# The main reason why war in Europe broke out during WW2?



## Danielmellbin (Jul 14, 2008)

Well this is a hotly debated issue. Specially in recent years. A little sidestep in another post inspired me to make this poll. I know that the reason for WW2 is a combination of all the above (and some others) - but which do you feel/think was the most imporatant factor? Please comment on your choice if ya feel like it. (This is ofcourse excluding the Pacific war).

My own choice is the treaty of Versaille followed closely by the great depression. A military response to some of the German aggression of the late 30's might seem a comfortable choice - but people generally felt that Germany had been treated to roughly after WW1 - and as such thought that many of her claims and actions where not unreasonable. Furthermore: having just suffered the most bloody war in history and thus having lost almost an entire generation: The will to wage war was understandably low. So although military intervention prior to Poland *might* have changed alot - it is in my mind - disregarding the realities of the time.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 14, 2008)

So in other words, this is a poll for the most deciding factor for WWII...in Europe. You are excluding not only the Pacific, but the CBI.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 14, 2008)

Excluding PTO - Yup - I also say so in the thread opener. Forgive my lack of abreviation knowledge: CBI? Furthermore the PTO largely evolved due to the ETO.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 14, 2008)

the The treaty of Versaille was humilating for germany and made the people hopeless, and thats why hitler becomes prime minister.

but The lack of a strong response to the re-militarization of the germany was also a great reason.


----------



## trackend (Jul 14, 2008)

I wonder if Adolf had not been around who was on the cards to initiate the ball rolling that would have start WW2.
I dont think any of his henchmen had what it needed to create a strong enough party to come to power through the ballot box (rigged or legal) or with a coup. And Hindenburg was just seeing out the old Prussian ways and waiting to die.


----------



## Bigxiko (Jul 14, 2008)

I believe it was the treaty of Versaille
the lack of a strong response to the re-militarization of the germany
and the great depression also didn't help to prevent the war


----------



## renrich (Jul 14, 2008)

How can one exclude the Pacific war or that in the CBI from the Second WORLD War. The war in the Pacific was probably going to happen anyway as the Japanese thought they needed to expand for their economic well being. They had invaded China long before Hitler invaded Poland and they thought the US would not resist strongly their expansionist notions. The US may not have ever gotten in the war without the attack on PH. The First World War was largely a misnomer until !917 because a large portion of the world was not involved. However, that is semantics but I think this question needs to be defined a little more exactly. For instance, what were the principle causes of the war in Europe prior to the entry of Japan and the US?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 14, 2008)

For me, it is simple....Fascist/militarist/Nazi agression, countered by weakness and vaccillation

For all his faults, Chamberlain did not want war. Hitler, Mussolini, and the Japanese did. They achieved what they set out to do. Chamberlain and the allies did not.

Churchills great achievment was to turn the gaggle of anti-axis forces, the Americans, the Russians, the British commonwealth, and all the others, into an alliance with a single, and planned purppose in mind....in the first instance the defeat of germany first. in the second instance, the defeat of the Japanese


----------



## Haztoys (Jul 14, 2008)

Hate greed control....Like most wars....


----------



## evangilder (Jul 14, 2008)

I agree, Renrich. CBI is China, Burma and India. They were a separate theater of war, not to be confused with the Pacific. Had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor, America's entry into the war would have at least been delayed.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 14, 2008)

i had posted that before in other topics, but couldnt get answer about

in 1939, ussr also invaded poland, because they had a treaty with germany.

why just declare war against germany ?


----------



## Freebird (Jul 14, 2008)

evangilder said:


> So in other words, this is a poll for the most deciding factor for WWII...in Europe. You are excluding not only the Pacific, but the CBI.



Eric I think the last option "inevitable clash" fits both Pacific European theaters. The European war came about because the government of the UK France were not willing to let Hitler the Nazis conquer Europe bit by bit. Hitler thought the Western Allies were weak and would back down, Hitler was intent on dominating Europe. Conflict was inevitable.



parsifal said:


> For all his faults, Chamberlain did not want war.


For all his faults Chamberlain {UK CW} + the French PM were the only two leaders {IIRC} who actually declared war on Hitler out of principle, and put their countries into peril by doing it. All of the other countries entered the war by being invaded, by having Hitler declare war on them or when it had very minimal effect on the war. {South America}





renrich said:


> How can one exclude the Pacific war or that in the CBI from the Second WORLD War. The war in the Pacific was probably going to happen anyway as the Japanese thought they needed to expand for their economic well being.
> 
> *The US may not have ever gotten in the war without the attack on PH.*



One could even argue that the Pacific war was provoked by Roosevelt. He was unwilling to allow Japan to dominate the far east, once he cut off oil steel to Japan war was inevitable.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 14, 2008)

freebird said:


> One could even argue that the Pacific war was provoked by Roosevelt. He was unwilling to allow Japan to dominate the far east, once he cut off oil steel to Japan war was inevitable.



I've never agreed with the idea that FDR "provoked" war with Japan; rather IMO it was Japan who provoked war with the West.

The embargo of steel and oil to Japan was in response to their aggression against China and the far east. 

If FDR was provoking war anywhere it was in the Atlantic where American destroyers were escorting convoys and were in combat against German U-boats. The "Germany first" strategy had already been agreed to, prior to the US entry into the war. After the USS Kearny was torpedoed (12 dead) and the USS Reuben James sunk (115 dead), war was inevitable. Pearl Harbor just speeded things along. 

TO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> Furthermore the PTO largely evolved due to the ETO.


100% disagree - the US and Japan were at odds since the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.

*"In 1939, the US notified Japan that it would renounce the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation that was signed by both countries in 1911. President Roosevelt, then, went on to the imposition of partial embargo of gasoline for aircraft and scrap-metal on Japan in July 1940. Japan countered the partial embargo by advancing its troops to the northern Indo-China, and the US matched the Japan’s expansion with the addition of more subjects to the list of partial embargo. This vicious circle of retaliations escalated and reached its peak when Japan moved even into the southern Indo-China in July, 1941 and the US replied to it by freezing the Japanese assets in the US and, furthermore, by the complete oil embargo on Japan. As a result, the Japanese leaders found themselves in an extremely difficult situation in which they had to make their decision out of two options: to bow before the US, or to fight a desperate war against the US"*

Inventory of Conflict and Environment (ICE), Template

With or without European conflict it would of been just a matter of time before the US and Japan would go to war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2008)

The treaty of Versaille led to the war in Europe. Well I believe it was the most deciding factor. The German people felt without hope and were litterally living a broken life. This made it easy for Hitler to take power with his promises of a better life for the German people.

Of course everything else up there was also a contributing factor.

I have changed the name of this thread so that people will understand why you are only talking about Europe.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 14, 2008)

The Japanese where very much debating whether or not to attack the US - Yamamoto being a strong advisor against it. Had France and the UK not been entangled in the ETO I do not think that the Japanese voices for attacking the US and the colonies would have prevailed. Because of the automedon incident the Brittish weakness in the area was exposed to the Japanese and emboldend them further.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 14, 2008)

i believe the title "The main reason why war in Europe broke out during WW2?" isnt little bit confuse ?

besides the imperialism of japan, and their agressions, it was just a regional conflict until that time. the war in europe really gives the "worldwide" contation to the event.

maybe "The main reason why war in Europe broke out?" should be better.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 14, 2008)

I would call a war that involves The United Kingdom, Australia, France, Italy, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, Germany, The Soviet Union, Belgium, Holland, Hungary, Romania, Greece, Norway, Denmark, Finland a world war... but maybe thats just me


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 14, 2008)

I think its rude to change the titel of thread without asking the author... low


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> The Japanese where very much debating whether or not to attack the US - Yamamoto being a strong advisor against it. Had France and the UK not been entangled in the ETO I do not think that the Japanese voices for attacking the US and the colonies would have prevailed. Because of the automedon incident the Brittish weakness in the area was exposed to the Japanese and emboldend them further.


I doubt it...

They (the Japanese) were being starved of raw materials and oil - they could not continue to support their forces in China unless they did something to break the embargo and get the materials they needed for war. As early as 1936 the Japanese military were looking at ways to get control of Indonesia and set up many companies within the Dutch colony just for that purpose.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 14, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> I think its rude to change the titel of thread without asking the author... low



"The main reason why war in Europe broke out?" 

what you think about that one ? i gess is better for everybody isnt ?

and i agree with you, about what sould be a world war.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 14, 2008)

The moderators and administrators of this site have the authority to change the title of the thread to make more sense. It wasn't "rude".


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 14, 2008)

yup - and what further strengthens your point is that they at the time of the embargo had used too much money and blood in China to make a withdrawal realistic (Japanese views of "honour" makin it even less likely). As such FDR "provoked" a war - because he left them only the oportunity of dishonour or war (easy choice for the Japanese of that time). But who in their sane mind can say that he was at fault here?

BUT - if the European powers had not been caught up elsewhere - I think the Japanese would have tried VERY hard to find another way out - but counterfactual history is always hard.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 14, 2008)

JugBR said:


> "The main reason why war in Europe broke out?"
> 
> what you think about that one ? i gess is better for everybody isnt ?
> 
> and i agree with you, about what sould be a world war.



yea - better


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 14, 2008)

evangilder said:


> The moderators and administrators of this site have the authority to change the title of the thread to make more sense. It wasn't "rude".



Ofcourse they/you have the authority - im fine with that. But not not asking before you do it - rude IMO. Oh well - nevermind - not imporatant - lets just get back to the subject


----------



## starling (Jul 14, 2008)

the lack of strength of the folk to kick adolf out,once they realised a prat had fooled them all.starling.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> yup - and what further strengthens your point is that they at the time of the embargo had used too much money and blood in China to make a withdrawal realistic (Japanese views of "honour" makin it even less likely). As such FDR "provoked" a war - because he left them only the oportunity of dishonour or war (easy choice for the Japanese of that time). But who in their sane mind can say that he was at fault here?


I think FDR just wanted Japan out of China - the US did not want to fight the Japanese and was only prepared to protect US territory in the region


Danielmellbin said:


> BUT - if the European powers had not been caught up elsewhere - I think the Japanese would have tried VERY hard to find another way out - but counterfactual history is always hard.


Agree - I do think the Japanese would of eventually discovered how weak the European colonies actually were


----------



## JugBR (Jul 14, 2008)

trackend said:


> I wonder if Adolf had not been around who was on the cards to initiate the ball rolling that would have start WW2.



if hitler and the nazi party didnt take the power in germany, maybe the war in europe should be against the soviet union. considering that without the german support stalin should put his army to invade poland and the east countries like he actually did.


----------



## renrich (Jul 14, 2008)

Good move Chris, makes the debate much easier to define in spite of what some eurocentric members may think. The Treaty of Versailles with the exorbitant reparations placed on Germany was one of the root causes obviously. I tend to agree with some historians that the conflict that Hitler started was a continuation of the 1914-1918 war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> I think its rude to change the titel of thread without asking the author... low



Rude?

At no way was I rude, nor did I do it to be rude!

I did it because people were confused as to why it did not include the PTO. Europe is not in the PTO!

As a moderator I have a right to do so. 

If you have a problem with that then you can bring it up in a pm to me!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> Ofcourse they/you have the authority - im fine with that. But not not asking before you do it - rude IMO. Oh well - nevermind - not imporatant - lets just get back to the subject



It is no more rude than some of your posts in other threads about American politics!

When you become the administrator of this forum you can change how we mods do things. Until then...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2008)

starling said:


> the lack of strength of the folk to kick adolf out,once they realised a prat had fooled them all.starling.



I find that a very ignorant post (note I did not say you were ignorant).

Unless you were alive in Germany during that time, you have no clue as to what it was like for them. 

I think you are making false judgement.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2008)

renrich said:


> Good move Chris, makes the debate much easier to define in spite of what some eurocentric members may think.



Hey chill out with that. Dont let your frustrations from another thread carry over to this one.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 14, 2008)

renrich said:


> Good move Chris, makes the debate much easier to define in spite of what some eurocentric members may think. The Treaty of Versailles with the exorbitant reparations placed on Germany was one of the root causes obviously. I tend to agree with some historians that the conflict that Hitler started was a continuation of the 1914-1918 war.



its not about eurocentric, is about the number of nations affected and engajed in the war in diferent continents. for this reason, the invasion of poland is the first kick of ww2.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 14, 2008)

I think the great depression was the main reason. If economics are good, people tend to be satisfied. If it's all bad, people to run more aggressive foreign politics to take the attention away from the bad situation in their home country. This happened in Japan and Germany (I know in Germany the bead situation was also due to the versailles treaty), but also in the US (economic agression against Japan) etc. In history, this happens over and over again, bed economic climate in your own country, choose a victim and let your aggression loose on another one.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 14, 2008)

Marcel said:


> I think the great depression was the main reason. If economics are good, people tend to be satisfied. If it's all bad, people to run more aggressive foreign politics to take the attention away from the bad situation in their home country. This happened in Japan and Germany (I know in Germany the bead situation was also due to the versailles treaty), but also in the US (economic agression against Japan) etc. In history, this happens over and over again, bed economic climate in your own country, choose a victim and let your aggression loose on another one.



i believe is a great point, but also, we have to consider that the social situation of germany improves when hitler took the power. the nazis generates many employes and also they grew german industry, so, in 1939, germany was in a very well economic condition, compared with other countries.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 14, 2008)

JugBR said:


> i believe is a great point, but also, we have to consider that the social situation of germany improves when hitler took the power. the nazis generates many employes and also they grew german industry, so, in 1939, germany was in a very well economic condition, compared with other countries.



Exactly, he was the saviour for the Germans at that time. No wonder they followed him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Exactly, he was the saviour for the Germans at that time. No wonder they followed him.



Are you reading this *starling* ?


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 14, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Unless you were alive in Germany during that time, you have no clue as to what it was like for them.
> 
> I think you are making false judgement.



Agree on that! IMO - when you look at the socio-economic situation in Germany at the time Hitler and National Socialism really "fit like a glove". Once people really got the full idea of his regime they either where A.) unwilling to realize the realities or B.) Couldn't do anything as the system had grown too far. I do not hold any ill will against Germans as such for their faults leading up to WW2 - I mostly just find them sad examples of the nature of man kind. Hope we all learn: Don't kick em when they are down and if you have been down and kicked at - try to forgive or forget  

However - on a completely different note - as you once said: Do not ever put words in my mouth - In the thread you refer to I have not made any rude comments - however many have been made against me in it. If you believe that I have - please tell me - because it is not my intent. But you can always answer on the other thread so this one doesn't get of topic again.

The reason I dont like you altering the title (without atleast asking) is that I am listed as the author and those are not my words - its more of a principle - hope you understand.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> However - on a completely different note - as you once said: Do not ever put words in my mouth - In the thread you refer to I have not made any rude comments - however many have been made against me in it. If you believe that I have - please tell me - because it is not my intent. But you can always answer on the other thread so this one doesn't get of topic again.



The point of my post, is that it is all how it is percieved.



Danielmellbin" said:


> The reason I dont like you altering the title (without atleast asking) is that I am listed as the author and those are not my words - its more of a principle - hope you understand.



As a moderator it is part of my job. Consider me an editor of sorts...


----------



## JugBR (Jul 14, 2008)

i believe, we could have an idea about how was the situation in germany at that time because theres many propaganda movies, documentaries and also witness, who talks about a "great ilusion" and how people believed in that ilusionist.

its just obvious that nazi party and hitler was suported by the huge majority of germans, they took the power by democratic meanings and they made a real economical and industrial miracle, puting germany on rails and being the most powerfull country of the end of 30´s.

despite the massacre of jewish, political rivals, eastern europeans, comunists, and despite the freak aryan racial teories, the agressive speeches and the bizare beliefs of nazi leaders, the average german fellow saw his life improve with nazi at the nazi government.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 14, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The point of my post, is that it is all how it is percieved.
> 
> 
> 
> As a moderator it is part of my job. Consider me an editor of sorts...



well i dont want to make drama adler, but you have to realize, edit other persons contents, could be considered censorship.

i know you made by the best of the intentions but i remember stories from people who lived in dictatureship, about the political sections of newspapers was filled with poems and revenues of pudding or just huge black boxes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2008)

JugBR said:


> well i dont want to make drama adler, but you have to realize, edit other persons contents, could be considered censorship.
> 
> i know you made by the best of the intentions but i remember stories from people who lived in dictatureship, about the political sections of newspapers was filled with poems and revenues of pudding or just huge black boxes.



I never edit someone's posts. I edited the title of a thread because I felt that the one that was given was confusing to some members of the forum.

That is my job as a moderator, and I will do it again.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 14, 2008)

JugBR said:


> i believe, we could have an idea about how was the situation in germany at that time because theres many propaganda movies, documentaries and also witness, who talks about a "great ilusion" and how people believed in that ilusionist.
> 
> its just obvious that nazi party and hitler was suported by the huge majority of germans, they took the power by democratic meanings and they made a real economical and industrial miracle, puting germany on rails and being the most powerfull country of the end of 30´s.
> 
> despite the massacre of jewish, political rivals, eastern europeans, comunists, and despite the freak aryan racial teories, the agressive speeches and the bizare beliefs of nazi leaders, the average german fellow saw his life improve with nazi at the nazi government.



Principally I agree with you, but actually the Nazis did not have that big a backing - as in it was far from the 98% Saddam standards (i knooow his elections where rigged) - I believe it was in the region of 50%. 

As far antisemitism goes its no secret that antisemitism was flourishing in Germany (and the rest of the world) at the time. But the public was largely against the violent outbreaks (Kristalnacht and such) - this was reported by the parties own intelligence network. The general notion was: Antisemitism is ok - but not like this.

As for an industrial miracle... well books and studies have found the economy of the third reich surprisingly corrupt and inefficient. No doubt big improvements where made from 35 onwards - but many of them where made by "gung-ho" economic decisions that could easily have colapsed the country if anything had gone wrong. In 1934 the reich only had enough cash to substain *one* week of an eventual economic crisis. A really great book on the economy of the third reich is "Wages of Destruction" by Adam Tooze.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 14, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I never edit someone's posts. I edited the title of a thread because I felt that the one that was given was confusing to some members of the forum.
> 
> That is my job as a moderator, and I will do it again.



I know - and I know it was all in good intent - but it feels wrong to have ones own words changed without consent. Like Jug said - its not at all to make any drama - just hope you would say it or ask first the next time.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 14, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> The Japanese where very much debating whether or not to attack the US - Yamamoto being a strong advisor against it. Had France and the UK not been entangled in the ETO I do not think that the Japanese voices for attacking the US and the colonies would have prevailed.



Daniel, they had no other choice but to go to war or retreat from China. They only had 6 months of oil reserves, and no production.



ToughOmbre said:


> I've never agreed with the idea that FDR "provoked" war with Japan; rather IMO it was Japan who provoked war with the West.
> 
> The embargo of steel and oil to Japan was in response to their aggression against China and the far east.
> 
> TO





FLYBOYJ said:


> I think FDR just wanted Japan out of China - the US did not want to fight the Japanese and was only prepared to protect US territory in the region



Well TO, FJ, I guess it depends on how you look at it. The US was not really interested in what happened in Europe, as Poland Czechoslovakia were seen as a "European problem" not involving the US. By the same logic the USA could have chosen to view the conflict between Japan China as an "Asian problem" and not got involved. 

Roosevelt was well aware that the Japanese belief in "honor" and their own superiority would prevent them from backing down. The President was not willing to let them dominate Asia, and so put in place such stringent sanctions that would force them to withdraw, or very much more likely, to start a war. He also leaned on the Dutch to prevent the Japanese from finding an alternate source of oil.

Note that *I am not in any way blaming Roosevelt* for not backing down, he did the right thing IMO, better to deal with an aggressive Japan sooner rather than later, after they had absorbed all of the rich colonies and could pose a serious threat to the USA.

 I could almost compare that to the pro-active attitude of Les, deal with the potential problems right away, don't let them fester.    

In a similar way, we could ask who "started" the European war, Hitler for invading Poland, or the British French for declaring war?

They called our bluff - we wouldn't back down - so started the war.



Oh boy, imagine if we had Hillary Obama the "Soros" crowd in charge, we would have expressed "regret", had sanctions, and oh! perhaps even ban the Nazi's from the Olympics!  

Perhaps we could have negotiated with the Nazi's to reduce the number of death camps by half? Perhaps ask the Japanese to only kill rape half the people in Nanking? 


Too many people in the West are going soft.... {in the head!}


----------



## Freebird (Jul 14, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I never edit someone's posts. I edited the title of a thread because I felt that the one that was given was confusing to some members of the forum.
> 
> That is my job as a moderator, and I will do it again.




QUOTE=Danielmellbin;374433]This is of course excluding the Pacific war
[/QUOTE]

You are correct DerAdler, after seeing the title some of us posted about the Pacific as well, as it wasn't clear in the title.




renrich said:


> How can one exclude the Pacific war or that in the CBI from the Second WORLD War. The war in the Pacific was probably going to happen anyway as the Japanese thought they needed to expand for their economic well being.





FLYBOYJ said:


> I doubt it...
> 
> They (the Japanese) were being starved of raw materials and oil - they could not continue to support their forces in China unless they did something to break the embargo and get the materials they needed for war .




Daniel, just some advice here as you are fairly new to the forum- Be very careful about the title of a new thread and the way you set up a poll.

You can always edit your *Posts* later, but if you make spelling or other mistakes in the thread title or in the poll only a Moderator can change it.

I would also advise you to "make votes public" and for this poll you should have made it "multiple choice", as some people might think that 2 or more reasons listed in the poll caused the war


This is not in any way intended as critisism, just some advice.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 14, 2008)

freebird said:


> Daniel, they had no other choice but to go to war or retreat from China. They only had 6 months of oil reserves, and no production.



I know - but nevertheless there was violent debate in the Japanese high command on what to do. A major factor in convincing the nay sayers on an all out war (or atleast weakening their arguments) was the Automedon Incident. The papers captured on the Raider revealed the Absolute weakness of the European powers in SEA. As such the Japanese correctly reckoned that their only real adversary at sea was the US - and its pacific fleet could be annihilated by one strike (or so they thought). 

*Freebird* - I agree with your points regarding Roosevelt and the start of the World war - but pleeease keep modern-day politics out of this thread


----------



## Freebird (Jul 14, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> *Freebird* - I agree with your points regarding Roosevelt and the start of the World war - but pleeease keep modern-day politics out of this thread



 OK! 



Danielmellbin said:


> I know - but nevertheless there was violent debate in the Japanese high command on what to do.



*But what alternative did they have?* There was an Imperial conference in July of 1941, they put all of their hopes in convincing the Dutch to sell them oil, otherwise it would lead to war. {They did not know that Roosevelt was leaning on the Dutch very heavily not to do that}

There was a sharp difference of opinion on whether to attack the USA, but there was *NO SUPPORT* for backing down in China, they all agreed that war would bcome if the Dutch refused them oil.

The Navy argued that it would be too dangerous to attack Dutch colonies while the US still had a major base {Philippines} along Japan's supply line, and could choose to attack at any time. It was decided to eliminate this threat as quickly as possible


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 14, 2008)

freebird said:


> Daniel, just some advice here as you are fairly new to the forum- Be very careful about the title of a new thread and the way you set up a poll.
> 
> You can always edit your *Posts* later, but if you make spelling or other mistakes in the thread title or in the poll only a Moderator can change it.
> 
> ...



Thanks mate - learned that the hard way  . However - it was intentional to not make it a multiple choice poll. I wanted people's view on *the* most deciding factor in their opinion. By experience I've seen that "one choice polls" makes people think harder. And then they can always elaborate in their comments.

As i already have tried to explain many times - I would appreciate if I was consulted before my own words where changed - I know that there was no ill will intended. But it just doesn't feel good.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 14, 2008)

freebird said:


> *But what alternative did they have?* There was an Imperial conference in July of 1941, they put all of their hopes in convincing the Dutch to sell them oil, otherwise it would lead to war. {They did not know that Roosevelt was leaning on the Dutch very heavily not to do that}
> 
> There was a sharp difference of opinion on whether to attack the USA, but there was *NO SUPPORT* for backing down in China, they all agreed that war would bcome if the Dutch refused them oil.
> 
> The Navy argued that it would be too dangerous to attack Dutch colonies while the US still had a major base {Philippines} along Japan's supply line, and could choose to attack at any time. It was decided to eliminate this threat as quickly as possible



All true and I also find it hard to see their alternative - but I just wonder if they would not have figured out something if the European powers had not been occupied. Deal with Russia maybe? Highly unlikely seeing as they were not exactly friends to put it mildly. But then again the Russians would also have benifitted from such a deal since their eastern border would have been secure. The Russians weren't exactly strangers to makin deals with their enemies.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2008)

freebird said:


> Well TO, FJ, I guess it depends on how you look at it. The US was not really interested in what happened in Europe, as Poland Czechoslovakia were seen as a "European problem" not involving the US. By the same logic the USA could have chosen to view the conflict between Japan China as an "Asian problem" and not got involved.
> 
> Roosevelt was well aware that the Japanese belief in "honor" and their own superiority would prevent them from backing down. The President was not willing to let them dominate Asia, and so put in place such stringent sanctions that would force them to withdraw, or very much more likely, to start a war. He also leaned on the Dutch to prevent the Japanese from finding an alternate source of oil.
> 
> ...




Points taken - but with the evidence of US strength in the Pacific, the only thing FDR would of done is to ensure that US territories were protected. There was no huge military build up in the Philippines prior to the war to conduct operations against the Japanese; as a matter of fact the military posture there was one of defense rather than offense. In my wife's grandfathers book he talks about this as he was on Macarthur’s staff...


----------



## Freebird (Jul 14, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Points taken - but with the evidence of US strength in the Pacific, the only thing FDR would of done is to ensure that US territories were protected. There was no huge military build up in the Philippines prior to the war to conduct operations against the Japanese; as a matter of fact the military posture there was one of defense rather than offense. In my wife's grandfathers book he talks about this as he was on Macarthur’s staff...



We got into this a little bit in Syscom's earlier thread, 2 points I would bring up.

1.) The Japanese were aware that Roosevelt was hostile, while the mood in Congress was Isolationist {a large part of it}. The danger for the Japanese was that if they depended on US neutrality, the Congressional elections in 1942 might return an intervetionalist group who would take action against Japanese aggression. Then it would be to late to try to make a surprise attack, not to mention the large # of forces would have been tied up in IndoChina and could not be easily transferred to the Philippines

2.) Although the exact diplomatic arrangements have never been released I am *totally convinced* that Roosevelt must have given the Dutch an *ironclad* guarantee of support in event of Japanese invasion, to secure Dutch support for a total embargo. If Roosevelt had given *anything less* than a total {but secret} guarantee, I think the Dutch would have caved to Japanese pressure and sold the oil. They had already lost Holland to the Nazi's, why would they pick a fight with Japan? The Dutch did not really care if Japan was involved in China, it would keep them busy for a few years.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2008)

Well in reading "Bloody Shambles" and my wife's grandfather's book those promises by FDR were pretty empty - the US would of had to deploy a sizable force to counter the Japanese and even if Pearl Harbor didn't happen I could not see the US defending Dutch Territories let alone its own possessions - I think history proved that to ultimately be correct.


----------



## stasoid (Jul 15, 2008)

I voted for Munich Agreement as the main factor triggering the war. There should be no confusion on how that all began. He got the green light. He gained some territories without firing s shot, his logic was simple: why not to take it all.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 15, 2008)

stasoid said:


> I voted for Munich Agreement as the main factor triggering the war. There should be no confusion on how that all began. He got the green light. He gained some territories without firing s shot, his logic was simple: why not to take it all.




"Les Idiot" - Daladier when he returned from Munich and saw the chearing crowds. (pardon if my french is bad - but the quote is correct)

However - I think that the history of 1914-1938 makes it unrealistic that any other politician would have acted differently.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Jul 15, 2008)

Off topic a bit nice to see i have one believer in rock daniel 

Back on topic, for one of our units at school we did Adolph, and drawing from this i really think that the thing that sparked off WW2 in europe at least was the treaty of Versaille. As adler said before it sparked german resentment towards the rest of europe for being treated in that manner if Hitler hadn't done what he did i believe someone else would have, the oppotunity was right there for the taking.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 15, 2008)

I am pretty sure that the US made gurantees to the Dutch as well. The Americans put great faith in the deterrent effect of the airpower that was based in the Phillipines, and grossly overrated the effectiveness of the filipino army in resisting the Japanese. The Americans also believed their own military assessments, which in the long run was correct, that a Japanese attack on the west would be national hari kari by the Japanese.

The events that led to the Japanese entry can be summed pretty easily, it was a gross strategic miscalculation by the Americans. i dont believe, incidentally in the conspiracy theories that Roosevelt engineered it to happen, to facilitate US entry to the war. I do believe he thought war was coming, but was hoping, rather than predicting, that the outbreak of the war might be delayed by a couple more months, to allow the new reinforcements being rushed to the theatre, to be put into position


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I am pretty sure that the US made gurantees to the Dutch as well. The Americans put great faith in the deterrent effect of the airpower that was based in the Phillipines, and grossly overrated the effectiveness of the filipino army in resisting the Japanese. The Americans also believed their own military assessments, which in the long run was correct, that a Japanese attack on the west would be national hari kari by the Japanese.
> 
> The events that led to the Japanese entry can be summed pretty easily, it was a gross strategic miscalculation by the Americans. i dont believe, incidentally in the conspiracy theories that Roosevelt engineered it to happen, to facilitate US entry to the war. I do believe he thought war was coming, but was hoping, rather than predicting, that the outbreak of the war might be delayed by a couple more months, to allow the new reinforcements being rushed to the theatre, to be put into position


I do agree however those reinforcements were probably spoken about but would of never materalized.


----------



## Glider (Jul 15, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 100% disagree - the US and Japan were at odds since the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.
> 
> *"In 1939, the US notified Japan that it would renounce the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation that was signed by both countries in 1911. President Roosevelt, then, went on to the imposition of partial embargo of gasoline for aircraft and scrap-metal on Japan in July 1940. Japan countered the partial embargo by advancing its troops to the northern Indo-China, and the US matched the Japan’s expansion with the addition of more subjects to the list of partial embargo. This vicious circle of retaliations escalated and reached its peak when Japan moved even into the southern Indo-China in July, 1941 and the US replied to it by freezing the Japanese assets in the US and, furthermore, by the complete oil embargo on Japan. As a result, the Japanese leaders found themselves in an extremely difficult situation in which they had to make their decision out of two options: to bow before the US, or to fight a desperate war against the US"*
> 
> ...



There is no disagreement about the historical facts about what happened, its a matter of record.
The only question I would have, is that if the UK had not gone to war with Germany, would Japan have attacked America knowing that it was almost certain that the UK would support the USA in any conflict. I don't think they would. To go against the two biggest Navies in the world at the same time in a naval domminated environment such as the Pacific would be asking a lot.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 15, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well in reading "Bloody Shambles" and my wife's grandfather's book those promises by FDR were pretty empty - the US would of had to deploy a sizable force to counter the Japanese



Oh I don't doubt that the promises would have involved some wishful thinking! But I see no other possible explanation for the Dutch refusing to deal with the Japanese. 



parsifal said:


> I am pretty sure that the US made gurantees to the Dutch as well.



Remember that in 1940 even the British had tried to appease the Japanese to some extent by shutting down the "Burma Road". In 1941 after consultations with Roosevelt the opened it up again, because there was an understanding that the Allies would work together to counter the Japanese.



FLYBOYJ said:


> even if Pearl Harbor didn't happen I could not see the US defending Dutch Territories let alone its own possessions - I think history proved that to ultimately be correct.



Actually the US { UK} did attempt to defend the Dutch territories, that was the purpose of "ABDA", and the Allied attack against the Japanese landings {Battle of the Java Sea} After the shock of Pearl Harbour though, all that could be mustered was the CA Houston and some DD's {+ British, Australian Dutch CA's CL's

I don't think that Roosevelt would have promised direct defence, more likely that the US would intervene to help defend {mainly with air naval power} in the event of a Japanese attack on the East Indies. The Dutch had a native army of about 160,000 {similar to the Philippine scouts} I believe that the planners envisioned the Dutch local ground troops would be able to defend their own territory *IF* the US Navy Air Force took care of the Japanese fleet. The East Indies native troops performed quite poorly, and as Parsifal mentioned, similar to the weak performance of native troops in the Philippines. {hardly surprising considering the lack of training.}



parsifal said:


> The Americans put great faith in the deterrent effect of the airpower that was based in the Phillipines, and *grossly overrated the effectiveness of the filipino army in resisting the Japanese.* The Americans also believed their own military assessments, which in the long run was correct, that a Japanese attack on the west would be national hari kari by the Japanese.



The assessment was reasonably good on this point though, *IF* the Japanese Navy were neutralized, the Japanese domination of S.E. Asia could not be maintained without supply. The problem was that the planners did not take into account the possibility of the Allied Navies Air power being beaten


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 15, 2008)

Aussie1001 said:


> Off topic a bit nice to see i have one believer in rock daniel
> 
> Back on topic, for one of our units at school we did Adolph, and drawing from this i really think that the thing that sparked off WW2 in europe at least was the treaty of Versaille. As adler said before it sparked german resentment towards the rest of europe for being treated in that manner if Hitler hadn't done what he did i believe someone else would have, the oppotunity was right there for the taking.




hehe - all you need in life is two guitars, drums and a bass 8) (and the guts of rapper to use for... I don't know! just give me the guts of a rapper!  ) 

Aaaand back on topic - Another interesting point is that the Japanese where largely regarded as "subhumans" in the west. I remember seeing a documentary about The HMS Prince of Wales - their crew where told not to worry about lack of aircover as the japs where flying paper plains and could not bomb very precisely because of their poor vision which was due to their narrow eyes  This might be overanalyzing - but i think that rascism was a big factor in luring the the allied powers to think that their meagre forces would be enough.

Regarding Europe I pretty much agree. Even if Germany had not begun a war (with- or without Hitler) then a conflict with the Soviets would have been all but inevitable. Only something as horrible as Hitler could make the west ally with Stalin. What was it Churchill said: "If Hitler invaded Hell I would ally with the Devil"....


----------



## Freebird (Jul 15, 2008)

Glider said:


> There is no disagreement about the historical facts about what happened, its a matter of record.
> The only question I would have, is that if the UK had not gone to war with Germany, would Japan have attacked America knowing that it was almost certain that the UK would support the USA in any conflict. I don't think they would. To go against the two biggest Navies in the world at the same time in a naval domminated environment such as the Pacific would be asking a lot.



Glider I think the big turning point was not the war with Germany, but the French Armistice. With Indo-China still in French hands, + the French Navy watching the Italians in the Med, Britain France would be in a far better position to contest the Far East. If the Allies would be on the strategic defensive, the addition of shore-based airpower would probably balance out the slight inferiority in Aircraft Carriers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2008)

Glider said:


> The only question I would have, is that if the UK had not gone to war with Germany, would Japan have attacked America knowing that it was almost certain that the UK would support the USA in any conflict. I don't think they would. To go against the two biggest Navies in the world at the same time in a naval domminated environment such as the Pacific would be asking a lot.


Agree...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2008)

freebird said:


> Actually the US { UK} did attempt to defend the Dutch territories, that was the purpose of "ABDA", and the Allied attack against the Japanese landings {Battle of the Java Sea} After the shock of Pearl Harbour though, all that could be mustered was the CA Houston and some DD's {+ British, Australian Dutch CA's CL's


It's a big "would of, could of" to see what type of force the US would of mustered against the Japanese in the Dutch Territories. I also question how well US forces would of fought - remember Pearl Harbor was probably worth 5 carrier fleets in charging those serving in the Pacific - it's amazing how the wish for revenge could motivate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> I remember seeing a documentary about The HMS Prince of Wales - their crew where told not to worry about lack of aircover as the japs where flying paper plains and could not bomb very precisely because of their poor vision which was due to their narrow eyes  This might be overanalyzing - but i think that rascism was a big factor in luring the the allied powers to think that their meagre forces would be enough.


I think that racism took hold after Pearl. I seen numerous publications that made the Japanese look sub-human, and the "sneak attack" of Pearl Harbor further compounded this.

The cartoonist who did the original "Buck Rogers" comic strip (his name escapes me) was running a major episode in his strip during 1941 - "The Monkey Men of Mars" were invading the US - they were drawn out to look like monkeys - after Pearl Harbor the "Monkey Men of Mars" slowly began to look like Japanese....


----------



## JugBR (Jul 15, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think that racism took hold after Pearl. I seen numerous publications that made the Japanese look sub-human, and the "sneak attack" of Pearl Harbor further compounded this.
> 
> The cartoonist who did the original "Buck Rogers" comic strip (his name escapes me) was running a major episode in his strip during 1941 - "The Monkey Men of Mars" were invading the US - they were drawn out to look like monkeys - after Pearl Harbor the "Monkey Men of Mars" slowly began to look like Japanese....



theres an interesting movie, flyboy and daniel:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGJPzpWrAXU_

until these days, some people also think japaneses have poor vision, or black people cant swim well, this is racism, but also ignorance, culture and informations should resolve the problem !


----------



## Freebird (Jul 15, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It's a big "would of, could of" to see what type of force the US would of mustered against the Japanese in the Dutch Territories. I also question how well US forces would of fought - remember Pearl Harbor was probably worth 5 carrier fleets in charging those serving in the Pacific - it's amazing how the wish for revenge could motivate.



Ah yes but there is a big difference in promising aid and actually delivering it when the time came!  I think Roosevelt could honestly say "If the Japanese attack you we will intervene", but he would not be giving specifics like exactly what that aid would be. In the worst case scenario, if the US was unable to prevent the Japanese from capturing Indonesia then the US "aid" would consist of liberating SE Asia from the Japanese at *some future unspecified date.* {Much like the Poles thought that British French aid would be immediate, whereas they thought of there "guarantee" to mean that if invaded by Germany Poland would be liberated AT SOME FUTURE DATE.

The original US plan was to wear down the Japanese Naval capability, while the native troops kept the Japanese occupied. Obviously the huge flaw in the plan was that the US UK totally underestimated Japanese air naval ability.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 15, 2008)

freebird said:


> Much like the Poles thought that British French aid would be immediate, whereas they thought of there "guarantee" to mean that if invaded by Germany Poland would be liberated AT SOME FUTURE DATE.



Poland - one of the sadest if not the sadest story of WW2. 95% of all jews, 90% of all intelectuals and god knows how many of the "regular" people where exterminated. And then to add "injury to injury" - Stalins betrayal at the Warsaw Uprising. They performed bravely as soldiers in 39 - and later especially at Monte Cassino. I think Poland is also the biggest Irony of WW2 - It was because England and France Guaranteed Polish independence that war was declared - and as such it was the original goal of the war to free Poland. Yet this never happened - the Poles where robbed of their independence (*real* independence anyway) for another 45 years after the peace was settled..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2008)

freebird said:


> Ah yes but there is a big difference in promising aid and actually delivering it when the time came!  I think Roosevelt could honestly say "If the Japanese attack you we will intervene", but he would not be giving specifics like exactly what that aid would be. In the worst case scenario, if the US was unable to prevent the Japanese from capturing Indonesia then the US "aid" would consist of liberating SE Asia from the Japanese at *some future unspecified date.* {Much like the Poles thought that British French aid would be immediate, whereas they thought of there "guarantee" to mean that if invaded by Germany Poland would be liberated AT SOME FUTURE DATE.
> 
> The original US plan was to wear down the Japanese Naval capability, while the native troops kept the Japanese occupied. Obviously the huge flaw in the plan was that the US UK totally underestimated Japanese air naval ability.



I think FDR was underestimating the Japanese and overestimating the capability of US forces, but I agree with your scenerio.


----------



## renrich (Jul 16, 2008)

FB, don't forget CLs Marblehead and Boise. The facts are that the US was very poorly prepared for war in 1941 although of all the services the USN was probably further along than the others. During the Louisiana Maneuvers in 1940, the Army was using wooden guns and cardboard tanks. I don't believe the US military underestimated the Japanese. They had plenty of intelligence about Japanese capabilities including the Zero fighter in 1941. One can give an opponent all the respect in the world but real comparisons in combat is the only meaningful way of discovering if one's tactics and equipment is up to scratch. I agree absolutely about the sadness regarding the plight of the Poles.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 16, 2008)

renrich said:


> FB, don't forget CLs Marblehead and Boise.


 Sorry Ren I didn't make clear in my post, I was referring to the ships that tried to intercept the Japanese landing at "Java Sea", the unfortunate "Boise" {ran aground, out-of-action} and the Marblehead did not participate in that one. The real problem in this one goes back to Churchill. He over-ruled the Admiralty {who wanted to send a proper task force with A/C's}, and sent the PoW Repulse to "intimidate" the Japanese to prevent them from declaring war. AS SOON AS JAPAN attacked PH, these 2 ships should have been withdrawn from Singapore, to provide the backbone of an "ABDA" fleet. "Java Sea" wold have been a completely different story! 



renrich said:


> The facts are that the US was very poorly prepared for war in 1941 although of all the services the USN was probably further along than the others. During the Louisiana Maneuvers in 1940, the Army was using wooden guns and cardboard tanks. I don't believe the US military underestimated the Japanese. They had plenty of intelligence about Japanese capabilities including the Zero fighter in 1941.



They had some information, but it seems to have been ignored. The sinking of the PoW was partly because the Royal Navy did not think that the Nell's Betty's had enough range to strike out that far.




renrich said:


> One can give an opponent all the respect in the world but real comparisons in combat is the only meaningful way of discovering if one's tactics and equipment is up to scratch. I agree absolutely about the sadness regarding the plight of the Poles.



Well.... Yes and no. You have to use the best information and make the best possible estimates based on good advice. True, only real combat will demonstrate the exact abilities.

*However* there were many cases where advice from experienced knowlegable officers was ignored because high command did not want to face up to reality


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 16, 2008)

renrich said:


> FB, don't forget CLs Marblehead and Boise. The facts are that the US was very poorly prepared for war in 1941 although of all the services the USN was probably further along than the others. During the Louisiana Maneuvers in 1940, the Army was using wooden guns and cardboard tanks. I don't believe the US military underestimated the Japanese. They had plenty of intelligence about Japanese capabilities including the Zero fighter in 1941. One can give an opponent all the respect in the world but real comparisons in combat is the only meaningful way of discovering if one's tactics and equipment is up to scratch. I agree absolutely about the sadness regarding the plight of the Poles.


You stated my point though - look at the state of the US military in 1940. Look at what the US had in the Pacific. I do think MacArthur knew what he was up against and Chennault tried to warn the US but that went on deaf ears. Also remember that the US did not have a unified military command and there was a lot of inter service bickering and fighting, it didn't help much. 

As mentioned there were many in the US military and US government that pictured the Japanese as tiny inferior people with bad vision. When Pearl Harbor happened it was a slap ion the face as well as a wake up call and the propaganda machine in the US exploited this.


----------



## renrich (Jul 16, 2008)

Our tactical doctrine was really flawed at that time also and as you have stated, Flyboy, we were in a defensive posture in the Philipines. So we sent B17s to MacArthur because they were supposed be able to defend the Philipines against a sea borne invasion. Of course the B17s were caught on the ground but the ones that did get into the fight sank little if any of the IJN invasion force except in the newspapers where Colin Kelly and Meyer Levin sank the Haruna(which was not even in the vicinity.) Those B17s of which there were more in the Philipines on Dec. 7 than at any other US base did about as much good there as they did at Midway. Billy Mitchell did not do the US any favors on that subject. I agree on the racism against the Japanese and it carried over during the entire war. When one reads accounts of the Allied POWs it is easy to understand the racism.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 16, 2008)

Hi Freebird


*....... The real problem in this one goes back to Churchill. He over-ruled the Admiralty {who wanted to send a proper task force with A/C's}, and sent the PoW Repulse to "intimidate" the Japanese to prevent them from declaring war. AS SOON AS JAPAN attacked PH, these 2 ships should have been withdrawn from Singapore, to provide the backbone of an "ABDA" fleet. "Java Sea" wold have been a completely different story! *


I dont think thats actually completely correct. There were actually a number of plans considered by the Admiralty. One involved sending some of the older "R" class battleships to Ceylon, as a sort of long range deterrent to the Japanese. This plan was rejected by Churchill (this was about the time he described the "R" class as "floating coffins"), but it was basically the plan that was implemented folowing the destruction of Force Z. It is true that Churchill strongly advocated a forward deployment to Singapore, of a fast, modern squadron, but it is not true that he vetoed or opposed the sending of a carrier as escort(quite the opposite as I recall). In fact one of the Brit Carriers was actually on the way (Implacable IIRC), but it hit an uncharted rock enroute. It was actually the Admiralty who recommended that the deployment of the two battlewagons, in the belief that the Buffaloes deployed in Malaya were "more than a match for anything the Japanese possessed. It was assumed (even though the intelligence was there to show otherwise, that the main fighter in the IJN was the biplane A4N, and as you say, that the G3M Nells could not carry torpedoes as far as they actually could. The aircrew training levels were assumed in a report to the admiralty to be "somewhat below the standard of italian aviators". The British went into the battle supremely confident that they could mange the IJN air arm with available resources. This was not a Churchill inspired blunder, it came from deep within the RN itself. 


*However there were many cases where advice from experienced knowlegable officers was ignored because high command did not want to face up to reality*

Aint that the truth!!!!!


----------



## Njaco (Jul 17, 2008)

I voted for the last choice. I believe the ideaologies of the different governments were made to clash at some point. Versailles was a focal point and nothing more. You have to remember the tenants of the Nazis, the Aryan Superrace doctrine that at some point would involve the rest of Europe. Same with Mussolini and to an extent Stalin.

Versailles and the Depression and all the other economic hardships and hatreds allowed these governments to be hostile. It was inevitable.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 17, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I dont think thats actually completely correct. There were actually a number of plans considered by the Admiralty. One involved sending some of the older "R" class battleships to Ceylon, as a sort of long range deterrent to the Japanese. This plan was rejected by Churchill (this was about the time he described the "R" class as "floating coffins"), but it was basically the plan that was implemented folowing the destruction of Force Z.



*From what I've read {Naval chief} Admiral Pound had the best handle on this, he was opposed to just sending the 2 ships, he advocated a complete squadron, and at minimum wanted to have the 2 ships wait for a replacement carrier, but Churchill was convinced that the Japanese would be awed by the new PoW. Pound also felt that the Repulse was a poor choice, as it's weak AA would be a handicap in the PTO.*




parsifal said:


> It is true that Churchill strongly advocated a forward deployment to Singapore, of a fast, modern squadron, but it is not true that he vetoed or opposed the sending of a carrier as escort(quite the opposite as I recall). In fact one of the Brit Carriers was actually on the way (Implacable IIRC), but it hit an uncharted rock enroute.



*
It was actually the brand new Indomitable that hit a rock while working up in Jamaica, Churchill vetoed a delay to allow a replacement carrier {likely would have been Formidable}*



parsifal said:


> It was actually the Admiralty who recommended that the deployment of the two battlewagons, in the belief that the Buffaloes deployed in Malaya were "more than a match for anything the Japanese possessed. It was assumed (even though the intelligence was there to show otherwise, that the main fighter in the IJN was the biplane A4N, and as you say, that the G3M Nells could not carry torpedoes as far as they actually could. The aircrew training levels were assumed in a report to the admiralty to be "somewhat below the standard of italian aviators". The British went into the battle supremely confident that they could mange the IJN air arm with available resources. This was not a Churchill inspired blunder, it came from deep within the RN itself.



*Depends which version of the Admiralty plans you look at, but from my reading Pound was the most opposed to this "show", and after it failed to prevent the Japanese attack, he wanted to withdraw the ships. Churchill was convinced that the PoW could "catch and Kill" any Japanese ship, so they were sent to try to attack the invasion transports.

The myth that ships in open water could evade air attack had already been disproved in the Med during the retreat from Greece Crete. Considering the # of ships lost there the British should never have allowed these 2 capital ships to deploy without air cover.

I have a very good account of the events of the time in "70 days to Singapore"*


----------



## parsifal (Jul 17, 2008)

I have a book i have been meaning to read as well..."Main Fleet To Singapore"

Would very much like to hear your information. I will have a look at my source, we should be able to get a very good idea of the events that led to the loss as a result


----------



## Negative Creep (Jul 22, 2008)

As with anything of this nature, it's a combination of most or maybe all of the options. Yes Versailles led to WW2 in that Germany wanted to avenge perceived injustice and humiliation, but many things happened between 1919 and 1939 that were just as important. 

If the Allies had occupied Germany at any point before the late 30's, they could've nipped National Socialism in the bud. On the other hand, it's very easy to say this with the benefit of hindsight and both France and Britain were tired of war, had weak militaries and had enough problems rebuilding at home.

Hitler no doubt wanted war with Soviet Russia and in all likelihood would want a limited conflict with France. If he had invaded the USSR without declaring war on the Western Allies, would they have gone to her aid? Unlikely, seeing as Britain and France were amongst those who sent forces to White Russia.

If Germany had been invaded after she attacked Poland, then the war could've been over in months and we'd know it as a conflict, not a world war. The closer you get to 1939, the more obvious the prospect of war was. Perhaps it was inevitable, but only because the Allies sat back whilst Germany was allowed to grow again


----------



## Freebird (Jul 22, 2008)

Negative Creep said:


> As with anything of this nature, it's a combination of most or maybe all of the options. Yes Versailles led to WW2 in that Germany wanted to avenge perceived injustice and humiliation, but many things happened between 1919 and 1939 that were just as important.
> 
> If Germany had been invaded after she attacked Poland, then the war could've been over in months and we'd know it as a conflict, not a world war. The closer you get to 1939, the more obvious the prospect of war was. Perhaps it was inevitable, but only because the Allies sat back whilst Germany was allowed to grow again



I have also read that by 1939 the German economy had been improving, war debts mostly forgiven, Rhineland re-occupied and Germany had been allowed to build a Navy again. 

So much of the Versaille "humiliation' was no longer in play,it was mostly just Hitler's propaganda.


A better option would have been to help the Czechs stand up against Germany, the terrain there would have been far tougher a fight for the Nazis than Poland


----------



## Marcel (Jul 27, 2008)

Njaco said:


> I voted for the last choice. I believe the ideaologies of the different governments were made to clash at some point. Versailles was a focal point and nothing more. You have to remember the tenants of the Nazis, the Aryan Superrace doctrine that at some point would involve the rest of Europe. Same with Mussolini and to an extent Stalin.
> 
> Versailles and the Depression and all the other economic hardships and hatreds allowed these governments to be hostile. It was inevitable.



It's a chicken and egg story, really. I believe the rising of the NSDAP only occurred after the economic climate went down hill. So the depression really helped Hitler into the saddle.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 27, 2008)

Marcel said:


> It's a chicken and egg story, really. I believe the rising of the NSDAP only occurred after the economic climate went down hill. So the depression really helped Hitler into the saddle.



but more of it was just demagogery by Hitler, the German economy was recovering, and many of the hated Versaille clauses had been forgotten.

Hitler aquired power much the same way Mugabe did, he stole it!


----------



## Njaco (Jul 27, 2008)

I agree, Marcel. hatreds were just simmering below the surface and it took these leaders with their crazy ideas to drag the countries into them. I'm sure most countries have these thoughts but there are too many people who are fail-safes to let anything happen. Doesn't mean there not there.


----------



## Amsel (Sep 12, 2008)

All it took was all the right madmen in all the right positions (not just Axis) and you have a major catastrophe. WW2 started the downhill slide of western civilization.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 12, 2008)

freebird said:


> but more of it was just demagogery by Hitler, the German economy was recovering, and many of the hated Versaille clauses had been forgotten.


The economy was not recovering in 1933. And even if it was, the sentiments were already created and it would have taken a few years of prosperity to wear off. It was a natural reaction of the German people. You see it everywhere, when economy is going down, people tend to vote more for these kind of people, who can talk very well, point the finger elsewhere for blaming (jews, Muslims, capitalists, communists) and seem to have a clear, harsh solution to the problems. We have it here in the Netherlands as well, it's called Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders.


----------



## RabidAlien (Sep 12, 2008)

That sort of thing is everywhere. In the US, its called "politics". Mud-slinging has taken over for "rights of the people".


----------

