe.
In May 1938 a Gallup Poll asked 3,330 randomly selected Americans:
"Do you think the persecution of Jews in Europe has been their own fault?" 10% said 'entirely', 48%'partly', and 31% 'not at all'.
In March 1938 an ORC survey asked an unspecified number of Americans:
"Should we allow a larger number of Jewish exiles from Germany to come to the United States to live?" 17% said yes; and 75%no.
A July 1938 Elmo Roper (Fortune) poll asked about 5, 000 randomly selected Americans:
"What is your attitude toward allowing German, Austrian, and other political refugees to come into the US?" They responded:
We should encourage them to come even if we have to raise our immigration quotas 5%
We should allow them to come but not raise our immigration quotas 18%
With conditions as they are, we should try to keep them out 67%
Don't know 10%
In December 1938 Elmo Roper asked a further 5, 000 randomly selected Americans:
"If you were a member of Congress, would you vote yes or no on a bill to open the doors of the US to a larger number of European refugees than are now admitted under our immigration quotas?" 'Yes'9%; 'No' 83%; 'Don't Know'8%.
The National Opinion Research Centre of the University of Chicago (NORC) asked of 1071 randomly selected Americans in January 1943:
"Do you think it would be a good idea or a bad idea to let more immigrants come into this country after the war?" Responses: Good Idea13%; Bad idea 78%
Having asked a question about whether respondents believed there would be a campaign against the Jews in the United States, a series of ORC polls between March 1938 and March 1945 polled various groups of 2, 000 - 3, 000 randomly selected Americans asking:
"Would you support such a campaign?" In March 1938 19% said yes; in March 1945 17% said yes and a further 30% indicated that they would 'sympathise'.
In fact a variety of anti- Jewish actions did take place in the US during this period.

In September 1944 a NORC survey asked 2,549 randomly selected Americans:
"Here is a list of different groups of people. Do you think we should let a certain number of each of these groups come to the United States to live after the war, or do you think we should stop some of the groups from coming at all?"
They responded:
"Let come" "Stop from coming" "Don't Know"
English 68% 25% 7%
Swedes 62% 27% 11%
Russians 57% 33% 10%
Chinese 56% 36% 8%
Mexicans 48% 42% 10%
Jews 46% 46% 9%
Germans 36% 59% 5%
Japanese 20% 75% 5%

Rising Sun*
06-06-2007, 02:11 AM
For a more academic examination of American anti-semitism, the following extract from “It can happen here” – Antisemitism, American Jewry and the Reaction to the European Crisis covers the ups and downs of anti-semitism as war approached.


But it was more than simply vitriolic hate rhetoric that Jews heard in the 1930s. The number of professional antisemitic organizations increased from about five to over one hundred. They were led by popular radio speakers such as Charles Coughlin, whose Christian Front goon squads caused havoc in Jewish neighborhoods, sometimes with the cooperation of the local police.22 In their violence and proto-military affectations they bore a similarity to Nazi storm troopers. This was especially true of William Dudley Pelley’s Silver Shirts and of Fritz Kuhn the “Führer” of the German American Bund, whose rallies could have been mistaken for a scene directly out of a Nuremberg Partei Tag.23 In the last mentioned case particularly noteworthy was the Madison Square Garden mass rally of 20 February 1939, which featured participants waving thousands of Nazi flags and a giant banner, saying: “Wake up America! Smash Jewish communism!” Yet these collective antisemitic voices were not as resonant as that of Ford’s Dearborn Independent during the 1920s. Jews were simply listening more intently and perhaps hearing more.
More disturbing was the antisemitism that made its debut in the political arena during the 1930s. The complaint that Jews had too much money and power was familiar. The difference during the depression decade was that the “Jewish question,” dealing with how much money and power Jews should be allowed to have, might be placed on the American political agenda as it had in Germany, Poland and other European nations. Except for Federal Order #11 which banned the Jews from the Eastern Mississippi department in 1862 there had been few other examples in American history of the amplification of antisemitism through the political power of the state.
As in prior decades, candidates for office would occasionally employ antisemitic remarks to gain an edge. The presidential election campaign of 1936 witnessed an unusual amount of personal slander of Roosevelt for appointing too many Jews and for himself perhaps being a Jew in disguise. In the antisemitic imagination the welfare state was viewed as a form of “Jewish socialism.” The term “Jew deal,” which became common political currency, referred to people such as Henry Morgenthau, Felix Frankfurter, Samuel Rosenman, Benjamin Cohen, Isador Lubin and others prominent Jews in the judiciary and the highest echelons of the federal civil service, some of whom were members of Roosevelt’s inner circle.24 This imputation became so prevalent that when in 1938 Roosevelt proposed naming Felix Frankfurter to the Supreme Court to replace Benjamin Cardozo, some influential Jews became anxious. A.H. Sulzberger, editor of the New York Times led a group of leading Jews who urged Roosevelt not to make the appointment because “the present virulence of antisemitism is undefinable, its future unpredictable.”25 The owners of the New York Times had previously urged writers with Jewish surnames to identify themselves only by initials. Throughout the 1930s and the 1940s “Jewish” stories were consistently underplayed to avoid any suspicion that the paper favored Jews. Such apprehensiveness was not uncommon especially among Jews of high station who had much to lose and little to fall back on.26
The most likely area where normative antisemitism might overnight be converted into the dreaded political brand was in foreign policy. The threat should be viewed from two vantage points. The first concerns antisemitism affecting the makers of policy and the second, antisemitism within the policy itself, especially as it related to the problem of Jewish refugees. Though more Jews were employed in the federal civil service than ever before it was common knowledge that certain areas remained off-limits for Jews. The State Department was one of these and few Jews therefore applied for its foreign service. There is ample evidence in the diaries of Breckinridge Long, assistant secretary of the Special Problems Division and the key official responsible for the admission of Jewish refugees, of an abiding distaste for “New York Jews.”27 He was not alone among State Department officials in holding such sentiments. There were also occasional incidents of antisemitism among consular officials who by a peculiar twist in the immigration law had the final say on who received the, ultimately, life-saving visas. It was not a name-calling brand of antisemitism and therefore difficult to identify. Researchers differ in their judgment about whether antisemitism was a major factor in determining policy involving the rescue of Jewish refugees.28 The treatment of the refugees, which might have served as a litmus test of official antisemitism, was never a majorforeign policy issue during the 1930s.
Still, had the American people been asked whether they favored admission of refugees, the response according to the available surveys, would have been overwhelmingly negative. The State Department was carrying out the wishes of the American Congress and beyond that of the American people. It was a case of democracy at work. The issue that revealed the deepest chasm between the Jews and the devoutly Catholic Irish Americans who dominated the powerful Church, was the Spanish Civil War, which had a much greater antisemitic fall-out than the question of the admission of Jewish refugees. Catholics saw Franco as a crusader against “Godless communism.” The disproportionate number of Jewish volunteers for the Lincoln Brigade, the American contingent of the International Brigade, was all the evidence they needed to prove the linkage between Jews and communism. Indeed, one anti-communist Jewish journalist pictured the brigade as the largest Jewish army since Bar Kochba. For Franco supporters the Jewish activity was evidence that Jews were hopelessly radical in politics and had not changed their ways since their support of persecution of the Mexican clergy during the regime of Plutarco Calles in 1921. The deep division between the two ethnic groups of the New Deal remained to plague the rescue effort during the war. When the Catholic prelates were approached for support for the refugees, some of whom were newly baptized Catholics, many proved to be indifferent.29 http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/feingold.htm
Continued

Rising Sun*
06-06-2007, 02:11 AM
Continuation

It was the direction of foreign policy, rather than domestic questions of Jewish power, which became the likeliest instrument to bring the Jewish question onto the political agenda. The issue was joined during the “great debate” over intervention in the European war which predictably American Jewry favored. Jewish support of intervention put it in direct conflict with the America First Committee which carried the flag of isolationism. Until late 1940 the isolationists in Congress carried the day. The neutrality laws which succeeded the embargo on the sale of arms called for “cash and carry” which virtually sealed the fate of loyalist Spain. Popular support of the isolationist position persisted after Berlin broke the Munich agreement by occupying the rump of Czechoslovakia in March 1939.30 Revisionist historian Harry Elmer Barnes responded to Nazi brutality against Jews by stating that it was minor compared to the dire consequences of the British blockade of Germany between 1917 and 1918.31
But with the outbreak of war in September the tide turned against isolationism. Paradoxically, it was precisely at this juncture that the antisemitic elements within the legitimate isolationist movement nearly prevailed. This possibility was very likely to occur in 1940 and helps explain the inordinate fear of American Jewry, which was related to what was happening in Germany to German Jewry.
The last throes of isolationism, which now clearly showed its antisemitic roots, occurred in September 1941 in Des Moines, Iowa, when Charles Lindbergh, still the most popular figure in America, warned that Jews and Anglophiles were trying to bring the nation into war and would pay a price for it. But the Des Moines speech marked the end of Lindbergh’s reign as an American hero and of any influence he might have projected on public policy. The press almost uniformly condemned the speech and Roosevelt viewed him as a fool and a traitor. The exact turning point was the Argentia conference of August 1941 in which the Atlantic Charter with its principles ringing the four freedoms was adopted. The aims of the war, embodied in the charter, played a similar role to Wilson’s fourteen points. The ideological basis of America’s eventual entry into the war resonate with principles, including freedom of religion, held dear by American Jewry and mark it off as a great victory. Unfortunately, Jewry still did not feel more secure since the news from Europe about the fate of their brethren was too bitter and in 1941 Hitler’s armies still seemed invincible.
Their domestic situation was uncertain enough but it does not present sufficient cause for the Jewish reaction to it, especially when we consider that in both the economic and political sphere antisemitism was clearly a failure. Systemic employment discrimination could not prevent American Jewry from emerging from the Depression faster than other ethnic groups. The climb of American Jewry to becoming the most highly professionalized, wealthiest ethnic group in America began during the war. Despite the antisemitic cry that Jews had too much power, Roosevelt continued to use Jewish talent freely in his administration. Jewish appointments to posts within the upper echelons of the federal civil service and in the courts, as well as to his inner circle, compared favorably with those of other heretofore neglected ethnics. The newly empowered ethnic bloc was, after all, the essence of the New Deal. The possibility of a Jewish question appearing on the American political agenda, as it did in Germany and other European countries, was minimal in America. America’s political structure, its heterogeneity, made it more resistant to political antisemitism which elsewhere posed the real threat to Jewish well-being.
Father Charles Coughlin, Gerald L.K. Smith, Joseph E. McWilliams, Fritz Kuhn, Gerald Winrod and others who captured public attention with their antisemitic message did not in the end fare well. Nor did the dozens of newly established antisemitic organizations. The latest research concludes that the demagogues that plagued the Roosevelt administration never posed a real threat of finding a place in the mainstream of American politics. Moreover the two most popular ones, Huey Long, with his “share the wealth” program, and Upton Sinclair, with his “end poverty in California” campaign, eschewed antisemitism.32 Coughlin’s demagoguery was finally challenged by more liberal voices in the Catholic hierarchy such as Cardinal Mundelein of Chicago; his fell silent altogether after Pearl Harbor. Fritz Kuhn, the German American Bund “führer,” was indicted and imprisoned in 1940 as a result of the efforts of Rep. Samuel ****stein, who represented an almost all Jewish district on New York’s Lower East Side and was for a time chairman of the House Immigration and Naturalization Committee. As the war drew nearer, American public opinion gradually became aware that the threat Nazi Germany posed to the national interest outweighed other factors. American reaction to Kristallnacht on 9 November 1938 was so negative that Hans Dieckhoff, the German ambassador, complained that years of painstaking effort to build antisemitic opinion in America had been destroyed in a single night.33 Though Hitler’s legions had swiftly cut through France and the Low Countries, German casualties on the Russian front were unexpectedly high. More importantly, after America entered the war in December 1941 the antisemitic thrust was parried. The enemy the U.S. was fighting was after all a racist regime that had the murder of Jews as its ideological core.
By 1941, as if to prepare itself for the approaching war, American public opinion had begun to swing away from the most extreme forms of isolationism, although the isolationist impulse did not vanish totally with Pearl Harbor: it became the “Asia first” strategy pushed by General MacArthur. But Roosevelt, to the chagrin of Hitler’s high command, opted for a “Germany first” strategy. It was a decision made without the Jews specifically in mind but it went far toward hastening victory. Nor did the accompanying antisemitism totally disappear. According to available public opinion surveys antisemitism actually reached its zenith three years later, in 1944, and only declined sharply thereafter.34 That paradoxical juxtaposition might account for the confusion of Jewish recruits who encountered antisemitism in the armed forces. Americans were most antisemitic precisely at the juncture when they were expending their wealth and blood in a bitter fight against Nazi Germany, which was totally committed to destroying Jewry. As in most Western a degree of antisemitism was the normative condition. It was more an expression of an animus embedded in the culture than it was ideological. Physical confrontations occurred but they were the exception. There are few instances when antisemitism affected public policy or denied Jews access. During the 1930s American negative attitudes toward its Jews became more pronounced but political antisemitism itself remained latent. http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/feingold.htm

Rising Sun*
06-06-2007, 02:21 AM
Well Kato has a point that i/m agree with.

This expands on it.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4511&highlight=zionist+nazi

Digger
06-07-2007, 05:30 AM
General Sandworm i have found the answer regarding aliens invading earth during WWII:shock:

World War in The Balance by Harry Turtledove. I kid you not I actually have a copy of this piece of crap.:( It was good for a laugh.

Regards digger

Gen. Sandworm
06-07-2007, 06:02 AM
General Sandworm i have found the answer regarding aliens invading earth during WWII:shock:

World War in The Balance by Harry Turtledove. I kid you not I actually have a copy of this piece of crap.:( It was good for a laugh.

Regards digger

Ah thats the Jewel...........I still have it at home as well. I thought it might be a cool book. But I have to say that its quite low on my suggested list of ww2 related novels.

Digger
06-07-2007, 07:10 AM
I agree. The lizards just did not seem real to me!:roll:;)

Regards digger