Most Significant Battle In Britain.

[caldrail]

In the 30s the US was in isolation - it had not joined the League of Nations. It had come into WWI only late and under deep German provocation (unrestricted submarine warfare etc). It had, only with reluctance and at a huge price, undertaken "lend-lease". I see no evidence of a US preparedness to enter a war that had ended with no easily identifiable aim.

 

I'm afraid I am going to have to disagree with you there. Prior to 1941, America was taking a firm anti-Nazi stance: unlike in WWI, 'lend-lease' was limited to the Allies only; FDR gave frequent talks on how the USA was the 'great arsenal of democracy'; many political pressure groups (including many civil rights organisations) were actively against the atrocities taking place in Europe--the CR campaigner Phillip Randolph at this point was already talking of launching a 'double V campaign' (Victory over tyranny, and Victory over the civil administration); and come Operation Barbarossa, the USA extended 'lend-lease' to the USSR as she was now an ally of Britain. I admit that all of this was before Britain and the USA's 'special relationship', but you cannot assertively say that the US viewed the UK as just a neutral partner to sell arms to.

 

Pearl Harbour was only a catalyst for further military support--in other words the USA would have entered eventually.

 

Prior to 1941, the americans were sympathetic to the nazi regime. They admired the organisation, the dynamic qualities, and lets be honest, many americans were of german descent. There's a filmed interview with an american journalist who praises germany left right and center. There was an american pilot who flew german fighters and pronounced them 'superior to the british' though one wonders how he knew that. Roosevelt however wasn't so easily fooled. Against public opinion he pushed to allow lend-lease and thus become the 'Arsenal of Democracy'. I think roosevelt was more of a canny politician who understood that hitlers regimes wasn't as positive as the propaganda machine declared, and in any case, he had access to intelligence reports.

 

Pearl Harbor merely a catalyst? I think not. America as a nation was dead against foreign involvement. memories of the horrors of WWI (even though the american contribution was eighteen months long) were still very much to mind. Roosevelt may well have been out of office if he started spouting warlike messages, hence his support for britain and russia. There was never anything inevitable about america joining the war, except possibly the u-boat menace sinking american ships. In any event, Hitler declared war on America (why?) and spared roosevelt the trouble. As for the japanese, they didn't want a war with america. Far from it. The raid on Pearl Harbor was to knock america out right at the start, and the famously late declaration of war was merely there to save face. A risk strategy that ultimately failed. They tried again at midway but the americans won and retained naval-air superiority in the central pacific.

 

Stalin of course was caught up in his own political battle with the army. After the terrible failure to beat Finland in the Winter War the red army had nearly its whole senior officer structure executed in a massive purge that left the army weakened. It wasn't for nothing that Hitler said that 'one kick and the whole rotten edifice would collapse'. Stalin was well aware of the risk of nazi aggression. He'd signed non-agression treaties. But he didn't trust us either, so when we sent messages warning him that the nazi's were about to invade he thought it was a plot and ignored it. We were allies in name only. Thats why churchill kept on pushing for another front to stop the potential of russia pushing into europe in the event of nazi defeat, which indeed is pretty much what happened. Stalin was adamant that the allies should open a front in europe and relieve stress on his country. The fact that we only did so in mid-1944 only served to confirm his suspicions. The fact the D-Day invasions had to be so large meant it could not be launched earlier.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Prior to 1941, the americans were sympathetic to the nazi regime. They admired the organisation, the dynamic qualities, and lets be honest, many americans were of german descent. There's a filmed interview with an american journalist who praises germany left right and center. There was an american pilot who flew german fighters and pronounced them 'superior to the british' though one wonders how he knew that.

 

Drawing general conclusions about a population--"the Americans were sympathetic to the Nazi regime"--from two members of that population is the epitome of hasty generalization ("a swallow does not make a spring"). Yes, there were isolationists like Wendell Wilkie who drew support from German-Americans opposed to intervention. There were also non-interventionists in Britain, including your (German) dread sovereign. But I'd not say that "the British were sympathetic to the Nazi regime", only that in a pluralistic society like Britain and the US, a wide range of opinions existed and were free to compete in the marketplace of ideas. That's one of the things, I thought, we were fighting for...

[caldrail]

President Roosevelt, 1936: "We shun political commitments which might entangle us in foreign wars".

 

Gallup poll, March 1937: 94% of the american people want to keep out of all foreign wars.

 

Gallup poll, (?) 1939. 99% of the american people want to keep out of all foreign wars.

 

If Great Britain and France looked to the United States for assistance against Germany... The mood was not auspicious... History of World War Two, AJP Taylor.

 

The Neutrality Act of 1937 prohibited the export of arms and munitions to all belligerent powers. Apart from this, powerful members of the Congress were determined that the United States should have no part in the european war. History of World War Two, AJP Taylor.

 

I hope that the United States will keep out of this war. I believe that it will. And I give you every assurance and reassurance, that every effort of this government will be directed to that end. As long as it is within my power, there will be no blackout of peace within the United States President Roosevelt.

 

If you elect me, I shall never send an american boy to fight in a foreign war... Wendel Wilson, 1940 presidential election speech

 

In America we've had many reports of Germanies new government and in many cases this has caused hated demonstrations everywhere. I can now say to you that the American people today realise that these stories are untrue and without foundation. I find that there's a new fresh vitality here in Germany under your great leader and chancellor, Adolf Hitler, of whom I'm a great admirer. The new regime will live, because you have the best centralised government in the world today. American journalist speaking on a german newsreel.

 

There was a strong anti-british antipathy in certain parts of the country. It was felt that Britain was trying to drag us in. There was even sentiment that England would fight to last American Norman Corwin, American Radio Journalist

 

I haven't the slightest idea of european affairs...

Let Europe fight its own battles...

Another war - not for me - this time America should keep out and I know I will....

This war they start in Europe - I think America should heed the advice of its first president and avoid all foreign entanglements...

American citizens on newsreel footage

 

In the past, we have dealt with a europe dominated by England and France. In the future, we may have to deal with a Europe dominated by Germany Charles Lindbergh

 

Our country was enormously divided. The America First Movement advocated isolationism... George Ball, Roosevelt Administration

 

The American Nazi Party called for America to aid Britains enemies at a 1940 rally.

 

Britains ambassador to America reported in early 1940 that nine out of ten americans wanted to keep out of the war. Business interests regarded Roosevelts moves to assist Britain and France almost as the works of the devil, because they saw no profit in it. Unions, until 1941, resisted war production and some rioting on anti-war sentiment took place. Four times as many american workers were on strike in 1941 than the previous year. A strike at North American Aviation delayed deiveries of aircraft to Britain for several weeks and troops were called in to end the action.

 

I think that accounts for a lot more american anti-war sentiment than two individuals. Have I made my point? There's plenty more of this stuff...

[M. Porcius Cato]

Have I made my point? There's plenty more of this stuff...

 

No, you absolutely haven't. You have provided evidence of anti-war sentiments (which I don't dispute), but you have provided absolutely no evidence for your claim "the Americans were sympathetic to the Nazi regime" (which I hotly contest).

 

First, as far as I can tell, Gallup's poll in 1936 was assessing American attitudes about the Spanish civil war, where fascists were duking it out with communists. At the time, there was a Neutrality Act that Roosevelt supported and that was designed to prevent another stupid war like WWI. This act in absolutely no way whatever supports your claim that "Americans were sympathetic to the Nazi regime."

 

Moreover, I'm beginning to think you're completely sloppy with your American history when you cite howlers like,

If you elect me, I shall never send an american boy to fight in a foreign war... Wendel Wilson, 1940 presidential election speech

Are you unaware that there is a vast difference between Nazi sympathy and non-intervention? Must I remind you that the failure to grasp this distinction is the very essence of the widely ridiculed, "You're with us or you're against us"?? Also, "Wendel Wilson" is a figment of your imagination. No such person exists. There was a US president named Woodrow Wilson, and there was a US presidential candidate named Wendell Wilkie (to whom I referred in an earlier post). Neither of them expressed sympathy to the Nazis. Quite the opposite, Wendell Wilkie urged unlimited aid to the United Kingdom in its struggle against Nazi Germany, which isn't exactly what you'd expect from a Nazi sympathizer.

 

The only fact you cite that is even remotely supportive of the idea that there were A FEW Nazi-sympathizers in the US is the existence of an American Nazi Party, a group that was deeply reviled and never held a single major (or minor) office in the US. In contrast, the British Union of Fascists included high-ranking British officials, including Labour government minister Sir Oswald Mosley, and the infamous Mitford sisters. Would you conclude from this that "the British were sympathetic to the Nazi regime"? I wouldn't.

 

[EDIT: comma added so as not to imply that the Mitford sisters were high-ranking British officials!]

Edited July 16, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[caldrail]

Wendel Wilson was the name given - I wasn't around at the time. I'm not talking about the president, it was from a speech given by a candidate in the 1940 presidential election campaign. Not quite a figment of imagination I'm afraid.

 

Nor does sympathy imply support. Thats also sloppy history. Nonetheless, nazi germany did have many admirers, many americans were enjoying its culture abroad. The american nazi party may not have been a political success, but they had plenty of members. The footage I've seen of their rally (including a protestor getting the whatever kicked out of him) was of an impressive size. Sorry, but I'm siding with the authors and researchers on this one.

 

Anti-british sentiment existed. It may not have been a matter of hatred, but the fact that support for britains cause was rarified is notable. Regarding Mosely and the two sisters I've never heard of, why would I regard them as indicative of british attitudes? The american views are well documented, and so are ours. They are different.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Wendel Wilson was the name given - I wasn't around at the time. I'm not talking about the president, it was from a speech given by a candidate in the 1940 presidential election campaign. Not quite a figment of imagination I'm afraid.

Then your sources are really, really incompetent, and you're too lazy to check the accuracy of your posts.

 

Nor does sympathy imply support. Thats also sloppy history. Nonetheless, nazi germany did have many admirers, many americans were enjoying its culture abroad. The american nazi party may not have been a political success, but they had plenty of members. The footage I've seen of their rally (including a protestor getting the whatever kicked out of him) was of an impressive size. Sorry, but I'm siding with the authors and researchers on this one.

What authors and researchers? You have yet to cite a single historian for the view that Americans were Nazi-sympathizers.

 

Anti-british sentiment existed. It may not have been a matter of hatred, but the fact that support for britains cause was rarified is notable.

In 1936, few Brits supported Britain's cause!! In 1936, Churchill was a lone voice warning the British of Hitler and the German threat. By your reasoning, the British were guilty of anti-British sentiment!

 

Regarding Mosely and the two sisters I've never heard of, why would I regard them as indicative of british attitudes?

I see. You really just don't know much about the period in question and are relying on totally incompetent source material.

[Primus Pilus]

It's Wendell Wilkie (the confusion is with Woodrow Wilson... our president during the later stage of WW I and beyond). Wilkie was anti-war, pro-isolationism/appeasement, but not pro-nazi. There is a marked difference between isolationism and being pro-nazi. There were some personalities of note that may have had nazi sympathies (ie Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, Joe Kennedy), but the American public was much more concerned about recovering from the Great Depression than sympathizing with Hitler. After Wilkie was defeated in the election of 1940, he actually became a strong supporter of Roosevelt and his policies, including the lend-lease act. Surely there was also anti-British sentiment to some degree (Irish, Italian and German immigrants to be sure), but it's fairly clear where America ended up when the chips were down.

 

As for Roosevelt, his "Arsenal of Democracy" fireside chat is a good indication of where he stood. Mind you this was in December of 1940 after the Nazi's had taken much of western Europe, but he had a history of anti-Nazi sentiment prior to the election. Since he won the election in what might be deemed as a landslide, one might conclude that a majority of the population agreed with him as well.

 

American isolation (also non intervention) policy is one of the key attributes of the early development of the post colonial nation through to WWII.

[caldrail]

Then your sources are really, really incompetent, and you're too lazy to check the accuracy of your posts.

No, just incorrect. As for being lazy, I don't have the advantage of an internet connection therefore my time online is very limited. Not lazy, just restricted, and I had no reason to doubt my source. If what you say is true, then I shall treat your posts with the utmost suspicion from now on. Thanks for putting me straight about your accuracy.

 

What authors and researchers? You have yet to cite a single historian for the view that Americans were Nazi-sympathizers.

Oh I'm so sorry, I haven't explained the english language to your satisfaction. By sympathy I meant that the americans saw the third reich in a positive light (at least most of them did) as they were impressed with the dynamic qualites and the organisational ability. Would they have sympathised with the uglier side of nazi culture? No of course not, and they didn't, because we do see elements of protest against them. Witness the chap who got beaten up on stage at... oh but I've already mentioned that haven't I?

 

Anti-british sentiment existed. It may not have been a matter of hatred, but the fact that support for britains cause was rarified is notable.

In 1936, few Brits supported Britain's cause!! In 1936, Churchill was a lone voice warning the British of Hitler and the German threat. By your reasoning, the British were guilty of anti-British sentiment!

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!! Perhaps you're relying on consistent logic too much. Human beings are such fickle creatures.

 

Regarding Mosely and the two sisters I've never heard of, why would I regard them as indicative of british attitudes?

I see. You really just don't know much about the period in question and are relying on totally incompetent source material.

 

Neither do you apparently. In fact, your arguement seems to that I'm crap. That my friend is the sloppiest history of all. For someone who specialises in the roman republic your attitude astonishes me. One of the primary conepts in rhetoric is that a man who resorts to ridicule and invective has no arguement.

[Melvadius]

Ever since I had to set a question in school as part of a Statistics course I have always get uncomfortable when people ask what was 'THE Most Significant ....?' type question.

 

For obvious reasons a number of events may come beating to the fore BUT they will always depend upon the viewpoint of individuals.

 

In the case in hand I am hard put to choose one significant event as it depends upon what basis you are considering them or to put it another way in what context do you consider it. To pick a few of the suggestions:

 

Mons Graupius - In the Roman period this was not the last hurrah of anti-Roman resistance which appears to have continued to some extent throughout Roman rule in Britain. Even if it is considered as the final push of the Romans into Scotland there was at least one further major assault under Alexander Severus.

 

Bannockburn - The turning point of Medieval Scottish resistance to English expansion under Edward I but against that; what about The Wallace starting of that process of resistance (for instance the Battle of Stirling Brig) without which The Bruce would have had a harder job of gathering support.

 

Culloden - A sad day for Scottish independence or was it? Did Scotland gain by remaining in the Union? Did Britain gain by not having 'A Wee Bit Highland Laddie' (or should that be more a French/Italian by then) in charge? Not to mention the obvious benefits to the British war machine by having an almost limitless supply of shock troops once they had gained a little more discipline.

 

Battle of Britain - Usually everyone's favourite and was significant in the mid-twentieth century but behind 'The Few' there were a large number of people keeping a few men with their head in the air. Those fighting to keep the sea lanes open and the colliers bringing vital supplies around the coast to where they were needed. How about Mitchell's battle to develop the Spitfire in the first place against Government inertia? Mind you to win Britain also needed the Hurricane, with one fighter specialising in attacking bombers and the other keeping the fighters off while they did so. In fact during the actual 'Battle' period there were far more Hurricanes involved in the Battle than Spitfires.

 

Against this for the Second World War I would cite the intelligence led Battle of Bletchley Park as probably the most significant long term effort. It was there helping to identify targets and vector in defensive flights and other military actions during the Battle of Britain as well as the equally devastating Battle of the Atlantic and any number of other battles during WW2 - including the US efforts in the Pacific.

 

Etc.

 

Basically I take the view that they were probably all significant in their day and to be honest the world wouldn't be the place it is today without them all having the outcome they did so on that basis maybe they were all 'The Most significant'?

 

Edited for Spelling mistakes -

 

BTW en passant the Moseley sisters were notorious in no small part to the diversity of their political beliefs from staunch Communist and mild socialism at one extreme, through apolitical to fascist at the other extreme.

 

To touch slightly on what has already spun off from this thread - Britain like America had a vast variety of views in the immediate Pre-War period but possibly had a better outcome than many realised by unwittingly by allowing the Brown shirts to march through the east End of London, where as today a large number of immigrants were living - then many Jewish and other refugees from Nazi Germany or communist Russia.

 

The Battle of Cable Street ensued where the police effectively were outmanoeuvred by a combination of local residents and a large gathering of anti-fascists expressing their views against the Brown shirts and their intended march which ultimately led to a breakdown in support for the Fascist cause in Britain and the banning of uniformed political parties.

 

If anyone is interested the following link has a reasonable overview on events if you read through its' own obvious political agenda:

 

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/History/Cable.html

 

[Edited for spelling]

Edited December 7, 2007 by Melvadius