Did Neville Chamberlain cause WW2?

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Roosevelt did not "provoke" a war with Japan.
You are incapable of analyzing history because you are obsessed
with a narrow and shallow, partisan-inspired view of historical events.

No. Regardless of any obsessions of mine, he intentionally DID,
as a back door into the war in Europe.
I 'm surprized that u don 't know that.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I'm surprised that you're so spineless. In the first place, this: " . . . he intentionally DID, as a back door into the war in Europe" is right-wing loony, conspiracy nut propaganda. So, you think that after Japan had invaded Manchuria, and started a war with China in 1937, and was planning to attack the English and Dutch possessions in the east Indies (which we knew because we had broken their naval code and their diplomatic code), and had seized French Indochina in 1940, we should just have sold them all the petroleum and scrap metal they demanded? "Please, please, big bad Empire of Japan, don't hurt us, here's everything you want--can we get on our knees and suck you off, too?" No, i don't "know" that because it's not true.

Your partisan inspired lunacy is truly disgusting. I suspect that next you'll tell me that he engineered the attack on Pearl Harbor to further his nefarious plans. Your idiotic claims wherever politics rears its ugly head are breathtakingly loony.

1 Reply

All loony conspiracy theories suffer one or more fatal flaws. The fatal flaw of the "Roosevelt wanted war with Japan so he could go to war in Europe" loony conspiracy theory is that there is no way that Roosevelt, nor anyone else, for that matter, could have known that Hitler would be so stupid as to declare war on the United States after war broke out with Japan. Conspiracy theorists perforce ascribe god-like powers to the subjects of their foolishness. In this case, they give FDR a crystal ball.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

The "double-dip recession" was due to Roosevelt listening to conservative economic voices and cutting back New Deal programs to present a balanced budget. The economy promptly started tanking again. Roosevelt canned the budget and went back to the New Deal and things started going up again. {/quote] A self-serving rationalization that is contradicted by the facts.

MontereyJack wrote:
You realize of course that what you are saying finally brought an end to the Depression (which is accurate), was in fact a huge economic stimulus program larger than Roosevelt coud get through conservative opposition to the New Deal(not that it was intended as that, but that in fact is what it was), massive deficit spending, and essentially a socialist command economy. All of which youy deplore, but which worked, while conservative economics just deepened the hole.

No, you didn't read all I wrote. The war effort did indeed put everyone to work in an authoritarian command economy. We accumulated truly ruinous debt during that effort. Happily nearly all of that debt was then held by Americans (unlike today's situation) in the form of bonds that became assets after the war. It was the fact that the economies and industrial plants of the rest of the world wwere largely destroyed after the war , and that foreign (and domestic) demand for everything we could produce was so great that enabled us to quickly grow the peacetime economy and pay off the debt to the citizens who held it that sustained our recovery.

Those conditions don't exist today.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

All loony conspiracy theories suffer one or more fatal flaws. The fatal flaw of the "Roosevelt wanted war with Japan so he could go to war in Europe" loony conspiracy theory is that there is no way that Roosevelt, nor anyone else, for that matter, could have known that Hitler would be so stupid as to declare war on the United States after war broke out with Japan. Conspiracy theorists perforce ascribe god-like powers to the subjects of their foolishness. In this case, they give FDR a crystal ball.

I agree with that. It is also true that at various times in the years leading up to the war, Japan was occupied in an internal debate as to whether they should direct thir aggressions at European empires in Asia and their former sponsors in Britain or at the Soviets (South vs. Noth in their parlance). For reasons not clear to me at least Roosevelt didn't respond to indicators we had of this debate, or try to influence the Japanese. It is also true that the U.S. had been contemplating an eventual war with Japan for over a decade, and the reports of japanese atrocities in China had probably sealed the issue by 1939. It certainly is likely that in early 1941 Roosevelt recognized the likely consequences of our cutting off the Japanese supplies of scrap steel and particularly petroleum (inded the alternative is very hard to consider seriously, and thei likely boost to our by then ongoing and very active thinly disguised role in the European conflict. He couldn't forsee Hitler's declaration of war perhaps, but he did know of the alliance that then existed between Japan and Germany and the general direction of the likely consequences.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Are you aware of how much secret efforts were made for the war? There was a dvd about the atomic bomb program. A building the size of a football field was created for producing electricity to make the nuclear bombs. All the silver in the treasury were melted to created the magnets. Many scientists even volunteered as guinea pigs for experiments knowing if they were wrong they would die but considering there was a war they were soldiers willing to die for the efforts.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

However, it is sheer idiocy to suggest that FDR "provoked" war with Japan. In fact, Roosevelt didn't want to cut off petroleum sales to Japan because it was so economically important--despite the fact that his cabinet wanted to add petroleum to the embargo list Scrap metal was emabargoed in 1940, but petroleum was only added to the list in 1941. Certainly Roosevelt wanted to go to war in Europe--and he understood he needed a pretext, because he also understood that the nation would not put up with a unilateral declaration of war on Germany. To suggest, however, that he cynically and knowingly caused a war with Japan for that purpose is a lame-brained contention which can only be based on profound ignorance and partisan hatred. It was not until late in 1941, in mid-November, that FDR and his cabinet finally became convinced that Japan was going to attack, and even then, they didn't know where and they didn't know when. Nevertheless, as soon as it was the sense of his "war council"--the Secretaries of State, War, the Army, the Navy, Admiral King and General Marshall--that Japan would attack, they sent out the war warning message (November 26, 1941, i believe).

As for the German-Japanese alliance, Hitler's declaration of war was even more idiotic given that Japan had never done, and would never do anything for Germany. In fact, Japan and the Soviet Union concluded a non-aggression pace in 1941, and after Germany invaded the Soviet Union, Japan decided not to attack the Soviet Union as being too costly in men and material, and a distraction from the Southern Operation. We knew that, too, because we were reading their diplomatic traffic. Far from thinking that the phony alliance would move Hitler to declare war on the United States, the arrival of 40 divisions from the far east to defend Moscow in late 1941 very likely convinced FDR's cabinet that neither side would come to the aid of the other.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Yes and no. Our ability to monitor SOME Japanese diplomatic correspondence did indeed give Roosevelt some understanding of Japanese concerns about the Soviet Union and the likely continuation of the 1905 conflict over domination of Manchuria. There was an active debate over policy within Japan over this issue, one that wasn't resolved until just before the signing of their non aggression pact with the USSR. That Roosevelt didn't take any action at all to influence or redirect Japan's ambitions during those years is indicative of something, perhaps his illusions about the character of the USSR that became evident later.

I generally agree with your rejection of elaborate conspiracy theories, but also believe that in writing,

Quote:

To suggest, however, that he cynically and knowingly caused a war with Japan for that purpose is a lame-brained contention which can only be based on profound ignorance and partisan hatred.

, you go much too far. Indeed I think the evidence suggests that as a minimum he welcomed the developing contest with Japan precisely because of the Japanese-German alliance, and the likelihood that it would provide him with the pretext for a war that he had been actively seeking for at least two years.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I'm surprised that you're so spineless.

Here we go again, with the personal invective.
It has not been bad enuf, so far.

Setanta wrote:

In the first place, this: " . . . he intentionally DID, as a back door into the war in Europe"
is right-wing loony, conspiracy nut propaganda.

"Conspiracy"?? Did I say that?
Against whom? Against the Japs?
Against the voters to whom he hypocritically mouthed pacifism in 1940?
We may propagate these facts,
but this is what actually happened.

Setanta wrote:

So, you think that after Japan had invaded Manchuria, and started a war with China in 1937, and was planning to attack the English and Dutch possessions in the east Indies (which we knew because we had broken their naval code and their diplomatic code), and had seized French Indochina in 1940, we should just have sold them all the petroleum and scrap metal they demanded?

I don 't think that, nor did I imply it. (U left out the Silk Embargo.)
For many years since World War II, I denounced Roosevelt for the hypocrisy of his 1940
re-election campaign, qua his ostensible pacifism, but a rational leftist in this very forum
argued that if he had failed to do so, he 'd have been defeated
and this might well have delayed American entry into WWII,
allowing Hitler to knock off his enemies seriatim and that he'd
have the Russian oil to use against us. In my opinion, we 'd probably
have won anyway, but it 'd have been much more troublesome
and more expensive in terms of blood & treasure.
Accordingly, the logic of the situation forced me to acquiesce
in tolerating & condoning Roosevelt's political reasoning, tho I don't normally approve of hypocrisy.

Setanta wrote:

"Please, please, big bad Empire of Japan, don't hurt us,
here's everything you want--can we get on our knees and suck you off, too?"

Have u forgotten WHO u r addressing???
I do not believe that there is anyone less pacifistic in this forum than me.
I doubt that u will deny that. (Prove me rong.)

Setanta wrote:

No, i don't "know" that because it's not true.

In my experience, most modern leftists admit it now.
It has lost its controversy.
I have withdrawn my condemnation of Roosevelt for DOING it,
but I will not join u in pretending that it did not HAPPEN.

Setanta wrote:

Your partisan inspired lunacy is truly disgusting.

Thank u for informing us of your emotions, since this is the Setanta's EMOTIONS Thread.
We gotta have that information.

Setanta wrote:

I suspect that next you'll tell me that he engineered
the attack on Pearl Harbor to further his nefarious plans.

Yes; well, he dangled the Fleet in front of the Japs, as an enticement.
He had to do SOMETHING, if he were going to pursue that strategy.
His foresight proved to be accurate.

U say: "nefarious"; I did not so characterize it.
Let 's be clear that Roosevelt was loyal to America
(and to his beloved "Uncle Joe"; if he were going to suck off anyone,
on his knees, he'd go in that direction, since u bring it up).

David

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Indeed I think the evidence suggests that as a minimum he welcomed the developing contest with Japan precisely because of the Japanese-German alliance, and the likelihood that it would provide him with the pretext for a war that he had been actively seeking for at least two years.

As i've pointed out, the evidence is clear that he had no basis for assuming that that alliance was anything more than a paper alliance expressing the desire shared by both powers to seize control of as much of the world as they were able. There not only was no good reason to assume that either would come to the aid of the other, there was good reason based on the situation as regards the Soviet Union to believe that each side would look to their own best interest, and the alleged ally be danmed.

0 Replies

To me a military conflict between Germany and England/France was in the cards whether Hitler or Chamberlain had ever been born.

The details and the start date would not had been the same but it would had occur.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I consider your attitude to be spineless because no American leader could have truckled to Japanese demands without being spineless. Since you seem to be a little slow on the uptake, the conspiracy involved would have been perpetrated by Roosevelt against the best interests of the American people, which would have had to have been a conspiracy because his entire cabinent supported sanctions against Japan. For them to have done so only to get an opportunity to go to war in Europe would have required a conspiracy to hide their true motives.

What some alleged "leftist" here allegedly said about Roosevelt's motives is of no interest to me--it's not something i've ever alleged. To keep the focus, you are claiming (and without a shred of evidence) that Roosevelt "provoked" war wtih Japan in order to have an opportunity to go to war in Europe. Hitler would not have "knocked off" in the Soviet Union. Any significant delay in American entry into a European war would only very likely have handed western Europe over to the Soviet Union.

You can stop telling about your hateful fantasies with regard to "most modern leftists." Apart from having no reason to believe it is true, you are not describing me, your prejudices notwithstanding.

"Dangled the fleet?" I knew you'd go off the deep end here in one way or another. Roosevelt and his military advisers sent the war warning message on November 26, 1941. Only Admiral Halsey responded appropriately. You're going to have to hatch yet another conspiracy theory which would involve Roosevelt conspiring with Kimmel, Short and MacArthur. Given that Halsey showed how appropriately to respond to the war warning message, that's the only way you'd be able to support such errant nonsense as "dangling the fleet." That Kimmel fialed to respond appropriately to the war warning message cannot reasonably be laid at Roosevelt's door.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

To me a military conflict between Germany and England/France was in the cards
whether Hitler or Chamberlain had ever been born.

The details and the start date would not had been the same
but it would had occur.

OK, please explain your reasoning,
without Hitler nor Chamberlain, Bill.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

OK, please explain your reasoning,
without Hitler nor Chamberlain, Bill.

Sure first the bad blood and ill feelings between these countries due to WW1 and the awful peace terms direct toward Germany at it end mean that the German population as a whole was eager to get revenge.

Couple that with the idea that was common in Germany that they did not in fact loss WW1 but was sold out by their leadership and this was back by the fact that at the end of WW1 their troops was on French soil and no enemy troops was on German soil.

It was a war waiting to happen and Hitler came to power because of those conditions he did not cause them and without him there still would had been a renewal of the conflict that had pause more then stop at the end of WW1.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I have to agree with that, world war 2 shoulda been world war part 2, as the first had never been properly completed. The bad blood then continued to the point of total war in the 2nd innings.

0 Replies

General Pershing opposed the Armistice
on the ground that what DID happen
woud happen. HE knew.

He said that if we did not take it to their front doors in Berlin
thay 'd believe that thay were NOT DEFEATED in the field
and that we 'd have to go back and do it ALL OVER AGAIN.

Woodrow Wilson was a damned fool.

David

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I consider your attitude to be spineless because no American leader could have truckled
to Japanese demands without being spineless.

Trouble with reading comprehension, or going blind??
I already expressed agreement with cutting off oil & metal to the Japs.
I am not a pacifist now, nor was I then.
I said that; how many times do I have to SAY it??
( he accuses ME of being "slow on the uptake"!! )

Setanta wrote:

Since you seem to be a little slow on the uptake, the conspiracy involved
would have been perpetrated by Roosevelt against the best interests of the American people,

Now u 've got me twisted around defending Roosevelt (not something that happens MUCH).
Preparing to defend from Hitler (thru the Japs, for an excuse from his avowed pacifism)
was NOT "against the best interests of the American people", as u put it.
That 's not a "conspiracy" ( a word that I have not employed ).
Its just organizing his policy. He had that authority.
That he chose to keep the Navy & the Military in the dark was also his choice,
not "conspiracy".

Setanta wrote:

which would have had to have been a conspiracy [ ?? ] because his entire cabinent supported sanctions against Japan.
For them to have done so only to get an opportunity to go to war in Europe would have required a conspiracy
to hide their true motives.

Non-sequitur; it was sufficient for him to do
what he actually DID.

Setanta wrote:

What some alleged "leftist" here allegedly said about Roosevelt's motives is of no interest to me--it's not something i've ever alleged.

To be clear: u were not that leftist.

Setanta wrote:

To keep the focus, you are claiming (and without a shred of evidence) that Roosevelt "provoked" war wtih Japan
in order to have an opportunity to go to war in Europe.

I do claim that.

Setanta wrote:

Hitler would not have "knocked off" in the Soviet Union.

He almost DID; Stalin was pretty worried.
Most of the Politburo had already fled Moscow, with good reason.

Setanta wrote:

Any significant delay in American entry into a European war would only very likely have handed western Europe over to the Soviet Union.

I will not comment on your speculative fantasies.

Setanta wrote:

You can stop telling about your hateful fantasies [ ?? ] with regard to "most modern leftists."
Apart from having no reason to believe it is true, you are not describing me, your prejudices notwithstanding.

I am not describing u.

Setanta wrote:

"Dangled the fleet?" I knew you'd go off the deep end here in one way or another. Roosevelt and his military advisers sent the war warning message on November 26, 1941. Only Admiral Halsey responded appropriately. You're going to have to hatch yet another conspiracy theory which would involve Roosevelt conspiring with Kimmel, Short and MacArthur. Given that Halsey showed how appropriately to respond to the war warning message, that's the only way you'd be able to support such errant nonsense as "dangling the fleet." That Kimmel fialed to respond appropriately to the war warning message cannot reasonably be laid at Roosevelt's door.

He knew dam well that the Fleet was still there.
WHO was the Constitutional Commander-in-Chief ???
WHO had the Responsibility????? Tell me that.
U wanna lay it off on his underlings: no sale!

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I don't care how many times you say it. It's obvious that the nickel hasn't dropped for you. The only way Roosevelt could have "provoked" a war with Japan would have been through the embargo, and no one but a spineless president would have failed to put such an embargo in place, an embargo at the least.

It is absolute bullshit that Roosevelt "kept the Navy and the Military" in the dark. It was ONI and the Army Signal Corps who were reading Imperial Navy signals and Japanese diplomatic traffic. It is ludicrous to suggest that Roosevelt could have kept in the dark the people who were supplying him the itelligence upon which he acted.

You're delusional if you believe that the flight of the Politburo was evidence that Moscow was about to fall. You're also delusional if you believe that the fall of Moscow would have spelt the end of the Soviet Union. Napoleon took Moscow, and much good it did him. Stalin wasn't going anywhere and the Germans were not getting in to Moscow.

I'm not laying anything off on his underlings. But as with that idiocy which you peddle about Sherman tanks, Roosevelt could not have micromanaged his administration. Having sent the war warning message, it was the responsibility of Kimmel, Short and MacArthur to respond appropriately. There was a point past which Roosevelt could no longer control events, and that point was reached when Kimmel, Short and MacArthur failed to take appropriate actions.

As for this "dangle the fleet" bullshit, since when does the United States need the permission of any other nation to station its warships at established naval bases in her own territory? It would be spineless to have withdrawn U. S. Navy resources from Hawaii and Dutch Harbor on the off chance that it might have offended Japan. You really don't seem to have much of a grasp on military strategic realities. Should we have kept the fleet at Long Beach, San Diego and Seattle, waited for the Japanese to take Hawaii and Alaska, and then steamed out to take it back?

You are so obsessed with your partisan hatred of Roosevelt that you are abandoning all sense.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

General Pershing opposed the Armistice
on the ground that what DID happen
woud happen. HE knew.

He said that if we did not take it to their front doors in Berlin
thay 'd believe that thay were NOT DEFEATED in the field
and that we 'd have to go back and do it ALL OVER AGAIN.

Yes David and for every mile gain it would had cost ten of thousands of lives on the allies side alone.

The German army is very good at the art of giving ground slowly and making you paid for every damn foot, they do not fall apart as most military would do under similar conditions.

If Wilson peace terms had been apply we would had have a good chance of not needing to fight WW2 and it not being apply was the problem not throwing lives away by going to Berlin the hard way.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't care how many times you say it. It's obvious that the nickel hasn't dropped for you. The only way Roosevelt could have "provoked" a war with Japan would have been through the embargo, and no one but a spineless president would have failed to put such an embargo in place, an embargo at the least.

Is this the 3rd time, or the 4th, that I 've agreed
with your position on this ?? A new fetish with u ?

Setanta wrote:

It is absolute bullshit that Roosevelt "kept the Navy and the Military" in the dark. It was ONI and the Army Signal Corps who were reading Imperial Navy signals and Japanese diplomatic traffic. It is ludicrous to suggest that Roosevelt could have kept in the dark the people who were supplying him the itelligence upon which he acted.

I meant that he kept them in the dark
qua his intentions to push the Japs into a war
as a back entrance into Europe.

Setanta wrote:

You're delusional if you believe that the flight of the Politburo was evidence that Moscow was about to fall. You're also delusional if you believe that the fall of Moscow would have spelt the end of the Soviet Union. Napoleon took Moscow, and much good it did him. Stalin wasn't going anywhere and the Germans were not getting in to Moscow.

Awww, did I hurt your feelings, Comrade?
Hit a sore spot qua commie courage ?
Ever so sorry.

Setanta wrote:

I'm not laying anything off on his underlings. But as with that idiocy which you peddle about Sherman tanks,
Roosevelt could not have micromanaged his administration.

That 's a very generous definition of micromanagement.
With FULL KNOWLEDGE since 1942, of the armor and armament (88mm cannon)
of Tiger Tanks, he continued the manufacture of more "Ronsons",
knowing that HE was not going to have to ride in one in June 1944.
All he had to do was have the Pentagon send condolence letters.
I feel for the American victims of the Roosevelt policy,
including their families. Roosevelt was disloyal to his troops,
who trusted him; depraved indifference to human life.

Setanta wrote:

Having sent the war warning message, it was the responsibility of Kimmel, Short and MacArthur to respond appropriately. There was a point past which Roosevelt could no longer control events, and that point was reached when Kimmel, Short and MacArthur failed to take appropriate actions.

As for this "dangle the fleet" bullshit, since when does the United States need the permission of any other nation to station its warships at established naval bases in her own territory? It would be spineless to have withdrawn U. S. Navy resources from Hawaii and Dutch Harbor on the off chance that it might have offended Japan. You really don't seem to have much of a grasp on military strategic realities. Should we have kept the fleet at Long Beach, San Diego and Seattle, waited for the Japanese to take Hawaii and Alaska, and then steamed out to take it back?

I have already supported, several times in THIS thread,
his decision to get us into WWII. That enuf.

David

1 Reply

Did Neville Chamberlain cause WW2?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know