"Protecting our freedom overseas"

About the question about Life, Universe and Everything.

But yeah, France did get the help. However, consider this:

Once you ask help and other say "we give it", it takes time to get troops somewhere and supply them. France already had sizable British presence, also some Belgian troops, too bad germans decided to go around most of them. Also, France was overrun in 4 weeks. In that time, you need to get intel to allies, them to gear up units, get them to your safe territory, move to frontline and engage enemy. Also, France wasn't captured complety, instead it surrendered(technically armstrice due to existance of "independent" Vichy France, but who are we fooling?).

And that Britain ended up getting kicked off of the continent, but was that a result of France capitulating, or was that an independent event? A miracle that they evacuated as well as they did, kudos to Britain.

Actually had the Germans attempted to directly attack the evacuation at Dunkirk using ground forces they would have been dangerously overstretched and would have left themselves vulnerable to a possible French counter-attack from the south, not to mention that attacking a force of about 300,000 men with their backs to the wall could turn out to be very bloody, bearing in mind that the BEF and French troops would still have all their gear. People often chalk up the fact that the Luftwaffe somewhat ineffectively harassed the evacuation alone to Goering's glory-hogging and incompetence but it's not entirely accurate to say so.

The main point I wanted to push was that France made it through the entire war. Nazi Germany's victory over France is effectively the perfect example of "Winning the battle, losing the war".

About the discussion at hand and the relevance to the example, France would had to have launched a pre-emptive strike on Germany, won and look good afterward. Except that's basically impossible. They would have had no friends in the endeavour, alienated all of Europe and the British Empire and all her colonies, and the Soviet Union would have the best excuse ever to tank roll all of Europe.

(I have no idea why China was mentioned about France. What they're going to march across all of Asia to get there to help out? They were in the middle of a civil war and then Japan invaded. Not the best time to ask them to help. That's even ignoring the fact Europe just spent the last century screwing the entire country and all her people)

edited 19th May '11 3:11:54 PM by breadloaf

^ The Soviet Union in 1940 couldn't tank roll over a tiny strip of the Ukraine let alone take on anyone worth a damn in Central/Western Europe.

A French pre-emptive strike would have resulted in a quicker battle than was coming and made Neville Chamberlain's appeasement strategy look like utter rubbish. (Nobody with a brain thought it would work even in 1938.)

Well, if I recall history, Soviet Union owned half of Europe for quite some time even without a massive war between France/Germany weakening one another beforehand.

Uhh dude, that was 1914. The areas of Poland, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, and portions of what would later be Yugoslavia were Russian territories...until the Red Revolution forced Russia out of World War One and the aftermath carved up a lot of former territory into places like Ukraine, Poland and Belarus.

Unless you are referring to that little thing that began near the end of 1945...

I'm talking about the end of 1945.

Anyway, the better example of that war is to take Germany's perspective.

You have this imagination that Nazi Germany was this horror country that was anathema to all world relations. They were not.

• Nazi Germany and United States were good friends.
• The Soviet Union was a huge threat to all of Eastern Europe and all those countries were pro-Nazi because of it.

They invaded Czechoslovakia which nobody cared about but when they struck into Belgium to take down France they lost all their friends. It was basically impossible for USA to ever align itself with Nazi Germany again and basically half the world declared war on Germany because of the treaty between UK and Belgium.

None of the Eastern European countries could really ally itself with Nazi Germany anymore without alienating half the world. The Soviet Union was trying to wait out the war before the possible invasion of Europe slated for 1941 depending on who won (and if the war dragged on, Soviet Union was likely to just wait it out).

Poland was also fairly key. It was all down to whether Soviet Union hit first or the Nazis. Nazis jumped the gun and so they're the ones that alienated half the world. If the Soviets struck Poland first, the Polish would have allied with Nazis and today we'd be talking about how awesome Hitler was for standing against the evil Soviet invasion of Europe. Death of Jews in concentration camps would just be one of those things we learn and school and shrug, like Trail of Tears.

edited 19th May '11 4:05:27 PM by breadloaf

Hey Tom how about you read that Neville Chamberlain article. As it notes, appeasement was a strategy designed to buy time and get Britain's war-making capability back on its feet. He didn't seriously think it would lead to a lasting peace.

Time was exactly what Hitler wanted. In 1938 Germany was in no condition to take on the French and Brits at the same time. The Brits weren't in danger of land invasion anyways so all they would have to do is send the Home Fleet to wipe the floor with the pathetic Kriegsmarine and institute a bombing and shelling campaign of German cities within range. (And a fuckton of German industry and military targets were within battleship and carrier range of the coast.)

Chamberlain's plan was a folly that let World War Two grow much larger than it was supposed to be. Britain's war making capabilities that the appeasement plan was intended to buy time for never really materialized instead Britain became dependent on US industry (which was already able to sustain a war effort) for much of its fighting forces equipment during the war.

He formulated the strategy based on the information he had available to him. Historical hindsight is a wonderful thing. As it happens, I agree with you that Britain and France should have acted in 1938, but I think it is unfair to dismiss his strategy as idiotic. Memories of the First World War were still fresh, which probably accounts for the French unwillingness to take an active role, and I can't imagine that Chamberlain would have wanted to be potentially remembered as the prime minister who went in half-cocked and got Britain embroiled in a repeat of 1914.

edited 19th May '11 4:34:12 PM by pagad

You're completely ignoring the political fallout that would result from the war.

What about the Soviet Union? How would they love to see the British and French blow a zillion troops against the German war machine so that they can later march on in and save the day, say... in 1942.

What about the British Empire collapsing from forcing her colonies into yet another war, this time as an aggressor? The Boer War was horrible and even in a defensive war like the First World War, it crippled morale across the whole world. (I'm going to take a wild guess that you didn't study Canadian or Australian history and how extremely damaging it was for morale to fight those wars. It almost tore both countries apart domestically) How would the French military, after spending decades entrenching a line, react when told "Okay let's go charging in and get French boys killed in German land because maybe the Nazis attack". It was not a definite outcome that Nazi Germany was going to invade.

Plus you forget the United States. You think they'd join in? United States didn't budge when France fell. It took a pre-emptive attack by Japan to push them into war. Oh wait... pre-emptive strike again. That worked out great for Japan.

You can't ignore global politics for a single victorious battle.

edited 19th May '11 4:36:45 PM by breadloaf

Considerations that Chamberlain no doubt took into account. I am saying with the benefit of hindsight Britain and France should have acted in 1938, potentially averting or reducing the worst genocide in history. Read my post again, I explicitly said

Regarding the US, FDR was looking for an excuse to get the United States involved. There was already shitloads of Lend-Lease equipment crossing the Atlantic before 7/12/1941. Supposing the attack on Pearl Harbour wasn't on the cards, how long would the US tolerate Japan knocking over Southeast Asia? One way or the other, the United States would eventually have been pushed into the war.

edited 19th May '11 4:46:22 PM by pagad

Public Opinion does matter Tom, you're thinking in way too narrow of a scope.

You brought up Libya? Well, without NATO support militarily, Benghazi wouldn't have even been a speed bump for the Loyalist forces, much less Misrata. International aid poured into several places, and I'm sure plenty of clandestine weapons shipments as well.

Then you have to remember, Gadaffi is paying these mercenaries, but that money is starting to run out because most of the countries he had dealings with have frozen all of his assets.

If the US had a cripplingly large amount of its currency based in another country, and we declared war on someone and it was frozen, we would definitely feel it. Don't underestimate what all the stupid diplomacy bullshit actually does. Fighting the war is a military issue, but there's lots and lots of pregaming for both the military and the diplomats before it gets there.

I don't disagree about USA, but it's all about alliances. If the Soviets invaded Poland and Nazi Germany rushed to help, it would have radically changed the political landscape. It wouldn't change the eventual war with Japan but it's all about friends really.

FDR was looking for an excuse but it had to be sufficiently horrific. Pearl Harbour, politically speaking, was perfect for him. It was the 9/11 of the time.

See the problem is, what could we actually have done in a pre-emptive attack? We'd never have known anything about the "eventual" German attack because it never would have happened. Much of the world becomes demoralised, the British Empire would collapse instantly and the French would be ass-deep in political riots. Then Germany would rise up in World War Three, or the Soviets roll in to "save them". Either way, not good outcomes.

There's no such thing as "pre-emptive". First strike is first strike. And whoever does has the moral high to defend.

You know, maybe the reason Chamberlain didn't want to go to war was because everybody was still sick and tired of the last one and would prefer any strategy whatsoever to prevent another one. After all, how many people died in WWII? Sixty million?

I think it's worth it to TRY and avoid something like that, even if it is hardly likely to work.

But you know what, Chamberlain's failure was a good thing. If it weren't for the League of Nations failing, we wouldn't have the more competent United Nations to replace it.

That's reassuring. The UN doesn't seem to accomplish much.

You're right, it only SEEMS to not accomplish much. But it does. It has.

The RAND corporation ran a study in 2005 and saw that for every 8 peacekeeping missions, the UN had 7 at peace, and the US had 4. Plus they do it cheaper, no less because they don't get everything they would like from member states.

What good has UN done? A lot.

It's just these deeds tend to not go directly under name of UN, because they are accomplished by organizations funded and run by UN, like UNICEF, IAEA(tehcnically independent, but reports to general assembly) or WHO. Also, here is 60 little things UN has done(PDF format, around 3MB):

http://www.un.org/un60/60ways_book.pdf

Some highlights:

• UN has assisted in negotiating more than 170 peace settlements that have ended regional conflicts
• Hundreds of nuclear facilities are safeguarded by IAEA in more than 70 countries. To date, there are 237 safeguards agreements in force with 152 States.
• United Nations played a role in bringing about independence in more than 80 countries that are now sovereign nations.
• By imposing measures ranging from an arms embargo to a convention against segregated sporting events, the United Nations was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system.
• A 13-year effort by the World Health Organization resulted in the complete eradication of smallpox from the planet in 1980.
• Poliomyelitis has been eliminated from all but six countries — Afghanistan, Egypt, India, Niger, Nigeria and Pakistan — as a result of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the largest international public health effort to date.
• The United Nations is leading an international effort to clear landmines in some 30 countries — including Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq, Mozambique and the Sudan — that still kill and maim thousands of innocent people every year

edited 20th May '11 12:00:01 AM by Mandemo

When did they go after the Philippines? I'm pretty sure it was still controlled by the Americans at that point.

The attack on the Philippines was literally the day after Pearl Harbour. My hypothetical assumes that Yamamoto gets his way and the Japanese do not pre-emptively attack any American-held territory and instead continue their conquests elsewhere.

edited 20th May '11 4:29:09 AM by pagad

Roosevelt was more interested in stopping Hitler than he was in the defeat of Japan, though obviously Japan was on the agenda of ending the war by destoying each of the Axis powers.

So if Japan had limited its aggression to China - which it couldn't afford because it needed the resources of Southeast Asia that it couldn't secure without taking the Philippines and several other targets - the US would have waited for an event that would shift the opinions of the public from resistance to war and support of Germany to a desire to join the Allied powers in their war totally instead of aiding them in every way short of "active" participation.

What I'm trying to say is that the US was firmly on the road to war, with Germany the first item on the agenda no matter who was to initiate the entrance of the US into the war. You'll note that the US started with Africa and Europe anyway, regardless of the fact that Japan wasn't involved in either theatre. This is only a somewhat educated guess, but I feel that the US probably would have joined the war pretty soon after 1941, whether or not it was attacked directly. If a direct attack on US troops was what it took to get the US involved, they would've gone to war after Germany sunk US ships, which would've meant a declaration of war by November 1940.

Actually the bigger discussion is that Germany pre-emptive struck multiple nations and basically got the whole world on their ass. On the other hand, if the Soviets invaded Poland first, then much like Finland, they would have been Nazi allies. So Hitler's big mistake was jumping the gun on the war.

You can tell us Best Of! We all know you're an evil Nazi ally.

edited 20th May '11 1:23:08 PM by breadloaf

I think we need to stop using WWII as an example for this discussion. We're fighting terrorist rebels, not the Galactic Empire. It takes a different approach than when the enemy is a definite "Nation".

Then there is no attack or pre-emptive strike. There's only policing and cooperation with other nation states.

Bombing a whole country that has no control over terrorist groups within it's own country is just beyond stupid.