This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Britain should not have declared war on Germany, 1939

Reply 40

S_123

14

If he took over the east I wouldn't exist and the world would be a lot worse of without me.
/ thread.

Reply 41

Bagration

OP

18

Inzamam99

1) Very few Jews would've remained- massive holocaust bigger than that which happened would have occured.

Soviet control of Europe vs Nazi control of Europe -- there's no moral difference.

Inzamam99

2) US economy was coming out of the recession as a result of Roosevelt's interventionalist policies. The mere threat of war would have and did hasten this process.

Erm... that's not really true. The US economy was lifted out of depression by the war economy literally forcing a large percentage of the country to work. It was not in any way particularly recovering in 1939 to the extent that it did in 46-47.

Inzamam99

3) Beating the Japanese would still have required a hell of a lot of resources and the British could have lost anyway.

Or we could have made a deal with them.

Inzamam99

4) Yes because Britain could easily have invaded France while Germany stood by to the threat on its borders (if the British had somehow pulled off an invasion in the first place).

Who said anything about Britain invading France?!?!

Inzamam99

5) The Nazi Empire would have been stronger than the Soviet Union. The very reason the USSR collapsed was because the people had pretty much nothing from its onset and at times over 60% of the GDP was going into the military. The Germans under Hitler were actually very well off and actually liked him whereas the Russians probably hated their leaders.

Basically

More like 15-17%. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

The reason the USSR collapsed economically was because the relatively free market West was able to outproduce them in GDP and the Soviets had to spend more % of their economy on weapons as a result, as well as the Soviet economy being particularly ****. It's a myth of history that the Nazi economy was good. It was anything but. By '38 the choice had to be made between guns and butter when the West was on the verge of affording both.

Reply 42

Bagration

OP

18

Gremlins

Ok, a couple of things:

1. Holocaust, much?

Soviets as a superpower or Nazis as a superpower, doesn't bother me. What matters is who opposes them afterwards.

Gremlins

2. Germany's war-plan was basically to use the resources of as much as Western/Central Europe possible to conquer Russia. France was one of the world's biggest industrial and military powers and would have had to have been conquered before a serious invasion of Russia could be mounted, so that puts your 'satellite state' idea out the window.

Do you have a source on this, because I don't think that's true. The resources required to hold down the Western territories seemingly outweigh the advantages of having them.

Gremlins

3. The USSR would probably still have won but would end up running much more of Europe.

This I certainly disagree with. The amount of war material simply given to the Russians by the West was dramatically important. I don't think that without the West in the war, the Russians would have won.

Gremlins

4. Anti-colonial movements wouldn't dissapear overnight.

Are you sure about that? In the East, anti colonial movements arose or were strengthened by British defeat. In Africa, much of anti-colonialism was driven by Britain and as you know, turned out to be a disaster anyway.

Reply 43

Bagration

OP

18

Mr_K_Dilkington

Bagration - have you been reading Niall Ferguson out of interest?

Actually no.

Reply 44

Mr_K_Dilkington

14

Bagration

It's a myth of history that the Nazi economy was good. It was anything but. By '38 the choice had to be made between guns and butter when the West was on the verge of affording both.

You're right that the Nazi economy wasn't good. However, Germany wasn't really having to choose between guns and butter during the war. Until the last year or so of the war, the people living in Germany experienced no drastic drop in living conditions. The popularity of Hitler was, in many ways, directly linked to his ability to keep the home population sweet with a decent food supply, full employment, decent welfare state etc. Hitler still remembered well the revolution of 1918-19 and the massive problems of the food shortages which had sparked it, so he was extra mindful of keeping the home front in relative material comfort. The grim economic conditions of late 44 onwards in Germany was a big shock to the Germans.

Reply 45

Inzamam99

16

Bagration

Soviet control of Europe vs Nazi control of Europe -- there's no moral difference.

Erm... that's not really true. The US economy was lifted out of depression by the war economy literally forcing a large percentage of the country to work. It was not in any way particularly recovering in 1939 to the extent that it did in 46-47.

Or we could have made a deal with them.

Who said anything about Britain invading France?!?!

More like 15-17%. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

The reason the USSR collapsed economically was because the relatively free market West was able to outproduce them in GDP and the Soviets had to spend more % of their economy on weapons as a result, as well as the Soviet economy being particularly ****. It's a myth of history that the Nazi economy was good. It was anything but. By '38 the choice had to be made between guns and butter when the West was on the verge of affording both.

1) Excluding Stalin, Hitler was much, MUCH more immoral than all of the other Soviet leaders combined together. I would rather have the Soviets who severely limit your freedom and don't prosecute you if you keep in line (except stalin) than the genocidal Nazis.

2) Roosevelt's New Deal had a considerable effect on turning around the American economy. We discussed this in our history class today and looked at the views of 8 historians- 7 felt that the New Deal was a qualified success which put the economy back on its feet although it was unable to get it back to 1928 levels until 1941. Even with the US remanining uninvolved in the wars that would have happened, the mobilisation would have created many more jobs and had pretty much the same effect that it did in real life.

3) ~~By the end of the Cold War~~ Can't be asked so here's a bit off one of my history essays, basically the arms race had an enormous effect as did the USSR's crap economic system, btw, the USSR was officially spending the amount you state but actually the amount was much higher- upto 60% some say:

During the Cold War, immense growth and prosperity were concentrated in the areas closely linked to the expanding Soviet military-industrial complex. Powerful voices inside the Soviet elite, fearful of American “militarism”, continued to make insatiable demands for military investments. Advanced industries and research facilities sprung up all over the country along with dozens of “secret cities” each employing thousands of people. However these cities especially Akademgorodok quickly became now as centres of democratic radicalism within the political elite; some scientists even spoke out against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. As with many other Soviet initiatives, vast financial resources had gone into something that became more of a drain on resources rather than engine of growth. In his book “The Overburdened Economy”, historian Lloyd Dumas makes a convincing case that the USSR was economically devastated by the counter-productive effects of military spending. Unlike the USSR, however, the U.S. devastation did not show up directly in shortage of consumer and producer goods. This is because, unlike the Soviets, the U.S. was integrated with the global capitalist market and flooded with imported goods. Instead, the U.S. suffers from the unemployment and under-employment that result when domestic production is replaced by imports. This argument characterises the failures of the Soviet socialist economic system in dealing with the enormous demands that the arms race place upon it. In the context of Cold War international relations the chronically inefficient Soviet economic system ensured that by the 1980’s the Soviet Union was experiencing such a huge drain upon its economy as a result of the military’s demands that it was going bankrupt- the RAND Corporation estimated that the Soviet Union was losing between thirty billion dollars to fifty billion dollars by the beginning of the 1980’s. Henceforth it’s clear that it was the arms race that brought about the enormous shortage of consumer goods and hence rampant public discontent with the system within the Soviet Union.

:smile:

EDIT: How else can the UK create satellite states in Western Europe?

Reply 46

username358506

20

Bagration

We should have let the Germans eat up the East. Meanwhile, we strengthen our garrisons in the colonies, beat off the Japanese as a result, and maintain the Empire. The US goes into obscurity or whatever as the depression destroys their economy. Germany beats the Soviets and makes satellite states out of Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile, Britain does the same and makes satellite states out of Western Europe and other countries around the globe that aren't part of her Empire already. Britain and Germany fight a Great Game over South America in the 50s. Both develop the atom bomb and there is a cold war between the British Empire and Nazi Germany. The Nazi Empire breaks down in the early 90s like the Soviet one did, much for the same reasons, and Britain and her Empire are left as the world superpowers (since both Britain and Germany see to it that China never proper industrialises.)

Thoughts?

I don't particularly like the idea of the Soviets losing to the Germans.

Other than that it sounds very, very, very realistic!

Reply 47

DJkG.1

17

I'm sorry, but you're becoming just another hyped-up British nationalist retrospectively strategising to "save the empire", "see off America as the world's superpower" and "prevent Chinese industrialisation". :yawn:

There is just so much wrong with your ridiculously over-simplified take on relations at the time that I don't know where to begin. And neither is there any point - that is not what happened and it could not have either given the circumstances.

Also, it's somewhat worrying that you'll criticise those who try to undermine the British way of life, say, stating that such behaviour is immoral but the British maintaining their imperialist colonial empire and preventing Chinese industrialisation etc. etc. are all fine. :curious:

Reply 48

Stella476

You're right. Britain should not have declared war in 1939, but 1935 or by the very latest of 1938

Reply 49

Rhadamanthus

17

Notker

As for the Holocaust - not our problem, but we could have persuaded Hitler to simply deport non-Europeans rather than kill them.

Reply 50

Epud

Bagration

We should have let the Germans eat up the East. Meanwhile, we strengthen our garrisons in the colonies, beat off the Japanese as a result, and maintain the Empire. The US goes into obscurity or whatever as the depression destroys their economy. Germany beats the Soviets and makes satellite states out of Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile, Britain does the same and makes satellite states out of Western Europe and other countries around the globe that aren't part of her Empire already. Britain and Germany fight a Great Game over South America in the 50s. Both develop the atom bomb and there is a cold war between the British Empire and Nazi Germany. The Nazi Empire breaks down in the early 90s like the Soviet one did, much for the same reasons, and Britain and her Empire are left as the world superpowers (since both Britain and Germany see to it that China never proper industrialises.)

Thoughts?

Who the hell wants South America, and where does the middle east come in all of this?

Reply 51

Epud

AAaaaaaaaaaaaand. How do you make satellite states out of western europe? They wouldn't just bend over and take it.

Reply 52

Pipe BRD

As being German I want to thank Britain for declaring war on Germany in 1939. Together with their allies it put the end to a regime of mass-murders, ended a genocide and installed democracy, that now lasts for more than 60 years.

Denk' ich an Deutschland in der Nacht
bin ich um den Schlaf gebracht
Ich kann nicht mehr die Augen schließen
und meine heißen Tränen fließen

Reply 53

ChemistBoy

16

The problem is that we couldn't effectively garrison let alone strengthen our colonies. The Japanese would have pissed all over us (in fact they did). Apart from the fact of lack of resources available to Britain, great plan.

Reply 54

L i b

19

Mr_K_Dilkington

Bagration - have you been reading Niall Ferguson out of interest?

God bless old Niall. He's spectacular.

JW92

The Second World War protected a lot of innocent people from the Nazi regime. Is that not more important?

"Holocaust" is more or less the best argument about what Baggy is proposing - the word itself nowadays strikes absolute revulsion in the hearts of every right-minded person who knows history - but let's face it, that wasn't the reason we went into the war in 1939. The Second World War also killed a hell of a lot of people in itself - a quick glance at Wikipedia says 73 million, which seems a bit excessive. Either way, a horrible thing. Meanwhile we happily sat back and let the likes of Stalin oppress Eastern Europe in a similar way to the Nazi regime - including dear old Poland who we entered the damn war to liberate.

In addition to countless dead, just think how many of the living had their lives destroyed. Think how many great works of art went missing, or how many beautiful cities were turned to rubble like Dresden or Coventry. We're not really arguing on consequences here, just on what was the lesser of the two evils.

Epud

AAaaaaaaaaaaaand. How do you make satellite states out of western europe? They wouldn't just bend over and take it.

They weren't far off it.

Reply 55

scorpion95

20

some of the things you stated might not work like you said it would but is a good plan but could be improved, however the empire would still be good to have,

Reply 56

Apagg

13

Bagration

Soviet control of Europe vs Nazi control of Europe -- there's no moral difference.

Erm... that's not really true. The US economy was lifted out of depression by the war economy literally forcing a large percentage of the country to work. It was not in any way particularly recovering in 1939 to the extent that it did in 46-47.

Whilst the war did do a great deal to bring the US out of recession, I'd take some issue with the claim that without it the US would have vanished into obscurity

•

GDP was 27% below trend in 1939. Not great but clearly recovering compared to earlier years

•

productivity had recovered to trend by 1939

•

the US was generally pursuing policies that would yield recovery, just slower than with the fiscal boost of the war

However, I also take issue with the claim that the New Deal drove recovery. It had a much smaller role, especially the fiscal side. The best thing he did was devalue.

Reply 57

wilson_smith

17

M1F2R3

Stick to World of Warcraft...

I laughed

It's pretty unplausible anyway, and gives way to little credit to Japan and the US.

Reply 58

Mr_K_Dilkington

14

L i b

God bless old Niall. He's spectacular.

Yeah, apart from being a champion of a **** form of history writing, a scumbag neo-con, a polemicist and apologist more than a proper historian, and a nostalgic for empire who never misses an opportunity to overestimate the benefits and downplay or ignore the atrocities. Spectacular apart from all that though :p:

Reply 59

username358506

20

Mr_K_Dilkington

Yeah, apart from being a champion of a **** form of history writing, a scumbag neo-con, a polemicist and apologist more than a proper historian, and a nostalgic for empire who never misses an opportunity to overestimate the benefits and downplay or ignore the atrocities. Spectacular apart from all that though :p:

You could also add anti-Irish and toff to that list.

Britain should not have declared war on Germany, 1939

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you